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       7/6/2013 12:33:34 PM
you are being very selective about the history of stainless steel conveniently missing out all the British that added to its development, in fact the one person who is pretty much regarded as the father of stainless steel
 

It is at this point we introduce Harry Brearley, born in Sheffield, England in 1871, he was appointed lead researcher at Brown Firth Laboratories in 1908. In 1912 Brearley was given a task by a small arms manufacturer who wished to prolong the life of their gun barrels which were eroding away too quickly. Brearley set out to create an erosion resistant steel, not a corrosion resistant one, and began experimenting with steel alloys containing chromium. During these experiments Brearley made several variations of his alloys, ranging from 6% to 15% chromium with differing measures of carbon.

On the 13th August 1913 Brearley created a steel with 12.8% chromium and 0.24% carbon, argued to be the first ever stainless steel.
more to the point the ultra high temperature alloys needed for axial Jets required very specific properties that were fulfilled by  Nimonic  or Inconel , did they use research of others to get their YES but that is true of just about anything including those Ernest gentlemen you mention above, however this do not change the fact that it was the Brits that developed these high temp alloys
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/6/2013 10:07:42 PM


Not really when you dig into the ACIG numbers.

But the bottom line is that most think the Hunter was probably the best transsonic fighter built
 
That would be untrue. I would give that honor to the Mig 17 as would many pilots who flew against it.

 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/6/2013 10:34:36 PM
have to disagree strongly that the Lansen was a superior fighter, a couple of thing stand out, first the Hunter was designed as an interceptor/air superiority fighter NOT a bomber as you claim
 
Why was it designed to drop bombs and fire strafing rockets from the start? Why was it unable to handle the F-86D an underpowered and overweight American fighter?
 
secondly, why, if the Lansen was superior did Sweden buy Hunters? I cannot imagine why a country would buy another countries aircraft when they were making one that as you claim, superior?
 
The Hunter had a slightly  higher service ceiling. It was cheap, and despite some badly thought out ground maintenance issues (engine starters for example) it used the same engine and guns as the Lansen. Because it was a CHEAP solution.
 
The Lansen was Sweden's dedicated attack plane. In the meantime, the Swedes needed an interim simple and CHEAP bomber destroyer to supplement the Tunnan. They were not going to buy American because of political problems, nor could they buy French for much the same reason. So they boughht 120 examples from Hawker for a stopgap until the Draken was ready.   
 
It does not make sense
 
It does.
 
as for the Pak/India war it looks on a cursory investigation that honour's were pretty even, both side had well trained pilots and kills look fairly even
 
I said after 1966 the PAF was shoddy. By then the Indians killed all the good Pak pilots.
 
 
Gnats not Hunters.
 
But the bottom line is that most think the Hunter was probably the best transsonic fighter built
 
That honor goes to the Mig 17. Those planes shot down Phantom II's  
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/6/2013 11:05:51 PM

actually only 1 squadron 616 was converted to fly meteors and By January 45 the F3 had the above issues fixed

Shrug, then 1 squadron, less than 50 aircraft.

actually the restriction was not to avoid combat but to avoid the possibility of the Germans getting hold of a Meteor, are you aware that their is a Meteor F3 flying today that has its original engines?

And this was done why? The Americans were flying P-80s in Italy.

And there are F-86s and Ouragans, also. Jet engines undergo many teardowns and rebuilds and are called 'original.' The definition of 'original' becomes very loose when the last original part is the burner can assembly.

it could ALWAYS outperform the Shooting star, which in 45 was barely able to compete with piston engine fighters and was only available in single figures

That would be the P-80A that was faster and could climb higher than the F-3 which still had the wrong canopy the faulty gun mounts and the too short jet engine nacelles that were fixed in the postwar F5s?

I give up even after correcting you several time you insit on repeating this idea that somehow the GE owned nothing to the Brits, I don't see the point on rehashing it

I did not say that GE did not owe anything to the British. I said that the Goblin failed, so Lockheed went looking for a better engine. That is not the same thing. Facts are stubborn. How you interpret them makes for disagreements.

the Development of the Vampire was delayed, had it continued as originally planned in could have been available late war but it was delayed as the it engine was diverted to the P80 program when they blew there own up

The Halford melted. It didn't blow up. That is why the engine change to the J-33s (Derwents).  

the vampire entered service pretty much the same period as the P80 and was superior

You are kidding? This is just a little Rule Britannia humor?

 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/6/2013 11:12:34 PM
As are you. The Krupp yacht was launched in 1911. (Saltwater you know?)

you are being very selective about the history of stainless steel conveniently missing out all the British that added to its development, in fact the one person who is pretty much regarded as the father of stainless steel

 

It is at this point we introduce Harry Brearley, born in Sheffield, England in 1871, he was appointed lead researcher at Brown Firth Laboratories in 1908. In 1912 Brearley was given a task by a small arms manufacturer who wished to prolong the life of their gun barrels which were eroding away too quickly. Brearley set out to create an erosion resistant steel, not a corrosion resistant one, and began experimenting with steel alloys containing chromium. During these experiments Brearley made several variations of his alloys, ranging from 6% to 15% chromium with differing measures of carbon.


On the 13th August 1913 Brearley created a steel with 12.8% chromium and 0.24% carbon, argued to be the first ever stainless steel.

more to the point the ultra high temperature alloys needed for axial Jets required very specific properties that were fulfilled by  Nimonic  or Inconel , did they use research of others to get their YES but that is true of just about anything including those Ernest gentlemen you mention above, however this do not change the fact that it was the Brits that developed these high temp alloys

 
The J-33 did NOT use Nimonic and Inconel products. How did those American built jet engines pass their 150 hour tests without British alloys? I leave the answer to you, but I already supplied it earlier.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/7/2013 6:51:29 AM
  actually the restriction was not to avoid combat but to avoid the possibility of the Germans getting hold of a Meteor, are you aware that their is a Meteor F3 flying today that has its original engines?       
And this was done why? The Americans were flying P-80s in Italy.   
TWO! both used as demo machines and never used in combat
 
it could ALWAYS outperform the Shooting star, which in 45 was barely able to compete with piston engine fighters and was only available in single figures   
That would be the P-80A that was faster and could climb higher than the F-3 which still had the wrong canopy the faulty gun mounts and the too short jet engine nacelles that were fixed in the postwar F5s?  
that's where you are wrong the F3 had the longer nacelles and the new canopy
 

I give up even after correcting you several time you insit on repeating this idea that somehow the GE owned nothing to the Brits, I don't see the point on rehashing it   

I did not say that GE did not owe anything to the British. I said that the Goblin failed, so Lockheed went looking for a better engine. That is not the same thing. Facts are stubborn. How you interpret them makes for disagreements.  
and you seem to be looking for ways of avoiding giving credit to the British

the Development of the Vampire was delayed, had it continued as originally planned in could have been available late war but it was delayed as the it engine was diverted to the P80 program when they blew there own up  

The Halford melted. It didn't blow up. That is why the engine change to the J-33s (Derwents).      
Have you read what happened? it was human error by locked that destroyed the Halford, and it was a big mistake as it delayed the P80 project until a new engine could be delivered from the UK

the vampire entered service pretty much the same period as the P80 and was superior  

You are kidding? This is just a little Rule Britannia humor?
 
no, it does seem to bring your Anglophobia to the front
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/7/2013 7:00:00 AM
The J-33 did NOT use Nimonic and Inconel products. How did those American built jet engines pass their 150 hour tests without British alloys? http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmiled.gif" border="0" /> I leave the answer to you, but I already supplied it earlier.
 
as the I-40 used Nimonic and that was the J33 I call you on this, it is possible that they stopped using Nimonic in later J33's and then returned to using it in later engines but feel it very unlikely.
 
certainly I can find references that seem to say that the J33 that passed 150hours were using British developed High temperature Alloys
 
it looks like you are refusing to accept this fact
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/7/2013 7:03:34 AM
Oh and I forgot the Hawker Harrier - now that you cannot argue against
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/7/2013 7:20:16 AM
  The Halford melted. It didn't blow up. That is why the engine change to the J-33s (Derwents).      
 
actually I looked this up and you are completely wrong, firstly it was always intended to GE engines - originally the I-16 but that was a washout so it was intended to use the I40 (later named the J33) but that was unavailable so they used the Halford, however the engine once mounted in the airframe sucked the inlet ducts (part of the plane) and ingested them wrecking the impeller I would hardly call that melting,
 
The US actually asked for more Halfords but the UK couldn't supply them, so they had to wait for their own version to be sorted
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/7/2013 10:04:36 AM

And this was done why? The Americans were flying P-80s in Italy. 


http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/project-extraversion-p-80-shooting-stars-in-world-war-ii/


Seems the Americans threw every available jet plane they had into an operations evaluation combat environment. That means they were tested in war.

that's where you are wrong the F3 had the longer nacelles and the new canopy

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1955/1955%20-%200729.html

What I said about the F3 is accurate. With a top speed of about 470 knots in the mid altitude bands, it was slower than the P-80 A with a lower service ceiling. It needed a stronger engine, different nacelles and canopy and so forth to hit 570 knots with the blistering climb rates of the F-7s. (not F-5s my error). It could outturn the American jet, but that was about it in 1945.

and you seem to be looking for ways of avoiding giving credit to the British

I give Britain the credit that is her due, but only the credit that is her due.

Have you read what happened? it was human error by locked that destroyed the Halford, and it was a big mistake as it delayed the P80 project until a new engine could be delivered from the UK

Lockheed blamed de Havilland.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1982/January%201982/0182engine.aspx

Reread please.

http://www.tms.org/superalloys/10.7449/1984/Superalloys_1984_399_419.pdf

And read that.

http://contrails.iit.edu/DigitalCollection/1961/ASDTR61-322article03.pdf

and that.

You will need to provide me with sources on where British alloys were used in the J-33 . I am always ready to correct wrong impressions I have.

Oh and I forgot the Hawker Harrier - now that you cannot argue against

Sydney Camm was dead by then. That plane he couldn't foul up a he did the Typhoon.

actually I looked this up and you are completely wrong, firstly it was always intended to GE engines - originally the I-16 but that was a washout so it was intended to use the I40 (later named the J33) but that was unavailable so they used the Halford, however the engine once mounted in the airframe sucked the inlet ducts (part of the plane) and ingested them wrecking the impeller I would hardly call that melting,

Was your source Aeronautical Sciences Volume 12, Number 12? (December 1947?)

 
You might want to revisit it. Lockheed claimed it wasn't their fault.

Here is something with which you will doubtless disagree...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=86

Allis-Chalmers had been tabbed to license-produce the de Havilland Halford Goblin turbojet engine but some drawbacks in setting up the localized state-side production facility forced the project to look elsewhere for a solution. As a result, the unproven - yet technically superior - General Electric I-40 was selected with the promise that it could output its billed 4,000lbs of thrust - a vast upgrade over the relatively primitive British offering. Not to completely remove the P-80 origin from its British roots, the I-40 was in fact a further development of the British-designed Frank Whittle W.1 engine. The I-40 eventually emerged under the new designation of J33 and began the series of a long line of successful General Electric "J" military jet engines whose pedigree continues even today.


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics