- Thread starter
- #21
Kevin J
Banned
Can't remember. Might be on one of these pages The Soviet and German Fighters of WWII , or maybe on this site Советская авиация в ВОВ. Статьи.
What WW2 fighters should be compared?
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
The P-38 was the eventual solution to a requirement that started out in 1936 asking for an interceptor with a minimum speed of 360mph at 20,000ft, 270mph at sea level, a climb to 20,000ft of 6 minutes and an endurance of 1 hour at operating speed. By Feb of 1937 the USAAC was specifying that any proposal HAD to use turbocharged Allison engines.
The P-38 design never contemplated carrying the load the Beaufighter carried to start ( four 20mm cannon and many hundreds of rounds of ammo) and the Beaufighter design never contemplated the climb and altitude performance of the P-38.
Shortround6
Major General
Going back to this, all three design teams (Lagg, Mig, Yak) were caught off balance when the Russian high command ordered that the new fighters should have a range of 1000km and all three scrambled to increase fuel capacity. While the Mig aircraft had better altitude capability than the other two it doesn't sound like they were assigning the fighters different duties (Laggs escort longer range bombers, yaks escort short range bombers) at this time.
The Lagg's armament was all over the place. It started, in the planning stages with a 23mm gun through the prop and a pair of 12.7mm guns and a pair of 7.62 guns. This was certainly a very heavy armament for this time but.....the prototype cannon gave 2 1/2 times the recoil load promised and broke the gun mounts.
Result was that only the Prototype Lagg was fitted with the cannon and a third 12.7mm machine gun was substituted, which is still pretty good armament in 1940/41. but.....the airframes were coming out over weight, extra fuel had to added to bring the plane in line with official requirements so something had to go. Russian production is a little confusing as many planes were built in small batches (something like the American block numbers) and the Lagg went threw 66 batches, some were the same and others were not, It was also built in several different factories. In any case in 1941 alone armament could vary from the three 12.7mm and two 7.62s to only three 12.7s or a single 20mm through the prop and one 12.7mm and the pair of 7.62 guns or one 20mm and two 12.7mm guns.
The 5 gun aircraft were in the minority. In Oct 1941 batch 11 was started and these aircraft had one 20mm gun and one 12.7mm machine gun. with six RS-82 rockets under the wings. Fuel capacity was reduced to about 95 US gallons. Flying weight was 6,790lbs. Fittings were available for drop tanks.
The one 20mm and one 12.7mm machine gun became almost standard from then on.
- Thread starter
- #24
Kevin J
Banned
Oops, the LaGG-1 was meant to be the bomber interceptor, the Yak-1 the Il-2 escort.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Which WWII fighters should be compared? Any ones in service at the same time or which could have met without too much warpage of history, i.e., missing frontline service by one or two months.
- Thread starter
- #26
Kevin J
Banned
So Beaufighter and Lightning are a good match. In production and service from just before WW2 to the end. In the SW Pacific, RAAF Beaufighters were shooting down more Jap planes than the Spitfires they had in the last two years of the war. It was Kittyhawk (24), Beaufighter(Beaufort) (21) and Spitfire (16).
Shortround6
Major General
I will grant that there is certainly room for confusion when trying to work from Russian sources (there are plenty of Problems trying to work from US or British sources) but both programs ran sort of simultaneously.
The IL-2 program taking much longer starting at the end 1937. This turned into the TsKB-55 two seat attack plane, put it took about all of 1938 to work out and and it wasn't until Jan 1939 that the plans were submitted and a mock up approved. Oct 2nd 1939 saw the first flight of the 1st TsKB-55 prototype. Dec 30th saw the 2nd prototype fly.
Jan saw the prototype Yak-1 (the I-26) make it's first flights.
There were a multitude of problems with the TsKB-55 not the least of which is that it used the high altitude AM-35 engine. One of the prototypes was modified into the single seat TsKB-57 and flown on Oct 12th 1940.
However by this time the I-26 had already been built in a small series of trials aircraft and in Nov 1940 5 of them were flown in an Air parade over Moscow.
Meanwhile the 2nd TsKB-55 had been modified to a single seat aircraft (the TsKB-55P), the engine had been lowered 175mm and the pilots seat and canopy raised 50mm for better view, armament was increase for four 7.62 wing guns to two 23mm guns and two 7.62 but these 23mm guns were the same high recoiling guns used in the Lagg and had to be replaced by 20mm ShVAKs. At some point in here the plane is redesignated the IL-2. First flight of this aircraft was Dec 29th 1940.
Back to the I-26, mass production had been initiated in the fall of 1940 and by Dec 1940 production was reaching 1 aircraft per day, increasing to 2 aircraft per day by April of 1941. At some point in here it is redesignated Yak-1.
During the flight tests of the the TsKB-55P/IL-2 the decision was made to put it into production and the first production plane flew on March 10th 1941 and the 2nd on March 30th but production ramped up very quickly.
There were other Russian light bombers/attack planes in service or in planning stages at this time, but the story that the Yak-1 was designed to escort the IL-2 seems a little contrived.
Seems to me that you don't have sources to back up these claims.
Shortround6
Major General
Not sure how you figured that. Neither plane was "in service" just before WW II (Sept 1939) and the Beaufighter began to trickle into squadrons (combat) in the fall of 1940. At which point the first YP-38 (2nd P-38 built) makes it's first flight.
First "kill" by a P-38 is on Aug 9th 1942 which is nearly two years after the Beaufighter scores it's first kill.
only one P-38 ever carried a torpedo (for testing) so that job goes to the hundreds of Beaufighters that did. Even the US used a Beaufighters as night fighters (reverse lend lease)
Both were great planes that performed many different jobs, however only rarely did these jobs/missions overlap which makes any comparison rather difficult.
- Thread starter
- #30
Kevin J
Banned
The point I'm making is that both planes first fly about the same time, each nation has a different concept of what a two engine heavy fighter should be. Prototypes and production are all the same to me.
- Thread starter
- #31
Kevin J
Banned
I certainly can't remember where I saw the claim that the Yak-1 was an escort and the LaGG-1 a bomber interceptor, it may have been on one of the Russians facebook groups.It should be obvious to anyone that the light armament of the Yak-1 was only good for fending off fighters and the heavier armament of the LaGG-3 best suited to destroying bombers. The RAF went from 8 m/c guns in 1939/40 to 12 in 1940/41 to 4 cannon in 1941/42 in order to destroy bombers. I'm sure the Soviets would have come to similar conclusions for what was required.
Shortround6
Major General
I think you are focusing on the "twin engine" part and not the "heavy fighter" part.
The P-38 was always intended to be a high performance, high flying (combat at 20,000ft and up due to turbochargers) single seat, daylight interceptor.
they used two engines because nobody was making a single engine that was powerful enough at the time. It was supposed to carry about same or or only slightly more armanment than a single engine fighter (the turbocharged XP-39)
It turned out that with it's size and power you could hang large drop tanks on it (or bombs) but that was not the original intention. An early P-38 without self sealing tanks carried about 400 gallons of fuel or 200 per engine and the very early P-40s without self sealing tanks carried 200 gallons, Early P-39s carried around 180 gallons?
The Beaufighter was intended, from the start to be two or (or more?) seat aircraft with much longer range/endurance and much heavier armament than British contemporary single seat fighters. A Beaufighter, from the start, carried 550 Imp gallons (660 US gallons) in it's tanks (which could be added to later) with either an tank in the fuselage, tanks in the wing machine gun spaces or a tank under the fuselage.
The "heavy fighter" concept was in vogue in the late 30s and lead to the Bf 110 among others. the closest the US got to it was the Bell Airacuda. The P-38 was not
a "heavy fighter."
The P-38 was always intended to be a high performance, high flying (combat at 20,000ft and up due to turbochargers) single seat, daylight interceptor.
they used two engines because nobody was making a single engine that was powerful enough at the time. It was supposed to carry about same or or only slightly more armanment than a single engine fighter (the turbocharged XP-39)
It turned out that with it's size and power you could hang large drop tanks on it (or bombs) but that was not the original intention. An early P-38 without self sealing tanks carried about 400 gallons of fuel or 200 per engine and the very early P-40s without self sealing tanks carried 200 gallons, Early P-39s carried around 180 gallons?
The Beaufighter was intended, from the start to be two or (or more?) seat aircraft with much longer range/endurance and much heavier armament than British contemporary single seat fighters. A Beaufighter, from the start, carried 550 Imp gallons (660 US gallons) in it's tanks (which could be added to later) with either an tank in the fuselage, tanks in the wing machine gun spaces or a tank under the fuselage.
The "heavy fighter" concept was in vogue in the late 30s and lead to the Bf 110 among others. the closest the US got to it was the Bell Airacuda. The P-38 was not
a "heavy fighter."
- Thread starter
- #33
Kevin J
Banned
So if the Airacuda had been a stunning success then you wouldn't have needed the Lightning. LOL.
Shortround6
Major General
The trouble is that both fighters rapidly changed armament, in large part due to the failure of the expected power plants and the forced substitution of much lower powered engines. This happened well before first flights with the prototypes were even made and the 23mm cannon used in the prototype Lagg and the prototype IL-2 was never installed (or planned for?) in the Yak series.
I would note that the armament of a Yak 1 was no worse than that of a Bf 109F-2 and the Russians were not facing numbers of 4 engine bombers.
The He111 with a rather pathetic defensive armament was still the mainstay of the Luftwaffe bomber groups.
- Thread starter
- #35
Kevin J
Banned
So what did the Germans do with the Bf 109F because its armament was ineffective against bombers? They slung a couple of gondolas with 20 mm cannon under their wings. Case closed.
fubar57
General
"Armament Bf 109F-4 caused the most controversial reviews from the most experienced fighter pilots in Germany. So, if V. Melvders was completely satisfied with light weapons from a 20-mm cannon and two machine guns, then A. Galland considered the reduction of the composition of the aircraft's weapons a step backwards. As a result of discussions about the composition of weapons, the Messerschmitg company developed for the Bf 109F-4 fighter a so-called field retrofit kit, which was a pair of MG-151/20 guns in the underwing gondolas with an ammunition of 120 shells on the barrel. The fighter, equipped with additional guns, received the designation Bf 109F-4 / R1.
Although the additional armament increased the firepower of the aircraft and its combat capabilities in the form of an attack aircraft or interceptor, but it had a negative effect on the stability and controllability of the vehicle due to an increase in drag and mass. The aircraft acquired a tendency to swing, its ability to conduct air combat against enemy fighters decreased"
From here....Messerschmitt Bf.109F
Although the additional armament increased the firepower of the aircraft and its combat capabilities in the form of an attack aircraft or interceptor, but it had a negative effect on the stability and controllability of the vehicle due to an increase in drag and mass. The aircraft acquired a tendency to swing, its ability to conduct air combat against enemy fighters decreased"
From here....Messerschmitt Bf.109F
- Thread starter
- #37
Kevin J
Banned
For the average pilot the standard armament was simply insufficient.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Imho the fighters that should be compared given the extremely accelerated pace of development durring the pre-war and ww2 years would be those that first flew within a limited time frame of each other. A year and a half sounds about right to me although I recognize there is no" right" time frame for fair comparison.
This would nix pointless comparisons that we sometimes see between early war planes like say the p40 and late ones like the p51.
It also occures to me that this comparison without regard to timeframe is something fairly unique to aircraft that served within the time confines of ww2. That is many compair like in the previous example the p40 to the 51 but I have never seen the p51 compaired to its next-generation of fighters like the p80 which would seem to be just as fair a comparison as p40/p51.
My thoughts on it anyway.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Another caviaght I thought of for comparison is that if comparing allied to axis fighters is it seems like the axis powers kept types in service longer and upgraded them as time went on whereas the alies seemed to opt for moving on to a whole new design. Example; in 1944 the p40 was not being upgrade any longer, instead the US was replacing it with newer desighns like the p51. On the other hand the Bf 109 was.
Considering this if fair comperisons are to be made between allied and axis fighters then it would seem that said comparison should be limited to specific marks that first flew or maybe first entered service within 18 months of each other or what ever time peramiters one wants to set.
Considering this if fair comperisons are to be made between allied and axis fighters then it would seem that said comparison should be limited to specific marks that first flew or maybe first entered service within 18 months of each other or what ever time peramiters one wants to set.
I wouldn't go with this kind of comparison, what I would do would be evaluate each fighter in the following roles
- Interceptor: Defensive fighters designed with a priority around shooting-down bombers. That said, such aircraft are often capable of engaging fighters on decent terms, and usually fit the following traits
- Speed and climb-rate are prioritized above nearly anything else, even including range
- Such aircraft are often built to operate at intermediate altitudes at minimum and high-altitudes in many cases
- Firepower is often fairly heavy including: A large quantity of machine guns, an armament including a mix of machine-guns and cannon, or just cannons.
- Air-Superiority: This was a typical fighter-aircraft.
- It possessed sufficient speed and rate of climb to allow it to be used defensively, with enough range to allow it to be used offensively
- It possesses enough maneuverability to allow it to engage fighters on favorable terms
- It usually possesses sufficient armament to take-down fighters, and bombers if possible.
- Bomber-Escort: This aircraft usually was a fighter aircraft with greater range to allow it to successfully escort bombers to and from their targets. Generally, it is preferable that it has performance similar to the air-superiority category, however.
- Fighter-Bomber: This aircraft basically comprises two different types of fighters
- A fighter aircraft that features a bomb-load
- A fighter aircraft that features a larger than normal bomb-load, such that it would compare with either a dive-bomber or a light-bomber
- An aircraft that has characteristics of both a fighter and a bomber
Another item of interest would be this
- Low-Altitude: This is usually a function of being able to climb rapidly and fly fast at low-altitudes. The most common variables that allow for good performance in this altitude regime would likely be
- Supercharging: Generally low degrees of supercharging would allow for more horsepower to be achieved at a given manifold-pressure.
- Power-Loading: Since flying at high-altitude requires less power to achieve the same speed, the reverse applies at lower-altitude so it's nice to have extra power available for this purpose
- Water-injection: Cools the engine down, allowing for higher manifold-pressures to be achieved without excessive temperatures.
- High-Altitude: This is a function of being able to achieve high amounts of speed, horsepower, and climb-rate at altitudes. Most of this is often engine-related, though the most extreme cases do hinge upon matters related to airframe-specific and aircrew-specific issues
- Engine-Related: These include the following
- Supercharging: Many aircraft that operate at high-altitude often have twin-stage superchargers which involve twin-speed arrangements (i.e. Rolls-Royce style), a two-and-a-half speed set-up (i.e. P&W twin-stage), a twin-stage supercharger with at least one stage of variable-speed (i.e. the P-63). There are also turbochargers which usually form one of the two-stages. The turbochargers advantage is that the engine has virtually no throttling losses, and retains full horsepower from zero to 20,000+ feet. Since these kinds of superchargers produce a good amount of pressure and temperature to go with it; it becomes important to use intercooling (or carry a lot of anti-detonant with you), to avoid detonation.
- Ram-compression: Since designing the carburetor-intake, as well as selecting an engine without excessive kinks in the airflow passageways recovers more ram-compression, and ram-compression increases both critical-altitude, and allows performance to remain fairly good above it, this is a very useful feature. Consider the following: The Hawker Tempest has a critical-altitude of around 19000 feet on a single-stage, twin-speed supercharger, but still retains fairly good performance at 25000 feet; the Merlin-60 series (or the V-1650-3/-7) actually gain 5800 feet from ram-compression alone, allowing the P-51B to max out at 29800 instead of 24000 feet.
- Exhaust Thrust: Above 375 mph roughly one pound of thrust becomes equivalent to one horsepower, which means the exhaust system can provide a considerable contribution to the thrust of the aircraft. This is actually useful at both low-altitude and high-altitudes, it is more useful at higher altitudes because of the fact that back-pressure is far lower. Turbochargers do not produce much, if any, thrust compared to superchargers, as exhaust-energy is lowered by driving the turbine, and it often doesn't exit right out the back, but ends up coming out at an angle (P-47), or up (P-38).
- Aerodynamic specialization: These include both larger wings, higher aspect-ratios, or both. The reasons have to do with the fact that the air is thinner at higher-altitudes, and this means you either have to fly faster to maintain the same lift, or you need more lifting area to do it. The ability to maneuver up at altitude is also important as it requires more lift than flying in a straight-line.
- Aircrew-specific specialization: Depending on the altitudes described, some of these traits are kind of important
- Oxygen bottles: So the pilot can take in enough oxygen to keep himself conscious while at altitude
- Pressurized cockpit: Reduces or eliminates the need for requiring oxygen.
- Engine-Related: These include the following
