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       3/29/2013 9:33:34 PM

What has any of that to do with British military methods?
Because from the last ~200 years explosives and all other forms of ordinance, ammunition, etc, has always been measured in Short tons. It was a cary over since then and not changed until 1985!
 
Where did Britain measure raw explosive fill with American weight and measure, after they filled their own projectiles and shells with chemical purchases made from all over the world? 
Never, that I know of. It is the continuation of past practices in that all ammunition, explosives, bombs, etc were weighed in short tons. It's just history! That's all, just history.
What has CIVILIAN sales to the American commercial market to do with British ordnance measure and methods?
Like ALL Military organizms, they are controlled by the cost of everything, even in Russia and Red China, the cost of everything is it's finnal arbiter of whether it is procurred or not. Competition from civilian enterprize drives military spending! Read the article on Chinese Spying in the list below, to see the truth of this. They will not buy Royal Gun Powder at twice the price as that made by civilians. Did you know that durring the Napolianic Wars the Royal Navy would not issue enough gun powder to practice their gun crews to the highest standard and that rich Captains would buy it them selves to make their crews better? I am not joking! Serriously! I know I am going to take more crap for this than all the rest combined! But check on your self before you skewer me.
 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 9:40:47 PM

Your claims about comparisons were founded on lies. Then you used my numbers to support those lies. I told you exactly where you lied and yet you continued to lie. This is your moral defect, not mine. Now unless you include 15th air force heavy bomber numbers, you are a liar. Unless you include ALL 8th air force numbers you are a liar.
That is the case. I did include ALL those numbers (79,000+).    
So, you want to compare killed, IE 55,000 RAF-BC HEAVY BOMBER crews, to the 8th AF Killed, captured, wounded and all the rest, including those from fighter planes, light and Medium Bombers, IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF aMERICAN hEAVY bOMBER cREWS? And you want to add in those of the American 15th AF operating out of Italy? How is the 15th AF equivilant to the RAF-BC operating out of England as was the 8th AF?
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 9:53:26 PM

ONLY to the US from the late 1890 Sweden was metric and sold in metric tons before that they used the      skeppspund          , however all countries tend to BUY in their own measurements but you seem to think you know otherwise yet as usual provide no proof    
This is not true! They buy whatever container/packaging the stuff comes in! Dynamite to this very day comes in standard paper cartridges which are, IIRC, 2" by 15" and weigh/Mass 2 pounds!
you do realise that us lb is the same as a Uk lb? its just the number in a ton that changes
 
While it is sold in Kilograms, the cartridge still masses 907 grams of explosive! You just get more of them if you buy a metric tonne!
so they will buy a metric ton and DuPont will send the right number
 They still fit in the same bore holes and wooden boxes as they did 200 years ago!
neat trick considering it was only invented in 1867
You see it was marketing and packaging that set the size and weight of the containers.
 
It all goes back to this in 1802! E. I. DuPont was the largest maker of explosives in the world until 1890, or so. They set the trends that continue to this very day!
Note that the smaller cartridges sold to civilians are still to this day are half a TROY pound, or 187 grams! This was done to be able to advertise a "Half pound" legaly in America WO comming afoul of the CONSUMER PROTECTION laws! It was Marketing that drove that choise, not packaging or consideration of how much it weighted/massed in metric numbers! 
See the I. E. Du Pont Du Namoures Historical web site at; http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/index.html" target="_blank">http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/index.html"
 
Interesting but totally irrelevant as commercial dynamite is not the explosive discussed
No, as I stated many times before it was the practice started back in the early 1800s! 
and as the wiki entry for TNT actually only mentions grams not ounces, a metric unit of measurement


As to the picture of a 2-1/2 Kilogram wrapper, several questions come to mind;
1. Was that Pkg sold in the UK? I doubt it!
2. Was it net or Gross weight?
3. Do you think that they would target their products to the market, or are then completely blind to location? IE, did they sell that Pkg in America and the British Empire that used Impirial units?
4. So that seems to be totally irrealivant to the past history?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 10:31:15 PM
You are foolish if you think I will accept your lies as the definition of MY argument. I have stated my case. It is up to you to prove yours. Do not think that I will debate you on the basis of your lies at all.
 
Your interpretation of what I said is wrong.
 




Your claims about comparisons were founded on lies. Then you used my numbers to support those lies. I told you exactly where you lied and yet you continued to lie. This is your moral defect, not mine. Now unless you include 15th air force heavy bomber numbers, you are a liar. Unless you include ALL 8th air force numbers you are a liar.

That is the case. I did include ALL those numbers (79,000+).    



So, you want to compare killed, IE 55,000 RAF-BC HEAVY BOMBER crews, to the 8th AF Killed, captured, wounded and all the rest, including those from fighter planes, light and Medium Bombers, IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF aMERICAN hEAVY bOMBER cREWS? And you want to add in those of the American 15th AF operating out of Italy? How is the 15th AF equivilant to the RAF-BC operating out of England as was the 8th AF?

 





 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 10:41:08 PM
You are still a deceiver in that you try to move off argument. You tried to argue that the British bombing survey used SHORT tons when the BBS clearly was written using LONG tons. A pound in that measure is still 16 ounces as others stated, but 2240 lbs. is not 2000 lbs.
 
The attempt you make is not relevant to your error. Stick to that error. Prove that the British measured their total dropped tonnage in short tons. Here is a hint. Find the common weight drop equivalent from an authentic source in American and British tonnage dropped as stated in the SI standard. Then you will either prove or disprove your case. Otherwise this red herring you  employ confirms exactly again, what your attempted in your deception about casualties and missions -just a clumsy way to evade the truth that you were wrong, yet again.  
 



ONLY to the US from the late 1890 Sweden was metric and sold in metric tons before that they used the      skeppspund          , however all countries tend to BUY in their own measurements but you seem to think you know otherwise yet as usual provide no proof    
This is not true! They buy whatever container/packaging the stuff comes in! Dynamite to this very day comes in standard paper cartridges which are, IIRC, 2" by 15" and weigh/Mass 2 pounds!
you do realise that us lb is the same as a Uk lb? its just the number in a ton that changes
 
While it is sold in Kilograms, the cartridge still masses 907 grams of explosive! You just get more of them if you buy a metric tonne!
so they will buy a metric ton and DuPont will send the right number
 They still fit in the same bore holes and wooden boxes as they did 200 years ago!
neat trick considering it was only invented in 1867
You see it was marketing and packaging that set the size and weight of the containers.
 
It all goes back to this in 1802! E. I. DuPont was the largest maker of explosives in the world until 1890, or so. They set the trends that continue to this very day!
Note that the smaller cartridges sold to civilians are still to this day are half a TROY pound, or 187 grams! This was done to be able to advertise a "Half pound" legaly in America WO comming afoul of the CONSUMER PROTECTION laws! It was Marketing that drove that choise, not packaging or consideration of how much it weighted/massed in metric numbers! 
 
Interesting but totally irrelevant as commercial dynamite is not the explosive discussed
No, as I stated many times before it was the practice started back in the early 1800s! 
and as the wiki entry for TNT actually only mentions grams not ounces, a metric unit of measurement






As to the picture of a 2-1/2 Kilogram wrapper, several questions come to mind;
1. Was that Pkg sold in the UK? I doubt it!


2. Was it net or Gross weight?

3. Do you think that they would target their products to the market, or are then completely blind to location? IE, did they sell that Pkg in America and the British Empire that used Impirial units?

4. So that seems to be totally irrealivant to the past history?

 

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 7:51:56 PM

8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"!
Yeah "lastly" is correct....this is about the last quality of a fighter.  You can fight in the vertical, as well as the horizontal...plus, the turn rate needs to be qualified as to speed and altitude....the supposedly nimble A6M was not so nimble above 200 Kt.'s.
But it would still turn inside of all other fighters, in spite of a deffinately less nimble quality! Even at speeds much over 200 knots!
I do not whan to site examples of other less "Nimble" planes that can turn quite well, that when flown by a pilot with modern ACM skills can not save his butt from many much less cappable planes also flown by pilots with modern ACM skills!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 8:08:50 PM

How about defensive systems like self sealing fuel tanks and armor? Great and we should, at that point in time stipulate that those items are required, not optional. Since the main sensor is the MK I eyeball how about points for visibility? Absolutely! Observability is also very important as a component of it's offencive ability! What about the aircraft's general accident and reliability ratings? I agree! We should consider all of these things too! This aside how are the 8 qualities listed weighted? I'd suggest aircraft range is generally under appreciated in importance. In my original post I did not list my prefferances because I wanted this topic to be a starting point for discussion! How would you rate the 8 original factors, plus size and reliability as Percentages of a 100% total. IE 10% of the total is that and 20% is the other, etc. So the fastest cruising plane would earn 100% of the 10% availible in that catagory? How does that sound?

 
Moreover, is only air to air ability to be considered and if so why not say best air to air fighter?  That aside under the metrics listed how does the F-4F rate against the A-6M and do the metrics explain how the Wildcat was able to hold it's own?  Same question for how the 1941/42 FW190's owned the skies vs the Spitfire (specifically the Spit V).
I think we have reached the point where A2G has to be included to be a Great, or best fighter!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 8:18:54 PM


The best fighter is the one that is available in sufficient numbers at a given time which, all other things such as pilot quality, relative numerical strength, fuel supplies, leadership etc being equal, has the characteristics necessary to gain air superiority over the enemy.A fine generalisation that has little meaning! What are those traits and characteristics? There is no set technical formula of prioritised traits that achieves this, That is exactly what I was trying to do! Form a consencus of oppinions as to which of those "Characteristics" are more important than others. just combinations of desirable traits. Combinations of traits that allow the fighter to fight and win over all the missions and situations, expected or unexpected, that can be reasonably expected of the fighter are what it make it the best.
See above!
Remember also that 80% of air to air kills involve complete surprise, and a fighter doesn't need to be "great" in order to achieve kills like that. It is the other 20% of kills where things don't go ideally that sort the great fighters out from the good and not so good ones. I think we would have a hard time finding an ace who achieved all of his kills without ever having to fight (yes, dogfight) his way out of a hairy situation when things went wrong. If he was in an aircraft that couldn't do that, well, he wouldn't have achieved the score that he actually did, would he.
What if he had the ability to escape those harry Situations WO Dog fighting?
 
 

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 8:35:45 PM

Shooter, if you want to prioritise a few characteristics then how about starting with visual signature and rate of climb. Seeing the enemy first in a fast climbing aircraft would give a WW2 pilot the opportunity to climb above him and attack from an advantageous position, preferably out of the sun. Get the height on your opponent and attack him by surprise and you only need to be able to dive as fast as he can cruise.

I like visual signature as a 9Th item on the list, not necessarily in that spot. Sustained Climb is a by-product of weight, power, wing efficiency and wing loading. It is deffinately subservient to speed which is in at least one aspect, diametrically opposed to the ability to climb! That consideration is wing loading. Since for two planes with equal power to weight, the one with the higher wing loading will be the faster. It will also be the slower at climb! Thus, sustained climb MUST be subservient to speed!
 

As for the Northern European “Turkey Shoot” of late 41 through to mid 42, that was all to do with theFw-190 being the best fighter in the World at the time and being able to outclass the
Spitfire Mk-V. Then how can you explain that Me-109s made the larger portion of the Victory claims, instead of the Fw-190? The best the Americans would have had to offer in any numbers during that period was the P-40 .... just saying. I would bet that the P-40 would have done a better job than the Spitfire because it could fly across the channel and make a 200 mile patrol at speeds the Spitfire could not match, and then return to base with gas in reserve.


As for Hartmann, he was the best ace ever and therefore an atypical example. Irrelevant to the discussion.

What about the other 106 Germans with over 100 Victories? Are they "atypical" too? If we are to use "Typical" considerations of what makes a fighter plane great, how do we explain that the Me-109 was the preffered weapon of the vast majority of those 107 pilots who did so much more than their pears, even on a month to month bassis. IE, the first three/six, or twelve months of their career Vs those same periods of Western Pilots!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 9:04:55 PM

Actually according to Spick not only was Hartman not the best, he wasnt even the best German Ace, he just encounted more target per sortee and flew more sorties than the rest, if you compare kills per contact hartman is only the 73 best german ace (and a number of british canadian, austrailian and american aces feature a lot higher) OK, I buy all of this, if it's true and I think it probably is. But, just for my own nowledge, where did you get those stats?
Shooter has a tendancy to fit facts to his vision of the world and ignore anything that does fit his world. No, in fact it is the exact oposite! I fit my idea to the facts first and formost!
A pure boom a zoom fighter will only be succssfull if you can control the fight, if you cant then you end up with a just a target somthing that once started will only get worse. Not true! A pure zoom and boom fighter will have those advantages, speed and pointability, that make it a very much more proliffic surprize killer and those same advantages also make escape from the dog fight much easier! So it is much more sucessful in those 80-93% of the fights that are surprise kills and very much more sucessful in escaping from those times when the sneak attack fails!
a few points, first cl guns suffer though loss of rof (especially the .5 browning) unless you have a pusher or a twin (which both have its own problem) While it is true that the original M2HB .50 Caliber gun did suffer from a larger than normal loss of rate of fire when mounted behind the prop, that defect was largely cured in later versions of the basic gun in the M2 short barreled version of the gun. But when compaired to the Soviet guns of similar caliber and power, they are distinctly third best when shooting through the prop disk!But as a seperate point, what would you think of a plane with the airfraim of the P-51H with russian guns, say two .50s and two 23 MMs, in the nose under the cowl and with the Griffon 85 CR Prop engine, all suitably ballenced with trycycle gear? persistance - one of his all time favorites, is a complete red herring, more range than you need is pointless, Not true! fuel is weight which is bad, True! the best fighter will only carry enough to do its job, No, the best fighter will not be hamstrung in those situations where it needs more fuel to RTB, or ammo to make the kill! the mustang in RAF service only had a fraction of the range of the USAAF operated aircraft as the RAF had no need of the extream range.  rate of roll, nice but not hugely important the MKIX spit could be out rolled by the 190 but that did not give the 190 significant advantage Yes, as a mater of fact the Germans thought it was an important and significant advantage over the Spit. as the climb and dive did over the mkV with the cliped wings (the MkIX didnt get the clipped wings which it would have done if it had been such a deal breaker).  cl guns whilst nice to were less important than exploding cannons, which if cl mounted were the best but even wing cannons were superior to mg on the centerline, I would dispute this, IF the MGs had the ability to shoot through the planes armor at longer range to kill the pilot. I state this because of the simple fact that HMGs have higher rates of fire than cannon and thus give you more chances to have that "Golden BB" effect of the "Critical hit"! and secondly the longest range confirmed kill in WW2 was by a MkV spit with 20mm wing mounted cannons As a counter point what was the "Average" range of Spitfire Victories? All the sorces I've seen list between 180 and 220 YARDs!


 
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