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: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
45-Shooter       1/25/2013 8:24:49 PM

Do you have any time in any real aircraft? Have you ever had a ride in one? Maybe even a real fighter plane? Ever actually TALKED to real fighter pilots like Mr. Spick? WO banging my own pot, I used to work for them, hang out with them, play cards with them, ridden with them, etc...
So YOU say and we are supposed to take your word for it? no way you have ZERO credibility, your claims have NEVER been proved and whenever questioned have been shown to be dubious if not outright wrong
and from my point of view, he is one of the best around. Others like Bill Gunston, Boyd and Gordon all have their ideas, some of which are at odds with Mr. Spick and each other. But one thing is absolutely certain, at least to me. I'll take ALL of their words with MUCH more weight than ANY of yours.
PS. Most fighter tactics can be reduced to "Flash Card" sized ideas!
yet Mike Spick is one of YOUR FAVORITE sources, no you are saying he is wrong, make up your mind!
Exactly where di I state that Mike Spick was wrong? You just made the claim that I stated something that I never did! What does that make you?

ok get them to come on and verify you because you are failing to do so so far, and are contradicting your own sources
 
Now that you have skipped the question TWICE, why not answer it and list your Creds?

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Yes I can.    1/27/2013 8:13:03 PM
Three most important maneuvers in fighter gun combat.
 
You can pull that CRAP from Fighter Combat Tactics by Robert Shaw 
 
But so can any !@#$%^&*()! worthless googler.
 
But more important I know missile tactics; and why those are NOT gun tactics, Shooter.
 
Might want to talk to a pro about that one, before you come back here with another bull-manure answer. 
 
That is something you CAN'T google.
 
B
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/28/2013 2:58:26 AM
 list your Creds?
 
Why? as nothing I have posted relates to my pesonnel expriance wt difference does it make? You however are posting that you have relavent personnel experiance and are posting that of evidence of your agument, that alone makes it realavent to question said experiance and ask for validating evidence.
 
You cannot rely on "personnel expriance" and then complian when that is questioned you introduced it, it CAN howver be seen that your personnel experiance has been seriously questioned may times and  you have yet to convince a single poster of them being genuine.
 
I could claim to be anything on here and providing the same level of proof you do (none) use that to support my posts , however I do not I question and support my posts with evidence (and admit when I am mistaken) to do anyting else would be dishonest
 
so basically either provide evidence you have done what you claim or STOP using it as supporting evidence to you rubbish because you have NO credibility on here or any other site you have posted on.
 
ps
if you introduce your credibility into a post do not complian when you get it attacked
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/28/2013 3:42:19 AM


 non of the above are "stalling" This is all true and I failed to think of them since none of these things were related to what we were discussing.

so you failed to consider othe cuases of a car stopping on the grid and assumed that they all stopped becuse of the reason you stated! wo what wonderful analysis
 

the only times i remember the antistall  is when a driver spins. They have anti stall because if they did not a very large percentage would kill the engine on the grid!

wrong, so wrong, very few cars drop into anti stall on the grid, and to think so shows you have no understanding of F1

  
Wrong, antistall is the LAST thing a driver wants on the grid, antistall was introduced to stop cars being stranded on the circuit
 IF this were true, why is it that most stalled engine happen on the starting grid?

err, because they dont? cars failing to get away is always due to mechanical/electrical failure, not stalling,


  What part of  "BEFORE the RPMs get near the red line!" do you not understand?

what part of ""Doesnt happen" do you not understand?

Iif an engine has so little power low down then why did they ALL have traction control until it was banned? Because they make so much power so quickly that it is very dificult to modulate the power delivery!

but what power delivery, you say there is no power low down!

partially right, but mainly beacuse it allowed the driver to floor it and not worry about spinning up the tyres, usually out of slow corers when the revs are low(oh low revs !!) It is not possible for an F-1 car to spin it's huge semi-slick tires at low RPMs!

you are showing your lack of F1 knowledge again, firstly F1 cars use slick tyres not semi slick (which I presume you mean the groved tyres that were done away with years ago)  secondly one of tha main concern of modern day F1 drivers is to avoid wheelspin as it damages the tyres, have a look at last seaon and watch a  car hat has spun off and how easy it spins its wheels to spin it self back facing the right direction

  "Traction Control" is used because the tiny, ultra-high RPM engines make both reves and power so quickly that no driver could control it!

yet they banned it must man that no driver finishes  an F1 race then

Yet these have been shown to be lies before as you claimed a lot of things but could never provide proof, your war record was doubted when you couldnt even describe the base to aledgedly seved at
 
On here you claimed that you did service, when it was questioned you failed to correctly identify parts of the based you served at, the OP (who did prove his service) disbelieved you and so do I.

you also claim to have raced cars and have never provided evidence and in fact claimed to have raced yet documents from the period fail to show you in the event!
 
from what we know of you probably hind under the bed and deam of driving a car
One more slander/ad hominum attack, instead of answering the question.

only Ad hominem because you introduce your own experiance into the argument and therefore into the responce, if you do not want your dubious reputation brought up then stop using your supposed "history" in your posts

you havent the credibility to post your personnel experiance and expect it to be believed

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    I get the connection...   1/28/2013 9:04:18 AM
between auto-racing engines, and 1930s era aero-engines because those modern auto-racing engines are the closest analog we have to the era's liquid-cooled aero-engines, but I do have a question and an observation: with the PTO requirement so fundamentally mechanically different and the aspiration requirements likewise, what in HADES name has F1 racing tactics and rules with regard to engines to do with aircraft? 
 
Mind you I am NOT an expert on F1 racing. I scarcely understand the craziness that is NASCAR. 
 
So, please explain?
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/28/2013 9:40:35 AM
The orginial point was that the example Shooter used (that of a conventional standard car engine) was invalid and a better comparison would be a F1 engine but then he started with incorrect statements about that and so on and so on (keep going till you reach old age or your fingers drop off)
 
it irratates me when he passes his opinion or assumption off as factual 9especially when it would only take 30 seconds to look it up)
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 4:15:32 PM




Three most important maneuvers in fighter gun combat.

 

You can pull that CRAP from Fighter Combat Tactics by Robert Shaw 

 

But so can any !@#$%^&*()! worthless googler.

 

But more important I know missile tactics; and why those are NOT gun tactics, Shooter.

 

Might want to talk to a pro about that one, before you come back here with another bull-manure answer. 

 

That is something you CAN'T google.

 

B

 

I was just asking if you knew the three most important deffense Vs guns tactics of WW-II or not?
Well do you?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 4:17:38 PM



 list your Creds?

 

Why? as nothing I have posted relates to my pesonnel expriance wt difference does it make? You however are posting that you have relavent personnel experiance and are posting that of evidence of your agument, that alone makes it realavent to question said experiance and ask for validating evidence.

 

You cannot rely on "personnel expriance" and then complian when that is questioned you introduced it, it CAN howver be seen that your personnel experiance has been seriously questioned may times and  you have yet to convince a single poster of them being genuine.

 

I could claim to be anything on here and providing the same level of proof you do (none) use that to support my posts , however I do not I question and support my posts with evidence (and admit when I am mistaken) to do anyting else would be dishonest

 

so basically either provide evidence you have done what you claim or STOP using it as supporting evidence to you rubbish because you have NO credibility on here or any other site you have posted on.

 

ps

if you introduce your credibility into a post do not complian when you get it attacked

 

Who is this addressed to?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 5:14:23 PM

What part of  "BEFORE the RPMs get near the red line!" do you not understand?

what part of ""Doesnt happen" do you not understand?


Iif an engine has so little power low down then why did they ALL have traction control until it was banned? Because they make so much power so quickly that it is very dificult to modulate the power delivery!

but what power delivery, you say there is no power low down!
I was not talking about power down low, they do not have any, so why bother with traction control. I refer to mid-high to high RPM Bands, where they do have the power to spin the tires.

partially right, but mainly beacuse it allowed the driver to floor it and not worry about spinning up the tyres, usually out of slow corers when the revs are low(oh low revs !!) It is not possible for an F-1 car to spin it's huge semi-slick tires at low RPMs!

you are showing your lack of F1 knowledge again, firstly F1 cars use slick tyres not semi slick (which I presume you mean the groved tyres that were done away with years ago)  secondly one of tha main concern of modern day F1 drivers is to avoid wheelspin as it damages the tyres, have a look at last seaon and watch a  car hat has spun off and how easy it spins its wheels to spin it self back facing the right direction
And this changes my point how? The cars spin the tires at higher revs if the driver is not careful.

"Traction Control" was used because the tiny, ultra-high RPM engines make both reves and power so quickly that no driver could control it!

yet they banned it must man (Meen) that no driver finishes an F1 race then
What?


Yet these have been shown to be lies before as you claimed a lot of things but could never provide proof, your war record was doubted when you couldnt even describe the base to aledgedly seved at
 
On here you claimed that you did service, when it was questioned you failed to correctly identify parts of the based you served at, the OP (who did prove his service) disbelieved you and so do I.

Please link to same.
you also claim to have raced cars and have never provided evidence and in fact claimed to have raced yet documents from the period fail to show you in the event!
Please link to same.
Did you search the Record of "The Battlefield Sportscar Club in 1971? Just curious.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 5:32:47 PM

The orginial point was that the example Shooter used (that of a conventional standard car engine) was invalid and a better comparison would be a F1 engine but then he started with incorrect statements about that and so on and so on (keep going till you reach old age or your fingers drop off)
 
it irratates me when he passes his opinion or assumption off as factual 9especially when it would only take 30 seconds to look it up)

It would be nice if you would explain why a modern car engine is not equivilant to an antique aircraft engine?
Just a few points to concider;
1. My Dodge Intrepid 3.5 has 252 HP from a V-6 with 96 MM bore. That is 0.580 HP/Cm^2 and 3518 CCM.
2. A common inline engine of the time that was expected to last over 400 hours in a comertial plane made 685 HP in the Last Kestral-V from 12 127 MM Bores for 0.451 HP/CM^2 and 21,240 CCM.
3. Given that may of these old Dodges are still running with many more than 100,000 miles on them, some with very hard use paterns like my two with 126,000 and 185,000 makes my point! PS. The SFC of that engine at full chat is 0.326.
Can you name any aero-engine from WW-II that would last 2-3,000 hours WO over haul and still make that kind of power and SFC?

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics