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       4/8/2013 9:06:02 PM

But then you would need to know how force loads work to add inertia potential to such a plane as the P-38. It affects roll.
Your explanations and excuses are foolish to me. 
Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?
Control force harmonization. But then you do not understand what that means, Shooter, for you do not fly. 
I do fly, probably more than you because I do know what "Control harmonization" means and several ways of how to adjust it.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 9:17:01 PM

Shooter said: Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?

Some pilots though the Mk I was the best handling, others thought the Mk IX or the Mk VIII was the best handling.
 
Opinions differ between pilots.
 
I wonder, what then, is your point? Nobody thinks the Mk-XIV is the best handling Spit! Nobody!
 
Changes to the Mk V included a bob weight for the elevators, to reduce sensitivity, and the introduction of metal skinned ailerons. There were also changes to the aileron hinge type and minor adjustments to the elevator shape during the production run.
 
Changes to the Mk VIIIg included repositioning of ailerons slightly inboard, the extended rudder (adopted on the Mk IX and VIII for good measure) and changes to the elevator droop.
 
Handling in an aircraft is a function of stability along all three axis. Normally
"Handling" is defined as how well it changes direction and under what conditions. Stability on the other hand is a function of how well the plane resists unexpected excursions, gust loads and how long it takes to return to stable flight after an excursion, such as getting hit by a gust of wind. So planes like the Pitts Special are great handling AND have good stability too. The early three blade prop Spits had great handling and good stability. As soon as they went to a four blade prop, the stability started to suffer and they went through many fixes before adding enought epinage to fix it mainly after the war.
There was at the time that the idea that the prop pulls the plane and was thus a force of stability. But that idea is long since disprooved. Read Danial P. Rhymer's tomes on aircraft design to get the hint about this simple fact of life. More area in front = less stability and more area in back = more stability.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 9:33:50 PM

What about stall do you understand?Post stall maneuvering is, or more exactly can be good and unintended stall is bad!
so the controlable stall of a Spit is superior to the sudden stall of a 109/190 or P51?
Yes, I would, in my ever so humble oppinion agree! But what I want is speed and if I have to trade stall charicteristics to get it, fine by me. In fact the more the better!

You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane. These are factors of the problem you mentioned, but have almost nothing to do with the problem I mentioned.
none statement! word that sound good but add nothing to the undersatnding of anything
No, they have everything to do with what we were discussing! A naturally unstable plane can be flown by mortal men, just not very many of them and certainly not well! On the other hand a naturaly stable plane can be flown by almost anyone. And experts can fly them to amaizing feats.

Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?
could be they added heavier longer more powerful engines and more equipment, but it doesnot mean that the later Spits were poor as any of them would out fly any US fighter of the time
You confuse the traits most wanted by amature pilots playing war games with real advantages sought by real combat pilots who want life and death advantages. So given the choise between two planes, one 150 MPH faster than the other that has 100% more wing loading and a turn rate like a semi tractor comp'd to a Porsche that turns on a dime? Not yes, but hell yes! I'll take the jet to the prop any time! So having setteled that argument, now all we have to do is deside on the degree of the advantage. Do I want an F-86, or an F/A-22 to dog fight your Spitfire?
You see the absurdity of that argument? Faster is better. Old fighter pilots have a saying; "Speed is life!" Nobody ever laments more turn for more burn! Which by the way does not meen what you think. Turn and you burn! Zoom and he Booms! Are the original quotes!
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 9:42:35 PM

There are other historians who think that the Spitfire lost the Battle of France because of it's short range.
Yet the Spitfire rearly few in the BoB with full tanks, so how does range become an issue when they werent even using all the available tankage? 

Because when the flew to France to mix it up with the Germans, they got shot down at rates exceeding 4 losses for every victory! So they were just bairly over 1.2/1 over England and 1/4.1 over France, that is why they needed more range! Note that even in modern times, many European AFs think a plane can be had that has considerably less range than we like to have in America. See Rafale, Grippon and proliferation of the Mig-29 family. Note that they all are forced to cary drop tanks all the time inorder to fly missions outside of their own countries. They do this because lack of range saves them huge amounts of money in all facits of it's procurement. IE, less range means less airfraim weight, less engine power to lift that weight, smaller wings and surfaces, etc...
 
And they build to what they expect the combat of the aircraft to be, and ultra long range is an exception rather than the rule
Are you familiar with the original argument about the Euro-fighter? The French wanted something easy to sell to forign customers and the Brits, Germans, Italians and the rest wanted somthing more capable. It boiled down to the French wanting a 8-9 ton plane and the Brits, et al, wanting a 9-10 ton plane. The French went their way and have not sold a one outside of France. The rest went their way and have sold them outside of their respective Nations. (And both of them have been out sold by the F-15 which was heavier and more cappable than either.)
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/8/2013 9:51:23 PM
The fact that you do not know how roll and yaw operate together (see wrong statements you made about these movements with PIO, tells me, you lie.




But then you would need to know how force loads work to add inertia potential to such a plane as the P-38. It affects roll.

Your explanations and excuses are foolish to me. 
Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?
Control force harmonization. But then you do not understand what that means, Shooter, for you do not fly. 
I do fly, probably more than you because I do know what "Control harmonization" means and several ways of how to adjust it.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 9:56:04 PM

    but early US fighters didnt have significantly more range than european ones,
Well this is not quite true. The P-40 had a 700 mile range at 75% throttle. The Spit and Me had ranges under/around 400 miles, but at only 50-55% throttle with lean mixtrue.  Under the American conditions above, they had ranges under 200 miles, so there were very large differances between them.
  The example Bergerud uses is a USAAF pilot flying a Spitfire across the US.  He simply was amazed at how many times the Spitfire had to land and refuel, it had such short legs.
yet it had neither. I still say that long range came because the US relised that its bombing campaign needed them not for any other reason
  Then you are wrong!
    I have made my point, I agree that it was a US rerquirement and as such does make US planes more suitable for US deployment, however the point was why does a US centric requirement make the fighters the best?
Because the conditions under which those numbers are logged creates large differances in the true performance of the two very different planes! That 700 mile range of the P-40 meant that it could fly long distances fast, while IF the other two HAD to do that, they were stuck at 185-210 MPH for the same range at which the P-40 could fly at over 300 MPH the entire time! Now which plane would you rather be flying on a 400 mile combat mission over shark infested waters of the south pacific? A plane that could fly the 200 miles each way at over 300 MPH and have reserves left for FULL THROTTLE combat, or one where you had to nurse it along at 190 MPH low and slow at LEAN mixture the entire time, or swim home with no reserves for combat at all? RIGHT! Because those are the real choises!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 10:12:19 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
The original report, if it is the one I think it is, is most interesting! Read the whole thing! You will be surprised!
The original report! I bet you have never seen, it says that with minimum changes Adding bladder tanks to the wing instead of the .303 ammo boxes is certainly a small change! a combat range of 800 miles could be achieved (this comapirs tio the P47 of the time which also had a combat range of 800 miles WO drop tanks! but needed the 110 gallon wing drop tanks and a 200 gallon belly tank To go nearly 2,000 miles! as opposed to the 65 gallon wing tanks that was being used on the Spit, they considered using the 110 gallon tanks but this would have required wing strengthening as the wing was not designed to take that point loading, What, are you claiming that the Spit's wing was not strong enough to cary a 400 pound load at one G? with  additional internal bracing the 110 could have been carried  But it did not need the internal bracing to tote 500-1000 pound bombs on the later planes WO any changes to the wing structure! but that would vickers to change the production lines someting that they were against.
The Spit was stressed fo +6.5-3.5 G IIRC! That is the wing was able to support the entire weight of the several thousand pound fuse times 6.5 and it could not hold up a 690 pound drop tank on each wing? Right! 


but basically the Spit with a bit of effortr could have matched the range of a P51, Not with a major effort and a new Laminar flow wing! The last Spits never equaled the Mustang's range, ever! whilst its handling would have suffered with full fuel it was no worse than the same problems the P51 suffered with full fuel,
This last is certainly true, they were all dogs loaded!
   
The major changes that Wight Field identified wereNow they are Major changes, when you wrote above "minimum changes" see the highlighted line above!
1, undercarridge - this needed revision as the extra weight of the fuel fully compressed the struts
2, wing - the mounting points on the wing for the drop tanks needed beefing up as they had not been designed for the larger drop tanks
3, the P51 bomb racks used caused the drop tanks to release unevenly (this had been noted on the original P51 but small modification to the installation cured the issue, it was expected similar modifications would also cure on tyhe Spit)
4, The internal fuel system was barely able to cope with the larger drop tanks

 


The P-51 had three things going for it when it came to range, that also helped other areas too.
1. Laminar flow wing. The last few dozen Spit got this too!
2. Divergent/convergent radiator duct and much larger radiator meant less installed cooling drag. This is the biggy as it was never addressed or equalled in any Spitfire, ever!
3. More volume in which to cary more stuff in a stronger structure!

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 10:18:12 PM

In yellow.
 
(1)Note the concept, mechanical feedback loop. 
 
Others have said this, but I will add.
 
(2) As fuel burns off or weight is jettisoned, if the plane has no trim or weight correction it will pitch in the direction of the load shift, which means nose up or down until it eventually stalls and falls. Or in alternate condition,  it will roll out of control and nose (yaw) over into an eventual stall and fall if control force limits are exceeded. It does not fly 'straight'... ever.
 But what if the fuel is all carried at or very near the desired CoG location and any shift in CoG is minor? No correction required at all.
(3) Trim controls had to be adjusted throughout the flight.  As it applied to that plane!
 (1) Some planes can fly for hours with out the pilot touching the controls at all!  This is only true if all forces are equalised, but it is never the case, any plane will climb as fuel is used, True, but might not require trim to alter the flight path, IF you do not mind the increase in altitude! also a gust will change the flight of an aircraft, whilst it may stabilise after the gust it will do so ON A DIFFERENT coursePossably! Possibly not!

Planes do not fly straight and level. They are corrected by control forces.
(2) SOME planes clearly do fligh straight and level WO pilot imput! At least as long as the fuel holds out.  
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/8/2013 10:22:23 PM

The fact that you do not know how roll and yaw operate together (see wrong statements you made about these movements with PIO, tells me, you lie.
Without posting a copy of any statement that I made that can be shown to be a lie, simply stating same does not make it true! Because I never made any statement linking roll and yaw, you have to be mistaked about the above! So post a link to my misstatements or pass on to some other canard!
 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       4/8/2013 11:25:52 PM
The P-40 had a 700 mile range at 75% throttle. The Spit and Me had ranges under/around 400 miles, but at only 50-55% throttle with lean mixtrue.  Under the American conditions above, they had ranges under 200 miles, so there were very large differances between them.
 
Not quite. With no external fuel:
 
P-40B range at 75% was 620 miles,
P-40C range at 75% was 590 miles,
P-40E range at 75% was 605 miles
P-40F range at 75% was 540 miles
 
Generally, 75% power meant a cruise speed of 290 mph to 305 mph for a P-40. Range cruise speeds for the P-40 were 205-210 mph.
 
Spitfires had ranges from 329 miles (Mk XII) to 740 miles (Mk VIII) at still air crusing speeds, generally 220-230 mph. 109s had ranges from 560 km (350 miles) to 1050 km (650 miles), at speeds carying from 380 kph (210 mph) for ultra long range cruise, to a more regular 255 mph for the later versions.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics