Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
oldbutnotwise       7/4/2013 3:59:14 AM
The Packard Merlin was tweaked for American production practice. Elbows were made more gentle in curve, and other things RR COPIED.  
rubbish pure rubbish, if anything it was Ford that introduced changes to RR production and most of that was by the provision of superior machinery
Not even close to the truth.
 
and how would you know, unless never being near the truth in your posts gives you some god powers
 
if you read the histories you will find that not only is it the truth a lot of thing you believe are actually false
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/4/2013 4:04:09 AM
 
 
The best post war Merlin made at most 2,080 HP in the De Havilland Hornet and Sea Hornet, while the Packard V-1650-9 made 2,218/2,220 HP and were in service both before and after any Hornet. 
 
as pointed out it needed water and methanol to make these figures something not used on the Hornet, apple and oranges

yes but the -9 needed water/methanol injection to make that figure but the RR figure was an engine that didn't use enhancers oranges and lemons old boy
Well actually, the Hornet required ADI to get 2,080 HP,
ADI is not water and methanol (oh and the Packard used ADI too)
 
 WO which, it was a 1,720 HP engine!
as was the Packard
Also the TBO in actual service in the Hornet and Sea Hornet never went over 400 hours!
posting without any support again I see, you have NEVER supported these claims of low TBO on merlins and have been shown to be in error many times
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/4/2013 4:24:40 AM
Any comments on this aspect?
yes and its total rubbish as the merlin was imperial not metric nothing on a merlin was 40mm or anything merlins tolerance's were as fine as anything being produced at the time in the US, My uncle was a QC Inspector at Packard during the war. This is simply not true.
In fact the tollerances were lower on the Packard in many cases as they were more production line based rather than built by skilled engineers so tollerances were reduced to meet production line requirements, however I admit that these reductions had NO effect on the engine, one of the main problems faced by Packard (after the drawing in the wrong views and tollerances in fractions not decimals) was that Merlins had each part with its design tolerance when building on production lines a standard set of tolerance is far more suitable 
Their tolerances were nothing like as tight and uniform as those in many US engine makers! The Proverbial phrase "File to fit." was found in over three dozen places on the Blue-Prints furnished by R-R to Packard!
so you keep saying but have you NEVER provided any supporting evidence -NO, exactly what parts were file to fit? being as the majority of parts in a engine are cylindrical or hardered exactly which bits do you think the craftmen at RR would be filling?
 
File to fit is not precision tolerance! 
see above. explain that and maybe I will discuss further
 
the US drawing used a different layout we used first angle the US used third angle, without correction this would have been a nightmare, I also believe that the method of indicating tolerance on a drawing were different While this might be true, the statement " File to fit." was not seen on the Packard Blue-Prints to make Merlin engines! It was however placed on the R-R copies over 36 times!  
 
blah blah blah, usual shooter revising an idea of his that was shot down so many time it must make anyone an ace
 
 
if Packard was so amazing why was it that the premier engine they made was a licensed copy of the merlin were was its replacement? RR had the Griffon Packard had?
For two reasons. 1. the Alison 143, IIRC was waiting in the wings type tested at 2930 HP.
do you mean the W24 - V-3420 (rated at 2100 normally and 2600 military) or the V-1710-G -143 rated at 1900 military, both fall short of your 2900 don't they  
 
2. Jets were on the way and we were not willing to waist money on a new, but obviously obsolete Recip engine!
and what a pigs ear they made of those, but why did they continue to develope the V series then?
 
as for the P80, exactly what engine did it have? oh yes the de Havilland H-1 B at first then Rolls-Royce Derwent,'s  as you US could not get your version working properly (J33) and again do you believe that it was done without help from Britain despite the UK having a lead in such design?
I think you should read the US side of the story. Just saying that you might learn something?
 
that's good coming from you, maybe you should read from the UK side of the story and you might find you learn something too
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/4/2013 6:37:44 AM
No he wasn't. Hawker's entire line of 'average' aircraft proves this.
 
Nations do not throw money at rotten engines in time of war.
 
I only note the history, nothing more.
 
But not the high temperature jet engine (turbo-charger) steels. The British imported many American alloys.
 
Because when you start from zero, you must build something?
 
You admit that the British knew the Nene was a technological dead end. Good. We make progress. Reasonable men can disagree about details and meanings, but still reach congruous conclusions. I do not expect you to agree with me. Nor should you when this part of history is so controversial and open to interpretation, but some events do lead to reasonable parallel conclusions.
Johnson, Heinenmann and Northrop ARE the aviation demi-gods. History recognizes this.  R.J. Mitchell is one too. Kurt Tank, is one. Who else? Sydney Cam? He is the Willy Messerschmidt of Great Britain. If Britain had traded him for Mitchell, they would have been far better off.
 
Cam was as good as anything the US produced 
 
 
Among engine designers Price, Tumansky, and Pavlecka are known. Who else? The Merlin was designed by a committee. That same committee produced the Peregrine. Remember that debacle?
 
The Peregrine was actually a good engine just never got the development it needed as resource was need to develop the Merlin and Griffin
 
Not everything  British is good, Not everything American is bad. Same is true for any country. 
 
Yet from your posts it would seem that the US was better that the UK and "fixed" all our stuff
 
The Americans had the chrome steels and the native talent to fix what the British sent them. They fixed it. That included the Merlin by the way. 
 
Chrome steels were NOT limited to the US  a lot of the specialized steels were developed in the UK
 
Do you hear me complain about how Dassault and SNECMA fixed the German BMW 003 derived engines they used in the Mystere after the Nene powered Ouragan proved disappointing?
 
The Ouragan was disappointing? then why build 350+
 
by the time the Ouragan entered service the Nene was EOL so its not surprising by that time the RAF had moved on and the only people still using it was the French and the russians
 

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/4/2013 11:05:05 AM
No he wasn't. Hawker's entire line of 'average' aircraft proves this.
 
Average like the Hart and Hinds? or The Hurricane? or the Tempest/Typhoons? or how about the Hunter? not actually sure which you would call average?
 
Nations do not throw money at rotten engines in time of war.
 
Yes they do, in fact they often do more so in time of war as changing horses can be far worse than fixing what you have already, the reason why the peregrine got side-lined is that only one combat aircraft used it so it was a no choice decision when you look at what was using the merlin
 
I only note the history, nothing more.
 
strange history that seems to be rather one sided
 
But not the high temperature jet engine (turbo-charger) steels. The British imported many American alloys.
 
a large proportion of the steels and alloys that were used in allied jets were developed in the UK, the primary alloy for turbine blades was a Rolls Royce developed alloy
 
Because when you start from zero, you must build something?
not sure what this comment refers to
 
You admit that the British knew the Nene was a technological dead end. Good.
The British (including Whittle) new that long term the axial flow was better (better power output and far less frontal area) however they also knew (especially Whittle) that the Axial engine need materials developing to get the reliability where it needed to be, Whittle was more driving to get A jet engine excepted and into production and the Centrifugal was achievable with lower tech than was the axial, once he got an engine running then the power couldsee that the Jet was the future and development was channelled into the different types
 
 
 We make progress. Reasonable men can disagree about details and meanings, but still reach congruous conclusions. I do not expect you to agree with me. Nor should you when this part of history is so controversial and open to interpretation, but some events do lead to reasonable parallel conclusions.
 
But I will disagree what those conclusion are, I don't object to you disagreeing it when you (and I don't actually mean you here but a certain other poster does fit this bill) do not listen to reason and still argue a point even after shown evidence to the contrary
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/4/2013 12:42:55 PM

 
Sydney Camm screwed up the wing on the Typhoon, which led to the Tempest as a rectification. Then that plane proved to be something of a design nightmare for Hawker as the designers tried to fit in gasoline tanks in the oddest places to meet the RAF endurance requirement. Camm had to use an American wing and laminar flow and flush riveting on the Tempest to further correct Typhoon faults (all NACA developments, which he did not use in his previous designs.)      
 
We won't mention the Hawker Tornado that was o be equipped with the defective RR Vulture engine.
 
As for the Hunter, it was the most shot down non-Russian plane the Mysteres in all their versions killed. True Israelis versus Arabs, but the Jordanians and Iraqis were not bad pilots.     
 
Lansens were better designs. as were Mysteres  (My opinion of course.) 

Nations do not throw money at rotten engines in time of war.

I stand corrected in this. The Vulture was the British example.  

Yes they do, in fact they often do more so in time of war as changing horses can be far worse than fixing what you have already, the reason why the peregrine got side-lined is that only one combat aircraft used it so it was a no choice decision when you look at what was using the merlin
 
As I said, I made an error. 
 
I only note the history, nothing more.
 
strange history that seems to be rather one sided

It only seems that way, because I try to bring a different prism to the light.

But not the high temperature jet engine (turbo-charger) steels. The British imported many American alloys.
  a large proportion of the steels and alloys that were used in allied jets were developed in the UK, the primary alloy for turbine blades was a Rolls Royce developed alloy

This is not so. You do know what the Sendzimir process is?

Because when you start from zero, you must build something?

not sure what this comment refers to

It refers to the Ouragan. France wanted her own jet aircraft. Up to this point, the AdA mostly flew American and British piston engined cast offs. Such dependency is not the French way. 

You admit that the British knew the Nene was a technological dead end. Good.

The British (including Whittle) new that long term the axial flow was better (better power output and far less frontal area) however they also knew (especially Whittle) that the Axial engine need materials developing to get the reliability where it needed to be, Whittle was more driving to get A jet engine excepted and into production and the Centrifugal was achievable with lower tech than was the axial, once he got an engine running then the power couldsee that the Jet was the future and development was channelled into the different types
But the Germans went axial flow immediately, did they not? They put their jets into the air first. Their designs live on in the descendents of the BMW series engines they developed (ATARS).       
 

 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/4/2013 1:05:40 PM
 We make progress. Reasonable men can disagree about details and meanings, but still reach congruous conclusions. I do not expect you to agree with me. Nor should you when this part of history is so controversial and open to interpretation, but some events do lead to reasonable parallel conclusions.


But I will disagree what those conclusion are, I don't object to you disagreeing it when you (and I don't actually mean you here but a certain other poster does fit this bill) do not listen to reason and still argue a point even after shown evidence to the contrary.
 
As long as we can argue facts and discuss these facts with the knowledge that opinion is opinion, and that this is not 'I'm right and you're wrong contest, this is a reasonable attitude.      
 
I have strong opinions about Curtiss Wright (rotten engines and rotten planes) which many people do not agree with me.  
 
I believe that the P-38 was a misused American aircraft. 
 
I believe that the Dewotine D-520 was a piece of flying junk, but that the Se 100 was a missed French opportunity.
 
I believe that the Americans should have never embraced a bomber design as poorly thought out a the B-17.
 
But I have said this...  here and elsewhere. My opinions are opinions, hopefully not wrong ones.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/5/2013 3:38:45 AM
Sydney Camm screwed up the wing on the Typhoon, which led to the Tempest as a rectification. Then that plane proved to be something of a design nightmare for Hawker as the designers tried to fit in gasoline tanks in the oddest places to meet the RAF endurance requirement. Camm had to use an American wing and laminar flow and flush riveting on the Tempest to further correct Typhoon faults (all NACA developments, which he did not use in his previous designs.)     
the Typhoon was started before the UK got NACA info so it s not suprsing that they they didnt use the NACA profiles the wing on the Typhoon was pretty good and only lost out at altitude (it was the weak tail and unreliable engine that mainly dealyed the typhoon), and the typhoons service record shows that it was a fine combat plane, the tempest 1's were basically a typhoon with that naca wing which inproved latitude performance
 
We won't mention the Hawker Tornado that was o be equipped with the defective RR Vulture engine.
Again the Tornado was just an RR engined typhoon
 
As for the Hunter, it was the most shot down non-Russian plane the Mysteres in all their versions killed. True Israelis versus Arabs, but the Jordanians and Iraqis were not bad pilots.    
 
Ourside my interest period but from what I can find the Israelis regarded the Hunter asn being a match for thier Mirage II and superior to the Mysteres
Lansens were better designs. as were Mysteres (My opinion of course.)

Lansens I know noting about so will not comment, however from what I have read I would not put the Mysteres on par with the Hunter, as pointed out above the Israelies certainly did not think that they were a match let alone superior
 
   .

But not the high temperature jet engine (turbo-charger) steels. The British imported many American alloys.
a large proportion of the steels and alloys that were used in allied jets were developed in the UK, the primary alloy for turbine blades was a Rolls Royce developed alloy

This is not so. You do know what the Sendzimir process is? - Galvanising, not a new Idea he just improved the process
Have you heard of Nimonic? or Inconel?

But the Germans went axial flow immediately, did they not? They put their jets into the air first. Their designs live on in the descendents of the BMW series engines they developed (ATARS).      
     
 
And they suffered the exact problems postulated by Whittle, they had not the materials to build the design, which is better a wonderful design that you cannot make or a sub optimal design that works? had the germans built whittle style engines they could have had reliable jets in bulk in 43 - not a pretty thought 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/5/2013 8:36:29 AM

 
What did I say about Sydney Camm being Britain's Willy Meserschmidt? How did the Typhoon's combat record really stack up? 
 
It was a fine ground attack plane. About as good as the Apache. The thing still vibrated like a badly tuned kazoo.

We won't mention the Hawker Tornado that was to be equipped with the defective RR Vulture engine.

Again the Tornado was just an RR engined typhoon
 
And how did that work out, please? At least the Sabre engined Typhoon was of 'some' use.

As for the Hunter, it was the most shot down non-Russian plane the Mysteres in all their versions killed. True Israelis versus Arabs, but the Jordanians and Iraqis were not bad pilots.    
 
Ourside my interest period but from what I can find the Israelis regarded the Hunter asn being a match for thier Mirage II and superior to the Mysteres
 
 
I think not.

Lansens were better designs. as were Mysteres (My opinion of course.)


Lansens I know noting about so will not comment, however from what I have read I would not put the Mysteres on par with the Hunter, as pointed out above the Israelies certainly did not think that they were a match let alone superior

Lansen... think of it  as a Swedish Hawker Hunter with a slightly lower service ceiling, much better air to air missiles (American Sidewinders) slightly lower cornering speed, and more useable minutes in the air than the Hunter. Also a lot TOUGHER as it was built to operate in Sweden.   
 
But not the high temperature jet engine (turbo-charger) steels. The British imported many American alloys.
a large proportion of the steels and alloys that were used in allied jets were developed in the UK, the primary alloy for turbine blades was a Rolls Royce developed alloy

This is not so. You do know what the Sendzimir process is? - Galvanising, not a new Idea he just improved the process
Have you heard of Nimonic? or Inconel?

Yes I have.      
 
 
Haynes of the US, and Leon Alexander Guillet and Albert Portevin of France. Then there was Frederick Becket of Westinghouse. (A Canadian I believe.) Without them, the British would have nothing upon which to start or which to catch up.  
 
But the Germans went axial flow immediately, did they not? They put their jets into the air first. Their designs live on in the descendents of the BMW series engines they developed (ATARS).      
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/5/2013 8:36:57 AM
And they suffered the exact problems postulated by Whittle, they had not the materials to build the design, which is better a wonderful design that you cannot make or a sub optimal design that works? had the germans built whittle style engines they could have had reliable jets in bulk in 43 - not a pretty thought 
 
They had the alloys, just not enough time, fuel, or pilots . A five hour jet engine is good enough for a nation that would use the Me 163, don't you think?  Their problem was not that of MHBTO, I t was numbers and that braindead Luftwaffe high command. If Udet had listened to Heinkel, they would have BMW 004 powered Arados and the He 280s which would have used a Whittle style centrifugal engine the Ohain HeS-8  ...   flying over Normandy.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics