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
45-Shooter       4/1/2013 7:35:04 PM

Foolish statement in Italics.

Before a plane can reverse it's turn to the right, it must roll from a right bank into a left bank. During the time it is rolling it is NOT TURNING, it is going very straight!
 
Where does it fly "straight", Shooter?
All the time, in seconds that it is changing directions from the predominently left bank it does most of the routeen in, to a right bank for the 1/5th or so of the demo that it goes right. Straight is a well defined term in that it is not measured in tome of distance, only vector.
So yes, the C-130 does go straight for some ten or twelve total seconds during the entire 6:08 of the entire routeen. It happens in 3-4 second streches 3-4 of them, maybe more, but for those 3-4 seconds it takes the plane to go from left or right bank to the oposite it is very deffinetly going straight for those few seconds at a time. That is when slow rolling planes get shot down.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/1/2013 7:46:13 PM

Despite repeated attempts over the years, you're still confusing the Mk XIV with the Mk 21. Incredible.

Not at all. I mentioned the Mk-21 in relation to the Mk-XIV because the Mk-XIV's problems were never fixed in their entirety until the Mk-21 was put in service!
That is the entire point. The Mk-XIV had directional stability problems that were never fixed. They never would have installed such larger tail surfaces in the Mk-21, if they had been adiquate in the Mk-XIV.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/1/2013 8:13:09 PM
What about torque do you understand?
 
What about control force do you understand?
 
What about wetted surface area do you understand?
 
What about stall do you understand?
 
What about weight loading do you understand?
 
What about the B-17, a bomber noted for crab do you understand? 
 
What about aircraft do you understand?
 
Nothing.
 


 
You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane.
The only possible fix is pilot training for your fault. But the faults I mentioned can only be curred by the addition of more area aft. There is absolutely nothing the pilot can do to "Cure" inhearant instability! Nothing!
 
A year would not be long at all. The B-17 with its originally wrong designed vertical stabilizer never solved its nose wander at all despite numerous attempts.
Again, not true. The B-17's new and much loarger tail cured all horisontal instabilities and the concurrent larger horizontal stab made it the easiest and most stable of all of the Non-B-29 bomber types.
 
 

 

 





 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/1/2013 8:24:20 PM
What did the C-130 actually do again? Refer also that a plane NEVER flies straight as most pilots know, especially in the climb, dive, or roll, as there is some side-slip  Also use a spell-checker. Your non-facts are atrocious enough without me trying to interpret the words you misspell to make sure I understand your gibberish.

 
Where does it fly "straight", Shooter?
All the time, in seconds that it is changing directions from the predominently left bank it does most of the routeen in, to a right bank for the 1/5th or so of the demo that it goes right. Straight is a well defined term in that it is not measured in tome of distance, only vector.
So yes, the C-130 does go straight for some ten or twelve total seconds during the entire 6:08 of the entire routeen. It happens in 3-4 second streches 3-4 of them, maybe more, but for those 3-4 seconds it takes the plane to go from left or right bank to the oposite it is very deffinetly going straight for those few seconds at a time. That is when slow rolling planes get shot down.

 

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/2/2013 3:11:41 AM
Shooter try actually reading your source, the early high back MKXIVs were fine after the new tail of the prototypes, they were  a handful on the ground but all piston engined fighters of this period were.
 
the source then goes on to refer to the later cutdown rear "high visibility" models with the extra rear tankage, yes these suffered stability issues - WITH FULL REAR TANKS just like those sufferd by the P51 yet it was, you claim, a problem with the spit but fine with the P51
 
It even says in your source that this was only an issue with a full rear tank so unless whoever read it to you failed to mention it means that either you didnt understand a simple statement or ignored it to make the Spit look bad
 
Oh and it is of interest that they DID fix this issue in later spits but never in the P51, in fact the H model was forbidden to use the rear tank
 
whilst we are on this review of your understanding of your source, note that the MkXIV never carried 4x20mm it only had the 2x20mm and 4x303 in the high back and 2x20mm and 2x.5 in the lowback with rear tank
 
also please read the section on armarment its illuminating.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/2/2013 7:10:25 AM
I am confused, why would a plane in motion stop when it reaches an arbitrary point in a manoeuvre for 3 or 4 seconds?
I know that any manoeuver in a single plane will hit a defined attitude, ie if in a dive - climb it will be straight and level at some point if only for a fraction of a second, as this is near the point of maximum force applied to the airframe (not actually the maximum force as this is slightly post the apex) then it will be a dwell point, but if an aircraft takes 3-4 seconds to transit this point then there is something seriously wrong with its control surfaces.

If a plane "rests" 3-4 seconds between banks then this is due to pilot input.

But as these manoeuvers are in multiple plains then there is no guarantee that the plane will be straight and level at any point as the apex of one plain of manoeuver may not (and is likely not to ) be at the same point as the apex in the other plain

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/2/2013 7:35:42 AM
I am confused, why would a plane in motion stop when it reaches an arbitrary point in a manoeuvre for 3 or 4 seconds?
I know that any manoeuver in a single plane will hit a defined attitude, ie if in a dive - climb it will be straight and level at some point if only for a fraction of a second, as this is near the point of maximum force applied to the airframe (not actually the maximum force as this is slightly post the apex) then it will be a dwell point, but if an aircraft takes 3-4 seconds to transit this point then there is something seriously wrong with its control surfaces.

If a plane "rests" 3-4 seconds between banks then this is due to pilot input.

But as these manoeuvers are in multiple plains then there is no guarantee that the plane will be straight and level at any point as the apex of one plain of manoeuver may not (and is likely not to ) be at the same point as the apex in the other plain

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/2/2013 8:02:27 AM
This is often a point of confusion. Relaxed control when a plane flies horizon level is not 'straight' There is always variant lift and side shove forces that act on the plane. The controls that manage pitch and yaw, (elevators and rudder) must always bite or the plane enters into a natural spin. That is the necessity of constant three axis control and why a plane always must have pilot input, whether from a man or a machine to correct for the oscillations.
 
This, the problem of three axis control, and the realization that the heavier than air machine based on lift and thrust is constantly unstable, is why the Wrights understood that it was three axis control and not lift that was the secret to the airplane. It is why they are the inventors of the airplane and not this imbecile.
 
Planes do not fly straight and level. They are corrected by control forces.
 

I am confused, why would a plane in motion stop when it reaches an arbitrary point in a manoeuvre for 3 or 4 seconds?
I know that any manoeuver in a single plane will hit a defined attitude, ie if in a dive - climb it will be straight and level at some point if only for a fraction of a second, as this is near the point of maximum force applied to the airframe (not actually the maximum force as this is slightly post the apex) then it will be a dwell point, but if an aircraft takes 3-4 seconds to transit this point then there is something seriously wrong with its control surfaces.

If a plane "rests" 3-4 seconds between banks then this is due to pilot input.


But as these manoeuvers are in multiple plains then there is no guarantee that the plane will be straight and level at any point as the apex of one plain of manoeuver may not (and is likely not to ) be at the same point as the apex in the other plain


 


 








 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    Long range spit   4/2/2013 2:23:32 PM
I was having a look at what range could be squeezed from the spit and found that a US developed Long range spit MKIX had a combat range of over 800 miles using the 60 gallon wing tanks (rather than the 110 gallon units on the P47 used to get similar range)
 
Whilst it was never progressed it is interesting for a couple of reasons,
1, it shows that whilst P51D range could not be matched a long range spit not only was possible (Vickers also made a long range MkIX that didn't quite match that of the US plane and was less stable until the fuel burnt off) but actually made
 
2, and I find this intriguing, why were the US experimenting with extracting long range from a Spitfire when they had the P51D,P47 and the P38?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    Long range spit   4/2/2013 2:31:56 PM
Another question.
 
Why is it only US posters who regard long range as THE most important factor in a Fighter, looking at the "wish" list of  land based Air forces (as opposed to Carrier fighters) it would seem only the US have long(extra?) range as a major requirement, if you look at the different requirements of different countries and rate them as they did, and then average these requirements then long range actually comes out at the bottom of the wish list,
 
As this is used to judge the superiority of the P51 then I am not convinced that a requirement only highly rated by the US can be used to justify a US aircraft being the best.
 
it strikes me that it is a circular argument, the US made the best long range fighter so long range must be the deciding factor in judging the quality of a fighter   
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics