What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter

[Lighthunmust]

From your post #116 "As far as "the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II", remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages."

The allies never had a 30mm cannon. The American 37mm won't fit INSIDE a wing leaving either the British 40mm gun or German guns over 20mm (unless you use Russian guns?)

"thought experiment with its own reality" Once we get into a German "player" being able to pick the Tempest II and arm it with MK 103 cannon and equip it with Nitrous Oxide for altitude performance we really have gone into another reality and one that is so far from being referenced back to anything that could "prove" the sponsor's position (or a critic's) that a discussion of the capabilities of such a modified airplane are meaningless.

Respectfully

I can tell you really hate the way this thread is conceived! Thanks for coming back anyway. I understand the point you are making, however I think you could be a little more flexible about the evolution of details of this thread. Never did I think anyone would assume this thread was in anyway reality based. There are no "German players".

No one is implying the installation of a wing internal 37mm, it is obviously absurd. But like a Stuka, perhaps some of our possible choices could externally mount larger guns.

The thread is about finding the aircraft with the most versatility (historical and theoretically possible) to be the best one and only choice. Doing this in a thought experiment can enable better analysis of actual reality.

Thank you for the respectful submission. I wish I had done a better job establishing this thread but I am doing the best I can to correct any clarity of intent issues and define parameters. Thank you for any patience you can extend.

 

[ctrian]

What weight? What power? Are you looking at the high altitude Bf109 or only the standard version? I'm sorry but i couldn't help laughing when i saw the P-47 ,the flying bucket was an energy fighter? The things i learn at this site....

 

[Lighthunmust]

What weight? What power? Are you looking at the high altitude Bf109 or only the standard version? I'm sorry but i couldn't help laughing when i saw the P-47 ,the flying bucket was an energy fighter? The things i learn at this site....

I am confused by this posting. To what other posting are you referring? What is the distinction between an "energy fighter" and a, for lack of a better term, "non-energy fighter" that you are implying? Don't all fighters use energy management to maneuver in all directions?

"the P-47, the flying bucket" That's funny! Tell me how you really feel about the Jug! I am sure there are other members who share your sentiments. Is it a bucket full of harmless lead fishing sinkers or a bucket full of deadly lead bullets? A bucket of Bull $#!+ reputation or a bucket of Kick @$$ reputation? If we were in England during 1943 I would think I was reading the thoughts of a pilot from the 4th. I think a pilot from a T-bolt squadron flying over Korea in 1945 may have expressed a different sentiment.

 

[ctrian]

I was referring to the post by davpalr .You see when checking thrust/weight at different altitudes you need to specify the rating ,is it Combat? War Emergency ? MW-50? and i think the Bf109 version is the standard G6 when there were versions with high altitude performance like the G/AS,ASM and the G10,K4.As for the P-47 it was too heavy so that affected acceleration and climb rate.If you look at a graph of its climb its like the right side of a U stretched out ,really poor....Of course it had firepower , survivability and high altitude performance but it was the exact opposite of an energy fighter."Energy fighter" means lots of thrust plus small weight so the aircraft has excess energy available for maneuvers.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I was referring to the post by davpalr .You see when checking thrust/weight at different altitudes you need to specify the rating ,is it Combat? War Emergency ? MW-50? and i think the Bf109 version is the standard G6 when there were versions with high altitude performance like the G/AS,ASM and the G10,K4.As for the P-47 it was too heavy so that affected acceleration and climb rate.If you look at a graph of its climb its like the right side of a U stretched out ,really poor....Of course it had firepower , survivability and high altitude performance but it was the exact opposite of an energy fighter."Energy fighter" means lots of thrust plus small weight so the aircraft has excess energy available for maneuvers.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[davparlr]

I was referring to the post by davpalr .You see when checking thrust/weight at different altitudes you need to specify the rating ,is it Combat? War Emergency ? MW-50? and i think the Bf109 version is the standard G6 when there were versions with high altitude performance like the G/AS,ASM and the G10,K4.As for the P-47 it was too heavy so that affected acceleration and climb rate.If you look at a graph of its climb its like the right side of a U stretched out ,really poor....Of course it had firepower , survivability and high altitude performance but it was the exact opposite of an energy fighter."Energy fighter" means lots of thrust plus small weight so the aircraft has excess energy available for maneuvers.

First, I want to say that I am far more interested in getting the right data than I am in making an argument. If you have reasonable data that shows different data than I have, please provide it to me. I will update my charts and correct my posts.

I believe data I have on the DB605 engine came from the Kurfurst site. It reflects performance at Start-u.Notleistung, whatever that means, but it was the best performance for the engine. Here are the engine ratings at altitude.

15k (4.5 km) 1355 hp (close enough to PS)
20k (6 km)1320 hp this may be a bit high
25k (7.6km) 1080 hp
30k (9.1km) 900 hp

The weight used was 7480 lbs.

Again, if you have better numbers, please let me know.

The values for the P-47D-25 was
Power 2300 hp WEP at all altitudes
Weight was 13,000 lbs Fighter (design weight with 205 gallons of gas) as defined in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand.
Power loading at all altitudes was 5.6 lbs/hp.
For the P-47M, power was 2800 hp WEP at all altitudes
Weight was 13275 lbs.
Power loading at all altitudes was 4.74 lbs/hp

The P-51D and the P-47D were front line fighters of the US in mid '44 till wars end and German aircraft would likely engage these when attacking bombers or on raids. I am not sure the Allied aircraft would see more than just a handful of the advanced Bf-109s like the K, G-10 etc.

I have a book, German Combat Planes, by Ray Wagner and Heinz Nowarra that says that the Bf-109K-6 generated 1150 hp at 8000 m or 26,250 ft., and had a gross weight of 3626 kg or 7977 lbs., which, if true, would provide a load factor of 6.9 lbs/hp., which is still higher than the load factor of the P-47D-25 at that altitude at 5.6 lb/hp. Few people realize the power that the P-47 had at altitude where that big turbocharger comes into play. That is probably why the Joint Fighter Conference in Oct., 1944 selected the P-47 as the best all around fighter above 25k ft.

Acceleration is directly proportioned to load factor. Climb is a bit trickier.

 

[Lighthunmust]

For some reason after reading the last post the following thought went through my head.

Gentlemen prefer blondes (Bf109, P-51, Spitfire), but Gentlemen marry brunettes (Fw190, P-47, F4U).

It must be the whimsey of early senility or the medication I'm taking.

I am not making fun of the serious issue of good sources. I think we all should list sources when we can and vet them with the members.

Remember this a tread about determining criteria for making a choice, so please provide both when you can.

 

[ctrian]

I have heavier weight for the P-47 and lighter for the Bf (it depends on model and source I guess).You are comparing WEP which was 5 min power.The Bf109G/AS was available in 1st half '44.And you only look at 15.000ft and above? Hmmm why would you limit the comparison there? Climb is not trickier check a table for the P-47 it was a horrible climber. My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''.All aircraft had their good and bad points and their best altitudes.US aircraft were heavy because they needed to be ( more fuel) this affected acceleration and climb rate.However thanks to their supercharger they had superior energy at higher altitudes.For these reasons they would not be a good choice for Germany or the SU ,since they used their aircraft in lower altitudes.

 

[ctrian]

Also the weight of the P-47 does not agree with what i have seen in flight sims and wikipedia (14.500-17.000 loaded).Your weight of the Bf is the one of K4 that is the heaviest variant built.Strange that both differences point to one direction.I think you have taken the performance of the Bf109G6 and divided by the weight of the K4 take a look at the DB605DB/DC with MW-50 .

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

flight sims and wikipedia

Just to get a clarication here, do you consider flight sims and wikipedia good sources?

 

[ctrian]

I've used Kurfust's site for the Bf data plus what he has posted here .Flight sims have an actual paying audience plus they have to create a whole physics engine so they definitely try to get the most accurate data .If you look at their forums you'll see that many people complain about some performance differences and the producers come in and address those problems.If you're asking me if it's a better source than MW site the answer is yes with a capital Y.WW2 aircraft didn't run on 10% fuel with engine at 110% ,that's not realistic.

 

[pbfoot]

.If you're asking me if it's a better source than MW site the answer is yes with a capital Y.WW2 aircraft didn't run on 10% fuel with engine at 110% ,that's not realistic.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Just to get a clarication here, do you consider flight sims and wikipedia good sources?

Sims and Wikipedia would be my last choices for dependable data. Books with footnotes, lengthy bibliographies, and authors with lengthy good reputations would be my second. Harder to get primary sources my first if I had the time to devote to research. I realize many people for whatever reason may have limited access to good books and primary sources, but mentioning sims and wiki to back an argument immediately raises red flags to credibility.

"My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''." - Ctrian

You are absolutely correct. This is why this thread was created. Picking criteria for use in the scenario presented was to eliminate a parade of postings of beauty queens and sentimental favorites with no critical analysis. This is why there is no poll at the top of the thread.

 

[ctrian]

Sims and Wikipedia would be my last choices for dependable data. Books with footnotes, lengthy bibliographies, and authors with lengthy good reputations would be my second. Harder to get primary sources my first if I had the time to devote to research. I realize many people for whatever reason may have limited access to good books and primary sources, but mentioning sims and wiki to back an argument immediately raises red flags to credibility.

"My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''." - Ctrian

You are absolutely correct. This is why this thread was created. Picking criteria for use in the scenario presented was to eliminate a parade of postings of beauty queens and sentimental favorites with no critical analysis. This is why there is no poll at the top of the thread.

I'm surprised by some people here .Flight sims use the same resources(books,reports) known to all of you plus they have to deal with players that have a huge collection of documents and post them in the forums to force changes in the game stats.Who do you think has more accurate data someone who has to defend them all day against knowledgeable people or someone who simply posts one report without mentioning others that may or may not agree with them? If you think one source is 100% accurate and entirely not biased what can I say go for it.The allied aircraft were obviously supersonic during the war…

 

[Lighthunmust]

I'm surprised by some people here .Flight sims use the same resources(books,reports) known to all of you plus they have to deal with players that have a huge collection of documents and post them in the forums to force changes in the game stats.Who do you think has more accurate data someone who has to defend them all day against knowledgeable people or someone who simply posts one report without mentioning others that may or may not agree with them? If you think one source is 100% accurate and entirely not biased what can I say go for it.The allied aircraft were obviously supersonic during the war…

All sources have bias. IMHO game makers have a stronger motivation for creating a fun game that will make them money than in ensuring data accuracy. How many people would continue to buy and play a game were one adversary consistently has the advantage?

I freely admit my own bias of being an old fart who doesn't like video games.

Allied aircraft were supersonic during the war, they were called bullets.

 

[ctrian]

Well if you check their forums you'll see that they have a high degree of professionalism. That is everything dealing with in game stats must be sourced preferably from a wartime report.On the other hand I can create a website and post something.It may or may not be true…you don't know , it may be the best reports I could find…you don't know , it could be the worst reports I could find…you don't know.First find lots of sources of information and then check them do they tell you the same things? Is the combat record agreeing with them? If an aircraft is supposed to have a huge advantage over another then that should be obvious in battle .If it isn't maybe something is wrong…For example in battle you don't fly at 10% fuel and with engine ALWAYS stuck on 110% (it blows up).

PS: I have the feeling your thread is being derailed again

 

[pbfoot]

Sims are great for games and such but you would be hard pressed to find an operational aircraft that actually reached the numbers that were accrued during flight tests further more flight tests are very dependent on the pilot and as in aircraft not all pilots are equal.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Well if you check their forums you'll see that they have a high degree of professionalism. That is everything dealing with in game stats must be sourced preferably from a wartime report.On the other hand I can create a website and post something.It may or may not be true…you don't know , it may be the best reports I could find…you don't know , it could be the worst reports I could find…you don't know.First find lots of sources of information and then check them do they tell you the same things? Is the combat record agreeing with them? If an aircraft is supposed to have a huge advantage over another then that should be obvious in battle .If it isn't maybe something is wrong…For example in battle you don't fly at 10% fuel and with engine ALWAYS stuck on 110% (it blows up).

PS: I have the feeling your thread is being derailed again

You make valid points and I admit my knowledge of simulations is limited. You are certainly right about fuel load and power settings.

Considering all the controversy with data and sources: perhaps it is impossible to determine what the best piston fighter is in this scenario. However, I do think it is possible to determine what the majority of posters think is the best. The majority does not have the absolute truth, but they do have accepted truth. This thread allows the determination of the accepted truth and an opportunity to challenge it. I wish more members would post their criteria and choices. I will do another summary of criteria and choices like I did in posts #100 and #101 when more members make postings. Considering the passion many of us have for these aircraft, I am surprised more people haven't taken the opportunity to express their opinions.

 

[ctrian]

Sims are great for games and such but you would be hard pressed to find an operational aircraft that actually reached the numbers that were accrued during flight tests further more flight tests are very dependent on the pilot and as in aircraft not all pilots are equal.

That's what i have been saying all along.

@Lighthunmust : I have no problem admitting the superiority of the P-47 and P-51 in high altitude against the standard Bf109 and Fw190.Against the Bf AS the difference is very small and in the field it would not be noticed.But neither do I forget what happens at lower altitudes.If the American aircraft were given to Germany they would not do well simple as that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sims and Wikipedia would be my last choices for dependable data.

I agree, and that is why I asked.