Which Fighter was least successful?

[Shortround6]

No, I am not. TJE 109 was a great to good fighter for 8-9 years. dropping back to good is very far from being least successful

Just don't tell me it was great in 1945 because it was cheap.

 

[riacrato]

British had quite a bit of trouble with wing mounted Hispanos for a while. Since the gun was designed to be bolted to an engine block mounting them in wings that flexed presented problems. They were solved of course but this mounting problem had little to do with the American chamber and or American tolerances. Most sources I have seen give the weight of the Hispano as some where between 116-129lbs. This varies with charging mechansim and feed mechanism.
Total armament installation weight can be 30-60% more than the bare weight of guns and ammo. The Hispanos may require heavier mounts/cradles than a strict increase in gun weight might indicate.

I would assume the British would've gone for an all cannon armament sooner, but the availability of .50 Brownings and the initial reliability issues were keeping them from. The fact remains: The fighters converted to an all cannon armament even at a point were danger from enemy bombers became less and less of an issue (Spitfire, Typhoon Tempest).

The last part is true enough but the first part is still in contention. The "A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective " part is true enough against fighters but not so true against bombers which is why the Luftwaffe went to both the underwing 20mm gondolas and the switch to the MK 108 isn't it? If the original armament was highly effective why did they come up with at least two alternatives?

Shortround, did you ever compare the energy the Me 109 battery delivers downrange to that of say a P-51D? The difference is not so much really, especially if you take the "hotter" ammunition for the MG151. And now take into account the absence of a convergence issue... Me 109 Gs shot down lots of IL-2s even with normal fighter armament. Energy-wise it was certainly capable of downing any fighter right until the end of the war.

And as for why they added the MK 108 and underwing pods... hmm the fact that they had to battle hundreds of 4-engined-bombers with 10 gun defensive armament flying in box formations might have something to do with it?

If the RAF ever had to defend against a true German strategic bomber, they would've like done the same.

And if the MK 108 was so hot against fighters why didn't they switch over to it entirely? production shortages?

So many reasons. The MK 108 was produced by Rheinmetall the MG 151 by Mauser. The MK108 couldn't be synchronized and produced too much stress for some installations. And by the way, it was introduced in 1943. Now how many weapons that were introduced mid-late-war by Germany replaced their pre-early-war predecessors? If the Me 262 was so much better why did they still produce Me 109s? Your point is rather moot.

And yes, there were production shortages with the MK 108.

 

[Shortround6]

I would assume the British would've gone for an all cannon armament sooner, but the availability of .50 Brownings and the initial reliability issues were keeping them from. The fact remains: The fighters converted to an all cannon armament even at a point were danger from enemy bombers became less and less of an issue (Spitfire, Typhoon Tempest).

No arguement here. I would note though that both the Typhoon and Tempest might fall into the large and expensive catagory of fighter. While the earlier Hurricane did not fall in that catagory I think we can all agree that the Hurricanes Performance when it got four 20mms wasn't exactly front rank fighter. It might be possiable that the Hurricanes thicker wing was stiffer and provided a more solid mounting for the cannon. It might not be true. The Hurricane also had 90rpg, no room or trying to keep the weight down? And, of course you had the Whirlwind, the Mosquito and the Beaufighter Which all pointed the way to the RAF using a standard four 20mm armament as minimum except in their "smallest" fighter.

Shortround, did you ever compare the energy the Me 109 battery delivers downrange to that of say a P-51D? The difference is not so much really, especially if you take the "hotter" ammunition for the MG151. And now take into account the absence of a convergence issue... Me 109 Gs shot down lots of IL-2s even with normal fighter armament. Energy-wise it was certainly capable of downing any fighter right until the end of the war.

I am aware of this site:WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Using those numbers and if I have done the math right a 109 with just the 2 cowl guns and single 20mm comes up with 4320 for "ammo power", 279 for "Gun Power" and a firing time of 8.3 seconds to equel one second of firing by an Me 262. For the Planes with a MK 108 the numbers seem to be 5400 for "ammo power" 667 for gun power and 3.5 seconds of firing time. Coping the figures for the P-51D gives us 8648 for "ammo power" which in this case is more of an indication of combat duration. 360 for gun power wich almost 30% better than the 20mm 109 but a whole lot worse than the 30mm version and 6.5 seconds of firing time. Again it is better than the 20mm version and a whole lot worse than the 30mm version.
Being capable of shooting down an enemy fighter and being really good at it are not quite the same thing, And being capable of shooting down a second, third or fourth on the same flight is another thing.
Since this part of the arguement was about big big expensive fighters vrs cheap ones take a look at the numbers for the P-38J, the P-47 and the Typhoon and Tempest.

And as for why they added the MK 108 and underwing pods... hmm the fact that they had to battle hundreds of 4-engined-bombers with 10 gun defensive armament flying in box formations might have something to do with it?

If the RAF ever had to defend against a true German strategic bomber, they would've like done the same.[/QUOTE]

I am taking the point of veiw that Germans knew that the standard 3 gun armament of the 109 wasn't really effective against the big bombers, yes you could shoot them down but it took on average how many 109s to shoot down one bomber? Assuming 2% hits of shots fired from "expert" and green pilot alike (or averaged together) actually hit and that something like 12 -20 20mm hits were needed (again on average ) to bring down a bomber we can see that a single 20mm cannon with 150 rounds just isn't going to do the job. You either need more guns (gondola wing mounts) or a more effective cannon. The Germans went both ways.

If the British had had to defend thier 4 gun fighters, while perhaps not ideal, ofer a much better chance of success than the 3 gun 20mm 109, given the same 2% hit rate and the same number of 20mm hits needed and planse carring 480 to 600 rounds of 20mm ammo per flight. THe British would have needed fewer planes to shoot down the same number of bombers.
THe Americans with their .50 cals would have been in trouble though

So many reasons. The MK 108 was produced by Rheinmetall the MG 151 by Mauser. The MK108 couldn't be synchronized and produced too much stress for some installations. And by the way, it was introduced in 1943. Now how many weapons that were introduced mid-late-war by Germany replaced their pre-early-war predecessors? If the Me 262 was so much better why did they still produce Me 109s? Your point is rather moot.

And yes, there were production shortages with the MK 108.

I understand switching factories over but they had two years to do it

I was refering to the 109 in this case, different planes having different requirements is understood.

Some authors claim it was because the MK 108 wasn't as good for dog fighting ( meaning fighter vrs fighter combat) yes it was much more devestaing when it hit but there were problems. While it wasn't as short ranged as some peaple like to portray, it's low velocity did complicate things. Much is made of the absence of convergence issues but that different times of flight for the MG 131 and the MK 108 seem to be glossed over at times. when firing at a turning plane either the MG 131s will be on target or the MK 108 will be but not both unless you are really close. The weight of the ammuntion (or the bulk?) dropped the firing time from about 12 seconds to about 6 seconds. While those 6 seconds are much, much more effective it means that 30mm armed planes can engage in fewer firing oppertunities per flight.
If the Germans knew this and acted on it by not converting to all 30mm planes then the point is not moot.
IF the germans knew this and and decided to convert to all 30mm guns anyway but failed because of production problems then it is moot.

Building a cheap plane in large numbers that it takes an expert to use effectively when you are running out of experts might not be the best policy.

 

[drgondog]

Considering the line the thread was taking, I don't think 'when' is so much the issue as 'could they' and the advent of the universal wing proved that they could at the time the Mk V was prevalent. How many were or weren't was largely defined by the perceived threat and the perceived threat by 1942 was not aerial armadas of Luftwaffe heavy bombers streaming towards London.

There was no shortage of cannon other than in places like Malta but I'm not sure off the top of my head what the performance penalty would be in replacing 4 x .303 with 2 x 20mm, though I doubt it would be sufficient to seriously handicap the fighter if it finds itself having to deal with the escorts.

We'll stick with the wing, shall we? The thin wing of the Spitfire didn't seem to have a great deal of trouble accepting a 4 x 20mm arrangement, I doubt the Mustang would either. US reliability issues with cannon production would also be unlikely to pose any major problems, if Packard could license-build an engine, then for Oldsmobile (for example) to license-build a cannon would have been small beer by comparison.

Colin - The well educated comment from SR regarding 'thin' wing of Spitfire is 'true' in context of an Aerodynamics discussion. As you know in aero terms it is a function of wing thickness to chord - but the actual dimensions at tmax (~26% chord) were slightly greater in a Spit than the tmax of the 51 in the gun bay region.

Space for a 20mm was never an issue per se... or for any version of a P-51.. or for an F6F or an F4U or for a P-47.

 

[drgondog]

It keeps being repeated how wonderful the 109 was because it was so cheap.

See post #s 122,125,132 and 135.

THe Spitfire had it's problems too, lack of range was one of them.

Until the very last versions it may have lacked a little in the bomb toting catagory too.

Some big expensive fighters had capabilites that many other planes didn't have.

NOBODY argued this point. EVERYBODY disagrees that 'light/cheap' can't tote heavy firepower and have cited fighter after fighter. You keep slipping off into other interesting sidetracks on range and bomb carrying capability. If you want the argument to be about 'multi role' then state that.

The Mustang was in a class by itself when it came to range but it's abilities were unkown when some of these bigger heavier fighters were oredered.

So what? Neither the P-38 nor the P-47 were designed as bomb toting fighters either - it was deep in the P-47D series before bomb carrying pylons were installed and the primary reason was to be able to carry additional drop tanks of fuel

It is also interesting to see which way the British went at the end of the war. Spitfires with well over 2000hp, De havallind Hornets and Hawker Tempests and Furys with big expensive Centaurus engines. Not including jets

Most would say that it was all about extending the performance of an existing airframe - so what?

THe Americans also had a problem, the Browning .50 while a good reliable gun, was a long way from being the most weight effiecent gun ever put in an aircraft. If you were going to stick with the .50 (even speeding the rate of fire up to almost double by the Korean war) you were going to need a lot of them and need a lot of ammo to equel the effectiveness of some peaples cannon. This ment weight which ment a bigger plane and which needed big engines.

I think you just agreed to a point that a lot of people have been making to you - the .50 was a choice of compromise for the dominant missions of the US airpower. The 20mm was a pretty easy transition had the US a.) had the Mg151/20 and b.) had a serious need for firepower against a large and tough bomber. The Hispano worked but had that nagging 'jamming' thingy.

Neither of those conditions existed. It wasn't until Korea that USAF finally woke up and stuck 20mm in the F-86 during GUNVAL in 52-53.

The 20mm is a far superior weapon than the 50 cal. The 30mm Mk 108 was far supeior to the 20mm in the bomber interceptor role. The 109K had this and was as effective as an 8 gun P-47 would have been against the B-17.. Fighter/fighter role more problematical.

Going back to the orginal position cheap planes that can't really do the job aren't really cheap.

Your position originally was that light/cheap couldn't do the mission of heavy/expensive and people piled on regarding interceptor role and the argument went downhill from there.

 

[drgondog]

Better fire power yes, better performance?


OH, Please, the moo-poo is getting deep here. I think I would prefer the FJ-4 vrs the Mig 15. of course the facts that A. the FJ-4 doesn't fly until the end of Nov 1954 might have limited it's availability in Korea. B. The Mig-15s British derived engine put out similar thrust to the J-47 in the Korean vintage F-86s but weighed about 1/2 ton less. Gee whiz, see what you can do with engines of rather different power to weight ratios. Most Highpower pison engines in WW II had much closer power to weight ratios.

OK - my sole point is that 4x20mm (and 2x23 plus 37mm) was far superior to 6x.50 cal

AS for the US jets you list, lets be somewhat honest here, the F-16's 20mm M61 gun represented a much larger percentage of it's air to air armanent weight than the F-14 and the F-15.

Point - the same gun armament was toted by 'light/cheap' as 'heavy/expensive'. You now keep slipping into multi role discussions to evade the firepower discussion for air to air combat

THe F-105 was actually a bomber. "For its primary mission, the aircraft would be expected to carry a nuclear store in an internal bomb bay. Because of the large size of the nuclear weapons of the day, the bomb bay had to be 15 feet 10 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 32 inches deep. "

It was a multi role monster designed and approved by USAF for TAC. It had an internal bomb bay because it needed to carry the Mk26 as part of its low level high speed bomb carrying capability. It served in VietNam superbly as a bomber but it wasn't until 1969 that the F-4 took the lead in MiG kills over the F-105. In their infinite wisdom the 105 was given an "F" designation as part of the Century series of FIGHTERS. In their infinite wisdom the USAF would given it a "B" designation had they deemed it a 'bomber'.

This beast would be a PRIME example of the multi role fantasies that DoD entertained in the 1955-1970 timeframe...

The Primary armament of the F-14 were the 4-6 Phoenix missles at around 985lbs each in conjuction with the AWG-9 radar suite.

Gee compare a light weight fighter to 3 airplanes that actually have totally different missions and weapons capabilities, just what are you trying to prove?

That light/cheap can tote heavy firepower. You keep slipping into multi role extensions in this discussion


Gee, this is soooo tough. the He 162 is a non starter. the Fw 190A8 gets the nod against the B-17 but I think the P-47 might be the ticket against the B-29. It depends on the altitude the B-29 was flying at, the best gun battery in the world doesn't do any good if you can't reach the target.

The He 162 was 'light/cheap' with heavy firepower. The Fw 190D would be as good or better - ditto Ta 152 - ditto N1K-J against the B-29 than the P-47 - all with GREAT firepower. The debate has been 'light/cheap' can't carry heavy firepower - not multi role.

You keep jumping into a rathole over the Me 109 series when it is very clear that by any definition it was a.) light/cheap, b.) it had excellent performance, and c.) it had heavy firepower.

Nobody argue that the 109 was a 'multi role weapons system' - ditto the Spit, ditto the Ki 100, ditto the He 162. Neither the Mustang or Jug or Lightning was ever initially regarded as 'multi role' weapon systems.

However the Fw 190 series was multi role and damned good at it even it one of the missions did not include long range escort. Having said this, in 1943 it was probably as capable a mulit role ship as the P-47 particularly in ground support and the series extended to high altitude and longer (not as long as) range as the P-47 by the time the Ta 152 series arrived.

 

[Njaco]

I think none of the previously mentioned aircraft in the last few posts - P-47, Fw 190, P-51, Bf 109, etc., - could be anywhere close to being considered as the Least successful, just to keep within the topic of the thread.

But now the Defiant........

 

[drgondog]

I think none of the previously mentioned aircraft in the last few posts - P-47, Fw 190, P-51, Bf 109, etc., - could be anywhere close to being considered as the Least successful, just to keep within the topic of the thread.

But now the Defiant........

lol - good catch

 

[riacrato]

I am aware of this site:WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Using those numbers and if I have done the math right a 109 with just the 2 cowl guns and single 20mm comes up with 4320 for "ammo power", 279 for "Gun Power" and a firing time of 8.3 seconds to equel one second of firing by an Me 262. For the Planes with a MK 108 the numbers seem to be 5400 for "ammo power" 667 for gun power and 3.5 seconds of firing time. Coping the figures for the P-51D gives us 8648 for "ammo power" which in this case is more of an indication of combat duration. 360 for gun power wich almost 30% better than the 20mm 109 but a whole lot worse than the 30mm version and 6.5 seconds of firing time. Again it is better than the 20mm version and a whole lot worse than the 30mm version.

Tony Williams site is but one source, maybe you should consider some others aswell before jumping to conclusions. What's problematic with Tony's approach is that he just takes an arbitrary number to add chemical energy. Skew that number a bit and you end up with completely different results. But anyways: You see the P-51 Ds armament is calculated at "only" 30% more than that of the Bf 109. Now add the likely underestimation of chemical energy to it (says so on the very same page) and the fact that the 109 has no convergence issues and you might end up pretty close no?

And just for comparison: Based on the calculations on that site a Bf 109 would end up with roughly 16% more firepower over a P-51 B, which by all means remained a capable air superiority fighter right until the end of the war. So if a Bf 109 G is somewhere between a P-51 B and D, then it's certainly not obsolete firepower wise (again, all with completely ignoring it's convergence advantage).

If the British had had to defend thier 4 gun fighters, while perhaps not ideal, ofer a much better chance of success than the 3 gun 20mm 109, given the same 2% hit rate and the same number of 20mm hits needed and planse carring 480 to 600 rounds of 20mm ammo per flight. THe British would have needed fewer planes to shoot down the same number of bombers.

That logic is flawed because the center gun installation will result in just that: A larger hit rate. But yes the Bf 109 G was never designed to battle B-17s and it showed. That's why they introduced the MK 108.

The Bf 109 K-6 would've had two additional MK 108s in the wing and was still small and cheap and performance wise probably a half-assed K-4 (which was able to reach speeds in excess of 700 km/h). Yes handling would've likely been abysmal. As a comparison take the Fw 190 D-12 if you will: ~3500 kg empty weight and according to the site you quoted 950 "gun score" vs. 360 for the P-51 of similar weight.

Light and powerful certainly was possible.

I understand switching factories over but they had two years to do it

I was refering to the 109 in this case, different planes having different requirements is understood.

Some authors claim it was because the MK 108 wasn't as good for dog fighting ( meaning fighter vrs fighter combat) yes it was much more devestaing when it hit but there were problems. While it wasn't as short ranged as some peaple like to portray, it's low velocity did complicate things. Much is made of the absence of convergence issues but that different times of flight for the MG 131 and the MK 108 seem to be glossed over at times. when firing at a turning plane either the MG 131s will be on target or the MK 108 will be but not both unless you are really close. The weight of the ammuntion (or the bulk?) dropped the firing time from about 12 seconds to about 6 seconds. While those 6 seconds are much, much more effective it means that 30mm armed planes can engage in fewer firing oppertunities per flight.
If the Germans knew this and acted on it by not converting to all 30mm planes then the point is not moot.
IF the germans knew this and and decided to convert to all 30mm guns anyway but failed because of production problems then it is moot.

Building a cheap plane in large numbers that it takes an expert to use effectively when you are running out of experts might not be the best policy.

Basically all major German fighters switched to the MK 108 as the main gun:

Bf 109 K
Ta 152
Me 262
Ta 183 if it was ever made
and yes also the He 162, the He 162 was always planned with the MK 108. As for the only reason many were delivered with the MG 151: Depending on source it was either a problem with availability or with the strain the gun put on the He 162s rather delicate airframe. Never seen any primary sources for it. Anyways the MK 108 was also used on it.

How good or bad the 108 is as a dogfighter cannon is a much speculated subject, i agree.

However I do remember one of Reschke's kills in the Ta-152:
He was curving down low and his MG's failed. So he switched to the cannon and shot the plane (iirc it was a Typhoon or Tempest). I am however not aware of any reports about general effectiveness. The only thing I know is that it was considered very accurate, second only to the MG FF, although that accuracy generally doesn't have to mean all that much.

 

[Shortround6]

Your position originally was that light/cheap couldn't do the mission of heavy/expensive and people piled on regarding interceptor role and the argument went downhill from there.

Agreed.

"OK - my sole point is that 4x20mm (and 2x23 plus 37mm) was far superior to 6x.50 cal"

No arguement there but where did I say it was?


"Point - the same gun armament was toted by 'light/cheap' as 'heavy/expensive'. You now keep slipping into multi role discussions to evade the firepower discussion for air to air combat"

Please, who is evading now?

In WW II the gun armament was the only air to air armament and most of the fighters we are talking about were day fighters with little or no electroinc "AIDs". THe F-15 and F-14 regardles of their abiltity to tote bombs (or not) were designed to use missles as their primary air to ar armament with the gun being secondary. Any valid comparison of the fighters in question would compare missle load out, missle capability and weight of the associated electronics in addition to the gun used. It would also include weight of the gun installation including stowed ammo, which I beleve but could be wrong, varied by as much as 2 to 1 between some of these fighters.

So leaving anything but air to air missions out of it the F-16 could not do the job of either the F-14 or the F-15 regardles of the gun it carried. at least in early versions, as electronics improved more capabilty could be built in but the moe electronics that are built in the less cheap the fighter becomes

Comparing jet aircraft from 20 years apart doesn't do much for your arguement. To much difference in engine thrust to weight ratios and fuel economy of the engines and knowledge of aerodynamics. To which we can add the weight of electronics tubes vrs transitors? You picked a tatical bomber to compare to a light fighter not me. The fact that both carreid an M-61 isn't much more relevant than saying Both the Martin B-26 and the Mustang carried similar fixed forward firing armament. And B-26s were used as fighters on rare occasions.


"That light/cheap can tote heavy firepower. You keep slipping into multi role extensions in this discussion"

Not in the case above. You are the one who dragged in the tatical bomber and you are the one who compared all weather (night fighter?) fighters with long range (very long range for the F-14) missile armament to a daylight fighter armed (originally) with a smaller number of much shorter ranged missles in addition to the gun.

 

[Shortround6]

The He 162 was 'light/cheap' with heavy firepower. The Fw 190D would be as good or better - ditto Ta 152 - ditto N1K-J against the B-29 than the P-47 - all with GREAT firepower. The debate has been 'light/cheap' can't carry heavy firepower - not multi role .

the He 162 was light and cheap with average firepower.

If the B-29 was flying at high altitude the N1K-J had trouble reaching it. I noted this before, best guns in the world don't do any good if you can't get them UP to the target. Maybe that heavy expensive turbo set up on the P-47 was for something after all

or is this another case of "multi-mission"?

I am notthe one who brought the B-29 into the discussion.

You keep jumping into a rathole over the Me 109 series when it is very clear that by any definition it was a.) light/cheap, b.) it had excellent performance, and c.) it had heavy firepower.

It's" heavy firepower" if we can agree on that was of limited duration or,in the case of the under wing Gondolas, hurt performance to the extent that "escorting" fighters were needed. Needing TWO fighters or more to do the job of one more expensive fighter doesn't make the light fighter less expensive does it?

And this is on the intercept mission. Unless you think that for bomber interception there should always be two different fighters and that taking on the escorts is really a different mission for a different airplane than taking on the bombers?

Nobody argue that the 109 was a 'multi role weapons system' - ditto the Spit, ditto the Ki 100, ditto the He 162. Neither the Mustang or Jug or Lightning was ever initially regarded as 'multi role' weapon systems.

However the Fw 190 series was multi role and damned good at it even it one of the missions did not include long range escort. Having said this, in 1943 it was probably as capable a mulit role ship as the P-47 particularly in ground support and the series extended to high altitude and longer (not as long as) range as the P-47 by the time the Ta 152 series arrived.

This is what I really love about discusing German aircraft. we never really discuss ONE German aircraft. Yes the Fw 190Fs and Gs were better for ground attack than any P-47 but then they weren't all that good at fighter to fighter combat at 20,000ft and up were they? THen we just change the engine and perhaps change the wing and change the installed armament and rip out hundreds of pounds or armour and then claim the "SAME" plane is better than the P-47 at high altitude.

 

[drgondog]

Shortround - you have a severe reading comprehension problem... what is it about my thread of instances of internal gun firepower that you do not comprehend?

The illustration of MiG to F-86 and FJ4 was all about internal guns and 'light/cheap' capabilites of the lighter/cheaper fighter in comparison. Ditto the F-16 vs the F-15 vs the F-14 vs the F-105. The 'Light/cheap' fighter had the same internal gun firepower.

Ditto the Me 109K compared to Mustang (or Spit compared to P-47/P-38.

I didn't, and no one else did, bring up the discussion regarding external firepower which by any standard the 109G6/U4 etc had in spades.

Nobody but you dwells on the multi role missions and dives into ratholes to compare different gen a/c.

What started this was your claim that you needed big/complex/high powered a/c to have big firepower - You are wrong.

 

[riacrato]

You don't *need* a Fw 190 F for ground attack. Any standard Fw 190 A could do it. The F was simply the dedicated attacker version which offered added AAA protection your 'standard P-47' wouldn't have either.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So I am trying to get caught up with everything that has been said in this thread. Interesting discussion by most of the parties concerned here.

This kind of stands out to me though...

And do try to study aircraft a bit more.

Kind of a rude and low shot.

What really stands out though, is that Shortround is telling this to someone (Bill) who:

a. Has an aerospace engineering degree.

b. Has been studying aircraft, let alone WW2 aircraft for decades. He has even written a book on the subject.

c. Actually has time flying WW2 fighter aircraft, i.e. the P-51D.

Might want to think about things before trying insult people. It only makes you look like an ass.

To everyone else, carry on with this good discussion.

 

[Colin1]

Colin - The well educated comment from SR regarding 'thin' wing of Spitfire is 'true' in context of an Aerodynamics discussion. As you know in aero terms it is a function of wing thickness to chord - but the actual dimensions at tmax (~26% chord) were slightly greater in a Spit than the tmax of the 51 in the gun bay region.

Space for a 20mm was never an issue per se... or for any version of a P-51.. or for an F6F or an F4U or for a P-47.

Bill
true enough, the laminar-flow design pushed the thickest point of the wing further back toward the trailing edge, ensuring that upper and lower-surface boundary layer air had long departed the wing prior to turbulent recombination. My not-very-well-defined point was that the Hispano could have sat alot further back in the Mustang's wing a la Tempest V and maybe even without the subtle, small blisters sported by the Hawker fighter, thus doing away with the lengthy barrel protrusions necessitated in the Spitfire installation.

Tend to agree though, there was never going to be an space-for-installation issue on any of those aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

Shortround - you have a severe reading comprehension problem... what is it about my thread of instances of internal gun firepower that you do not comprehend?.

Are we trading insults now?

I apologize for my remark about studing aircraft. As we get older our memory sometimes slips and in some cases (mine especially) our typing skills are not what they should be.

By the way My first airplane books were by William Green and I got some of them almost 40 years ago. They may very well be out of date now.

The illustration of MiG to F-86 and FJ4 was all about internal guns and 'light/cheap' capabilites of the lighter/cheaper fighter in comparison.

OK, my lack of reading comprehension kicks in here, We are comparing, from the Mig to the Fury, planes of almost different generations. Planes that were designed for rather different purposes and planes that when tasked with same mission still had rather different capabilities as far as endurance goes.
This is supposed to prove what about the load carring ability of WW II piston engine fighters? And by load carring ability I mean the internal guns, ammo, mounts, ammo boxes, gun heaters, etc.

Ditto the F-16 vs the F-15 vs the F-14 vs the F-105. The 'Light/cheap' fighter had the same internal gun firepower.

Sorry, you still have me totally baffled by this comparison. Since I am not the one who introduced it I find it strange that I am accused of going down rat holes when I explore it. So far your attempt to explain it just isn't working. THe WW II fighters we were discusing used guns, either internal or external as their sole air to air armament. Comparing weight of the gun instalation or weight of fire is a vailid comparison tool. 3 of the 4 jets mentioned above use missiles as part of their air to air armament as designed. Discounting the missiles and their widely varing capability and claiming the light fighter (OK maybe not claiming but implying?) that the Light fighter carried equel air to air armament doesn't seem like a very valid comparison. It might even be a bit less valid if the F-16 turns out to carry 1/2 of the ammuntion that one of the other planes does. What is the weight of 500 rounds of 20mm ammo and the weight of the larger ammo drum ? How many cubic ft of space does occupy?
Or is this going down a rat hole again?

Ditto the Me 109K compared to Mustang (or Spit compared to P-47/P-38.

I didn't, and no one else did, bring up the discussion regarding external firepower which by any standard the 109G6/U4 etc had in spades.

OK, you lost me again. Maybe it is my old out of date books but the to me the designation "109G6/U4" has got nothing to do with extrenal armament. AS for me bringing in the external armament I didn't want anybody to think I was unfair in leaving it out.

Nobody but you dwells on the multi role missions and dives into ratholes to compare different gen a/c.

I really do think this is a bit unfair since I am not the one who brought the jets into the discussion and therefor I am not the one who brought in the different gen a/c. in your F-105 vrs F-16 comparison. If, by pointing out the differences in generations, it makes your comparison even less valid, too bad.

While I did start with mentioning the multi mission, in some of the last posts in the "Jet rat hole line" I tried to stay specificly to the air to air mission and yet I am still critisized for dwelling on the multi role. You are the one who re-introuduced the multi-role in post number #166, if by responding to your post I am "dwelling" on it I guess I stand rebuked.

What started this was your claim that you needed big/complex/high powered a/c to have big firepower - You are wrong.

You are of course correct on this, but the following conditions may apply

Newer aircraft with engines of better power to weight ratios may allow the carriage of heavier armanent.
Comparisons between guns of differrent gun power to weight ratios may change results.
Trading fuel and endurance for gun/armament weight may allow for the carriage of heavier armament.
trading ammuntion capacity for more gun weight allows for a heavier throw weight although for a shorter time period.
There are probably others.

 

[Shortround6]

So I am trying to get caught up with everything that has been said in this thread. Interesting discussion by most of the parties concerned here.

This kind of stands out to me though...



Kind of a rude and low shot.

What really stands out though, is that Shortround is telling this to someone (Bill) who:

a. Has an aerospace engineering degree.

b. Has been studying aircraft, let alone WW2 aircraft for decades. He has even written a book on the subject.

c. Actually has time flying WW2 fighter aircraft, i.e. the P-51D.

Might want to think about things before trying insult people. It only makes you look like an ass.

To everyone else, carry on with this good discussion.

You are correct and I have appoligised for this remark. I will try to refrain from similar remarks in the future.

 

[buffnut453]

Hello Mark
For the defence for FAF's Hawk 75As. While Brewster B-239s had arrived to Finland during Spring 40, so pilots had had time to get use to it and to perfect tactics for it, the first 16 Hawks arrived 23 – 30 June 1941, the Continuation War began 25 june 41, 11arrived 28 July – 2 August 41, further 2 arrived on 5 Dec 41 but the last 15 arrived 13 June 43 – 5 Jan 44. So the last group arrived when they were already clearly obsolete.
FAF's Hawk pilots claimed 190½ kills while losing 8 in air combat + 6 to AA, one on ground and 9 because of technical problems or in accidents. So IMHO not so bad. And one must remember that Hawks of HLeLv 32 were the only fighters in their sector in 1944 during the big Soviet summer offensive in 1944 while B-239s could operate quieter areas of their sector because of Bf 109Gs carried the main burden in Karelian Istmus during summer 44.

And as I have wrote earlier Hawks were the most successful fighters of French AF in 1939-40.

Juha

Hi Juha,

Thank you for those insights. Sounds like the P-36s were thrown in at the deep end...but the Brewster stayed in service somewhat longer than the P-36 didn't it (into the 1950s if memory serves). However, my comment was mainly directed to the statement that the Brewster was the worst fighter in US service. In reality (and your post would seem to confirm this) the Buffalo wasn't much, if any, worse than the P-36.

Kind regards,
Mark H

 

[vikingBerserker]

The more I think about it, the more I'm voting for the Me 163. Extremely short flight duration and killed more pilots then it shot down (6 or 9 IIRC).

 

[buffnut453]

Hi 88I71,

Here are some additional thoughts:

True, but some had worse loss rates than others and an aircraft with severe design flaws that is more dangerous to its own pilots than the enemy is not a successful design.
The issue of severe design flaws is valid but does not necessarily make an aircraft unsuccessful. The Ki-43 and Typhoon both had structural weaknesses that, due to circumstance, could be overcome. Some German designs from 1944-45 had problems that simply couldn't be resolved in the time available. Given that most WWII pilots were killed in flying accidents rather than in combat, it could be postulated that all WWII fighters were more dangerous to their own crews than to those of their adversary.

I'd throw in serviceability as well since a mediocre fighter in the air beats a superb fighter sitting in the hangar being repaired.
Absolutely...in principle. But how can that be postively cited as a causal factor in WWII when all aircraft were, by their nature, expendible? I know of a couple of aircraft that had outstanding design features for rapid repair (eg Martin Baker MB3 and MB5) which simply didn't enter service because the performance advantage wasn't sufficient.

I think this was meant more as "did the aircraft do what the designers/air force intended/expected it to do?"
We're saying the same thing.

What's the point of an aircraft with excellent capabilities if you can't produce it quickly enough to replace losses or in large enough numbers to meet operational needs?
Agreed but, again, that's not an issue for the aircraft itself but more for the industrial complex supporting the front line. This is a much wider issue than just defining the least successful fighter.

Regards,
Mark