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    ??? WTF?   4/26/2013 3:38:00 PM



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    ??? WTF?   4/26/2013 3:38:12 PM



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/26/2013 3:59:11 PM
 No, it does not. See page 56, column 2, near the bottom of the page.( Spitfire, the history!)

ok lets read page 56 column 2, firstly this chapter is  MKIs (Type 300)
We can ignore the underside view as a diagram is hardly evidence of rate of roll
 
so we have the text, which begins
 
Octane fuel put the British fighters on par with Luftwaffe
and continues talking about Fuel and Propellers
 
so I call you a liar for this reference, oops did you think you were the only person to have this book? oh wait a minute if you had this book then why did you get the reference so wrong? could it be that the book didn't support your claim or haven't read it or is it worse than that and don't even have the book? 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/26/2013 5:03:07 PM
1 degree of yaw or pitch  at 1000 meters  = 6.28 meters divergence without invoking the wind.  Seems you are not only a stranger to the truth, but to mathematics as well.
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/30/2013 4:03:17 PM

No, it does not. See page 56, column 2, near the bottom of the page.( Spitfire, the history!)

ok lets read page 56 column 2, firstly this chapter is  MKIs (Type 300) 
 
We can ignore the underside view as a diagram is hardly evidence of rate of roll
 
so we have the text, which begins

Octane fuel put the British fighters on par with Luftwaffe
   
and continues talking about Fuel and Propellers
But what you leave out is that it also talks about engine longevity as it relates to power usage! 100 hours on 87 octane at 6-1/2 pounds boost, to 10 hours on 100 octane at 12 pounds boost, to 2-1/2 hours on 110 octane at 18-1/2 pounds of boost, to 15 minutes total at 25 pounds of boost on SR24 Zip fuel! I used this part to show the futility of using such large throttle openings willy-nilly as the original poster wanted. I should have been more careful how I worded my reply, but it was late at night here when I did it. In both cases, the early Spitfires were rated at 27 degrees per second rate of roll, as posted her in other threads. As far as I can see, the Spitfire book is completely devoid of any figures relating to the rate of roll of early spitfires and more importantly how rate of roll changes with increasing speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vihSJOBN1zE&feature=related
Watch this film and count the seconds as the various Spits roll 90 degrees!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    gross failure of the thought processes!   4/30/2013 4:15:53 PM
Well it seems that you are the stranger to mathematics, not I! At 1000 Meters range the circumference of the circle is Pi times 2000, or 6283.19 Meters. Divide that by 360 degrees and you get 17.453 Meters per degree. Then if the shooting plane can pull 15 degrees Angle of Attack, the resultant chord of a circle 2000 meters in diameter is 261.8 Meters range from my guns to your target plane! So it seems that you, and not I, are the butt of this joke!





Maratabc       4/26/2013 5:03:07 PM
1 degree of yaw or pitch  at 1000 meters  = 6.28 meters divergence without invoking the wind.  Seems you are not only a stranger to the truth, but to mathematics as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/30/2013 10:45:21 PM
Hmmmm. Had you bothered to check what the angle rate of turn (1 degree dispersion) was, then you would have seen what I did. But you didn't, so I leave you to figure out your error.   


Well it seems that you are the stranger to mathematics, not I! At 1000 Meters range the circumference of the circle is Pi times 2000, or 6283.19 Meters. Divide that by 360 degrees and you get 17.453 Meters per degree. Then if the shooting plane can pull 15 degrees Angle of Attack, the resultant chord of a circle 2000 meters in diameter is 261.8 Meters range from my guns to your target plane! So it seems that you, and not I, are the butt of this joke!





Maratabc       4/26/2013 5:03:07 PM
1 degree of yaw or pitch  at 1000 meters  = 6.28 meters divergence without invoking the wind.  Seems you are not only a stranger to the truth, but to mathematics as well.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       5/2/2013 3:45:14 PM

No, it does not. See page 56, column 2, near the bottom of the page.( Spitfire, the history!)
ok lets read page 56 column 2, firstly this chapter is  MKIs (Type 300)
We can ignore the underside view as a diagram is hardly evidence of rate of roll
so we have the text, which begins
Octane fuel put the British fighters on par with Luftwaffe 
and continues talking about Fuel and Propellers

But what you leave out is that it also talks about engine longevity as it relates to power usage!
for a Merlin II special! in 1938, an engine rated to 2800rpm but tested at 3000rpm in over boost conditions (hence 100hrs life span)

100 hours on 87 octane at 6-1/2 pounds boost, to 10 hours on 100 octane at 12 pounds boost, to 2-1/2 hours on 110 octane at 18-1/2 pounds of boost, to 15 minutes total at 25 pounds of boost on SR24 Zip fuel!
as pointed out that this was over boost or emergency power settings not cruise setting as you imply

 I used this part to show the futility of using such large throttle openings willy-nilly as the original poster wanted.

rubbish you thought I wouldn't check and now change the subject to another, one I might add is irrelevant as the data only applies to the merlin II which had been relegated to training squadrons by the BoB and completely obsolete by the period we were discussing (the MKV ) by whole generation (the MKII) so has as about as much relevance as the inside leg measurement of Douglas Bader

 I should have been more careful how I worded my reply, but it was late at night here when I did it. In both cases, the early Spitfires were rated at 27 degrees per second rate of roll,
The only reference to this I can find is your claim to have read it somewhere (conveniently you cannot remember where) 27/sec would equate to a 360 roll in 13 seconds are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that rubbish?

 as posted her in other threads. As far as I can see, the Spitfire book is completely devoid of any figures relating to the rate of roll of early spitfires and more importantly how rate of roll changes with increasing speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vihSJOBN1zE&feature=related
 Watch this film and count the seconds as the various Spits roll 90 degrees!

how does the rate of roll in an air display relate to its actual performance? for any plane? they are always well within its limits its a display NOT a race

also another point you keep raising, the aileron reversal on the Spit, this was proved to occur at 480mph on the MKI rising to 780mph on the MKXIV, so whilst you could hit it in a high speed dive in a MkI are you seriously claiming that a MKXIV was capable of 780mph? the speed needed to encounter aileron reversal?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       5/7/2013 8:04:28 AM
Only in the Virtical, in a turn or roll the size, weight and design led to loss of speed,
IIRC, the early Spit had a rate of roll of 27 degrees per second at 300 MPH? But I could be wrong,
Yes you are your own source book dispells that idea
No, it does not. See page 56, column 2, near the bottom of the page.( Spitfire, the history!)
 
 
Now I look I can clearly see that it was in reply to me and clearly in reference to the roll rate, so this alone proves that its as you being crafty, no wait we can go as far as saying you were lying
 
so why don't you post links to better rates of roll at speeds over 300 MPH! Even your Vaunted Mk-XIV was a dog at Rate of Roll!
Total and absolute rubbish, do you think we are stupid?
No, I think you are very crafty! But until you post a link to actual reports of Bascomdown  Spitfire Mk-I-III tests that list the actual rates of both initial and sustained rates of roll, I WILL think you are ignorant.
 
I am crafty, I find little things called FACTS that dispell your posts, how underhand of me to provided facts
Balls, a MKIX would have a P38H/J for breakfast and would easy hold its own against a P38L, A MKXIV would easy overcome a P38LJust how is that going to happen? In a head on pass, the Spit dies at over 1,000 M.
 
dream on
 
In the stern chase from cruise, the Spit takes more than twice as long to close the visual gap as the P-38 takes to do the same to the Spitfire Mk-XIV.
 
As the P38 is visiable at much greator range this is obvisouly a made up statement with no factual content
 
 So if the chance to spot is proportional to the square of the difference in time, The P-38 shoots the Spit down 3/4 ths of the time and the Spit downs the P-38 1/4 of the time.
 
nope the spit closes on the P38 whilst the P38 pilots completes his 40 page check list for changing from cruise to combat (as often happened in the real world) and shoots him down 9/10 spit victory to 1/10 P38 (especially as the P38 couldnt get away in suprised
 
Then there is the oblique attack. The P-38 is much more likely to be seen, but can open EFFECTIVE fire from five times the range as the Spitfire,
 
yet the LONGEST confirmed kill of WW2 was by a spit - kinda disproves this statement
 
 so the Spit is much less likely to survive. At longer ranges, the Spit sees the -38 coming and turns into the attack, but then it becomes a head on pass! Something the Spit is unlikely to survive!
 
supporting evidence required, as the P38 is a far bigger target and therefore far more likely to be hit
The P-38 could out roll all but the Fw-190 and Me-163 at speeds above 250 MPH
Not according to official tests Well, yes, according to the tests! Post a link to actual test reports!
Part-II; Then post links to those tests!
why? I do not see you posting sources to backup your claim that P38 could out roll a Spit and certainly if it was a pre powered control P38 then all evidence says that it was significantly slower in the roll
 
why? just why should I post sources that I spent time and effort finding and reading to counter post that you make up out of thin air?
Because you made the claim after those charts were posted on this board that prove me right!
 
Sorry but I dont EVER remember anyboddies charts proving you right in fact I dont remember anyone ever agreeing with anythjing you post, maybe you can find this illusive charts and let us see them
The Spit aileron roll reversal argument!
 
as pointed out 480mph for the MKI rising to 760mph for the MKXIV such a big issue wasnt it
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    This was supposed to be a quote???   5/8/2013 8:16:59 PM
But your post is missing. So in reply, everything you wrote is gibberish. Dispersion is measured in mills, not degrees. First of your mistakes.
Turning does not "Create" dispersion. It "Displaces" the point of impact. Second mistake.
A plane with CL guns is immune to "Dispersion" caused by turning. Early pilot manuals and texts used the word dispersion WO actually knowing what it meant. Your third mistake.
Then you fail to take into account the movement of the shooter around his turn which adds to the ability and capacity to track the moving target. Your forth mistake.
If the 300 MPH target is pulling six Gs in an effort to spoil the attack, really his only viable option at this point, He is doing two things, first slowing down by the tonne and secondly, he is tracking around a circle with a radius of ~300 Meters at about 135 M/S. His angular displacement is just less than 26 degrees per second, but only for the first second, or maybe two at most as the induced drag of the SIX G load slows him down and he can no longer pull those same SIX G load.
As the attacker, I am about 300 Meters behind at about 20 degrees angle off with an AoA of only about 8-9 degrees and my sight piper is centered on his, the target's that is, cock-pit!
When I pull the trigger it takes my first bullets about 1/3rd of a second to travel from my guns to his head. His plane will travel only about 45 meters in that time and I will have traveled around my much larger circle only 4.9 degrees, ALL the while tracking the target and closing about 52 meters, or about 7 meters less range than before. During this entire time, his cock-pit has never left the area covered by my gun-sight pipper!
Should for any reason, that stream of bullets, not impact his cock-pit, I can make instantaneous corrections to the relative position of my tracers and his head. And IF I am flying a plane with CR Props, those corrections will be free of P and Q effects that would push the fire hose like bullet stream off of the target's canopy!
So you see, your entire theorem is completely bogus!
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics