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
ambush       6/4/2013 5:12:51 PM

...the test pilot cited that the P-51 was as good as any aircraft on catapult launches, and that visibility on landing was better than the Corsair.  As long as a pilot was careful with the throttle, waveoffs were risky but not excessively so. -Senty


Senty, I know we agree that to the extent that Operation Seahorse is relevent to this thread, it only demonstrates that the Mustang could have been used as a carrier aircraft, if required. This makes the argument for the Mustang not against it.


Check Six



Nonsense you might as well have said a P-38  or P-47 "could have been. Looka the rest of the Seahorse:
The stress endured by airframes during catapult launches and arrested landings
far exceeds that of normal, land-based operations. This requires modifications
to the aircraft, notably reinforcement of its fuselage and undercarriage.
Catapulting hooks are required for catapult launches, and a tailhook is needed
to catch the arrester cable upon landing. The small size of an aircraft carrier
deck also means that a low approach speed is preferable.
The environment in which naval aircraft evolve is also a problem. High salt
and humidity levels greatly increase corrosion. Naval aircraft, just like ships,
need to be treated to retard this as much as possible. Lastly, space is a rare
commodity on an aircraft carrier, and folding wings are a very desirable feature
of any naval aircraft.
The Mustang had none of these features but, due to urgency, it was decided to
modify a Mustang and investigate its performance in carrier operations

The necesssary modifications to make it sea worthy would certainly cut into  the cost advatage of the  Mustang  just as eliminating the un-needed stuff  for a strictly shore based Corsair would lower its cost.
During the months of September and October 1944, Lt. Elder made nearly 150
simulated launches and landings with the ETF-51D. Sufficient data concerning the
Mustang's low speed handling had to be gathered before carrier trials could
begin. The Mustang's laminar-flow wing made for little drag and high speed but
was relatively inefficient at low speed, resulting in a high stall speed. As the
arrester cables could not be engaged at more than 90 mph, Elder reported that
“from the start, it was obvious to everyone that the margin between the
stall speed of the aircraft (82 mph) and the speed imposed by the arrester gear
(90 mph) was very limited.”
Bob Elder “made all carrier landings at the speed of 85 mph. Luckily, the
Mustang reacted well, even in the most delicate situations. One just had to use
the throttle wisely.” Elder reported that speed control on the ETF-51D was
excellent. He also stated that “the forward visibility was good and never
gave me any problems. In fact, fighters with radial engines such as the F4U or
F6F were worse than the P-51 in that respect.” The aircraft also behaved
well during catapult launches.

But everything was not perfect. As previously mentioned, the margin between
stall speed and maximum engagement speed was small, too small for safety. Rudder
control at low speeds and high angles of attack was inadequate. In addition,
landing attitude had to be carefully controlled to avoid damaging the airframe
upon landing.

One of the handling quirks of the Mustang was also potentially dangerous.
During a missed approach or a wave-off, power has to be re-applied gently. If
not, the aircraft could roll rapidly, or even snap-roll. At such low speed and
altitude, the result could only be fatal.


Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/4/2013 7:58:30 PM
Reading those problems, of fast landing speeds, and over the nose sight-lines of radial-engined aircraft, one wonders why naval fighters didn't use tricycle landing gear earlier than they did. tail down impact landings surely would have been safer on two main wheels than the tiny tail-wheels that the Corsair and Hellcat used. Landing gear design into the otherwise dead zone aft fuselage would have freed up wing spar space for better things, such as ammunition trays and fuel.    
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/25/2013 2:37:02 AM

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Rate of roll?   6/25/2013 2:50:16 AM

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
While the Spit is smaller, depending on the aspect of the attack, it could easily be seen from much farther away than the head on P-38.

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? 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
I posted Videos and all you had to do was count the seconds it took the plane to roll from wings level to a 90 degree bank.


Aileron reversal is not what we are discussing. It is the Mk-XIVs rate of roll at speeds in excess of 350 MPH! Either post a link to any test of same, or count the seconds in any video of said plane to find the truth of the matter.

Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/25/2013 3:06:03 AM
Don't waste our time. You  don't know what you discuss.
Au revoir. 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/25/2013 3:08:17 AM

snakey?the only snake is you, the spit was a dream to fly everyone says so Yes "Snaky" Handling! See changes in the size of the rudder over the years to try to fix that!!!

 the pilot could not point his plane accurately?
if you had flow a plane you would realise that its not that easy

 Or that the RAF's pilots were so incompetent that they could not point the plane that well? Nothing to do with the pilot! It has to do with the plane and the physics that control it's flight path through the air. I always thought that pointing the plane was on the pilot, not the plane, at least if it had CR Props! When the Pilot moves the stick, the plane rotates around one or more axes and the prop acts like a great big gyro-scope adding divergent movement to the desired input!
you haven't a clue have you? you think everything is simple and that nothing is in any way complex it shows that your mind is incapable of understanding complex issues, if its not jack and Jill you get completely lost and for your joke about CR props it would seem that you are the only person in the world that things that CR props were such an advantage in the Air, No, I am not. But why did they try CR props on the last spits built?
Not according to the flight manuals of the two aircraft
Well, yes according to the two flight manuals! To reach the range required of a 400 mile mission with reserves, the Spit-14 must fly at about 220 MPH and full Lean Mixture with a drop tank! To fly that same mission, the P-38 does not need a DT, or lean mix and can cruise at 360 MPH! So yes, the P-38 is much faster than the Spitfire, any Spitfire under real world conditions.

but WHY would you use a short range fighter at such long range?
To fly over the channel and fight the Germans over France? 
and how much longer for the P38 to ajust all its controls to change from cruise to combat - significantly longer than a Spit About 1-1/2 to 2 seconds! given that it might take several minutes to close from observation range to effective gun range, I do not think the difference is relevant.
Depends on the model of Spit. If it's one of the first few thousand, then it takes much longer for the Spit to go from economy cruise to combat cruise than the P-38! IE; Switch from LEAN to Rich mixture, adjust the VS Prop and then shove the throttle home. In the P-38 in the above example is already going 360 MPH!

Read the test report of the early Spitfire flown at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio! We thought it was not up to American standards of stability!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/25/2013 3:15:32 AM

Bullet "dispersion" Is caused by the system that launches them. IE the gun and the manufacturing tolerance of the ammo. That is 15" at 600 yards. Pointing error is measured as you say. Except that you fail to mention the major causes of same! They are natural instability of the plane, IE "Snaky handling" or some such AND by "Precession" caused by the Gyroscopic forces of the spinning prop!
Precession is far and away the single largest cause of pointing error in all WW-II fighter planes that do not have CR Props!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/25/2013 3:20:29 AM

This IS the single largest problem of fighter planes with wing mounted guns! Note that there are no post war AC with wing mounted guns because everyone knew what a problem they caused!

Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/25/2013 3:30:54 AM
F style="border:2px black solid;padding: 5px;margin: 10px;font-size: smaller;" '="">

This IS the single largest problem of fighter planes with wing mounted guns! Note that there are no post war AC with wing mounted guns because everyone knew what a problem they caused!

Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/25/2013 3:32:23 AM" height="480" width="548" alt="" />

This IS the single largest problem of fighter planes with wing mounted guns! Note that there are no post war AC with wing mounted guns because everyone knew what a problem they caused!
Quote    Reply