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       6/25/2013 3:32:48 AM

Not at all. They start as far as ~7-11' out on the wing and then are pointed in and up so that at 200 yards all eight, six, or four guns converge on the point of aim! After they reach the point of aim, the bullet streams continue across it and up for another 200 yards or so, depending on caliber. At this point they are now about 7-11' from the point of aim in the horizontal plane and about 2' high. By 600 yards they are 14-22' wide and about 3' low. At 800 yards the bullet stream is now about 21-33' wide and lower than before. Buy the time when the bullet streams get to 1000 yards range, they are 28-44' wide of the mark depending on which of the eight/six, or four guns we are talking about! At 1000 yards range, all of the P-38's bullets from all of the guns are well centered just under the aiming point, about 2-3' low. Because of dispersion, some of the bullets will start to hit before the shooter pulls back on the stick to correct the tracer flow on to the target! This is called "Dragging the tracers across the target" and when the shooter does this, the full weight of fire destroys the fragile Spit, or any other single engine plane but the P-47 in less than a second.         yet this doesn't happen in real life, as there is more factors effecting the stream, go back to your youtube and watch the streams you will notice that they don't form nice easy patterns they move all over the place Lordy-yes! Part of that movement is the P effect and part is the turbulence caused by high angle of attack maneuvers. the longer the distance the more the dispersion, TRUE! but no I get you cant understand this as your limited mind can only deal with simple ideas, that things are more complex than a line on a piece of paper seemsNot at all! The lines on the paper are the centers of vary narrow angle cones of fire. For the >50 Caliber Browning and it's war time ammo, this "Dispersion" was 15" at 600 yards. That converts to about 37" at 1200 yards. Because the nose mounting for the guns was very ridged in the P-38 The maximum dispersion of all of the bullets should still be inside of the outside dimensions of the typical single seater fuselage at 1200 yards range.
     to be beyond your comprehension But on planes with wing mounted guns, "Divergence" causes the bullet streams to miss by huge distances compared to the measly 37" above!
oh and 2x20mm and 2x.5 will make a real mess of a P38 too (assuming its not a 4x20mm equipped spit)
 At 1000 yards, the only way a Spitfire can get a single hit is to aim 30-40' away from the target such that the divergence built into the weapon system will allow half of the bullets, from one wing or the other, but certainly not both, to have the slightest chance to hit!
 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/25/2013 3:44:38 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!

Thank you for making my point! The Su-27's single gun in mounted in the LEX right next to the fuselage. Not out in the wing like a WW-II prop fighter plane! Because it is mounted so close to the CL of the plane, the gun's dispersion covers the sight reticule at all ranges in which they may want to use the gun. The same can be said for the wing root mounting of the Gatling gun in the F-15/16. just because it is in the wing root, does not make it wing mounted as in many WW-II planes! In ALL cases there is NO DIVERGENCE from the LOS through the gun-sight!
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/25/2013 4:16:53 AM
You don't read very well do you?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/25/2013 8:19:25 AM
Note there is NO post in which shooter is ever correct
 
no post war aircraft that had wing guns eh?
 
what about the Meteor NF? or the Douglas Skyraider?
 
and as jets were moving to thin wings it was impossible to fit bulky cannon
 
nose guns are superior especially in a jet or any aircraft that hasnt got a prop in the way, the argument is that wing guns are so bad,
 
If they were answer me this, why did the USAF remove nose guns from both the P40 and P51 and why did the the USN  not require thier fighters to have them?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/25/2013 8:28:22 AM
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.

WHAT???   how does a smaller aircraft be easier to see than a larger one?

 
The P-38 could out roll all but the Fw-190 and Me-163 at speeds above 250 MPH

not according to actual reports, the P38 with POWERED controls only outrolled the Spit MkXIV at speeds above 400mph not the 250mph you quote
 
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!
 
No you prove me wrong, I have proved you wrong so many times and you never accept the proof so its in your court its your claim so YOU prove, oh wait a minte youcant can youm its your usual smoke and mirrors, you post a facilious claim than demand everyone provides proof that its wrong - I have stopped playing this idiot game and now require you to substainiate your claim before I bother providing sources - its in your court prove your statement or it gets treated as fiction
 

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.

you posted videos of warbirds 40 years + after the war and you use this to back your claim, if this isnt a joke then surely you are
 

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.
I can post a link of a P38 stationary on the ground and look its roll rate is terrible, I had got to 5 minutes and it had not even got to 90 degrees just how rubbish is that.....
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/25/2013 8:52:52 AM
Yes"Snaky" Handling! See changes in the size of the rudder over the years to try to fix that!!!
  
No they increased the size of the rudder to compensate for the BIGGER engines they kept installing yes the fitting of these engines caused some twitchyness but no production version other than those fitted with rong reange rear tanks were considered snaky (and before you crow be aware that the spit suffered far less from this than did the P51 and that was regarded as safe)

 the pilot could not point his plane accurately?
if you had flow a plane you would realise that its not that easy
yet you claim to be able to hit a frontal aspect target at 1000yrds? make up your mind Gunny Hancock needed a telescopic sight on a 50 cal to hit a mansize target at 1000yrd and yet you reckon you can hit a moving target not much bigger from a moving plane using a reflector sight!
 
  No, I am not. But why did they try CR props on the last spits built?
 
they tried CR props as it, in theory, transmitted more power, but early versions caused terrible handling and were dropped, later version finially overcame this but by then 5 bladed props were as effcient so few Spitfires were so equiped, nearly every Spit you see with CR props isnt a Spit but a SEAFIRE where the CR props gave similar performance at low altitude with less diameter - a big issue for Fleet fighters with the limited hanger headroom on fleet carriers,
 
strangely it is also the reason for the CR props on Shackletons - needed when they went from tailsitter on the Lan/lincoln to the nose wheel on the shackleton

 
 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.
 
Total wrong, making up numbers does not convince anyone


 but WHY would you use a short range fighter at such long range?
To fly over the channel and fight the Germans over France?
 
but thats NOT what they were designed for, they were designed to intercept bombers and to provide aircover over the battle front

 given that it might take several minutes to close from observation range to effective gun range, I do not think the difference is relevant.
 
how do you explain documented reports of P38 pilots not manuoevering after being bounced but flying straight and level despite being the target of gunfire? or reports from the actual pilots of engine failure because they missed a step or got a step in the wrong order?
 
The fact you find it irrelavent is a sure sign that it goes aginst you percived view of what happened

Depends on the model of Spit. If it's one of the first few thousand,
 
then it will out perform any equivent P38 as they wernt even in service then!
 
then it takes much longer for the Spit to go from economy cruise to combat cruise than the P-38!
 
no it doesnt not even the late model P38s were particular easy to change
 
 IE; Switch from LEAN to Rich mixture, adjust the VS Prop
 
as ALL spitfires had automatic props BEFORE the P38 entered service it shows that your whole premise is flawed
 
 and then shove the throttle home. In the P-38 in the above example is already going 360 MPH!
no it still beging changed from low boost to high boost and has yet to have its intercoolers set etc..
 
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!
 
provide a link then
 
The reports I have seen all rate the Spitfire as a fighter exceptional and better than anything the US had, but unsuitable for long range bomber escort due to range, again a US requirement not a RAF one, the US did develope a Spit  prototype with a Berlin range but it was only marginly better than the P51, not enough to divert production
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/25/2013 4:48:02 PM
If they were answer me this, why did the USAF remove nose guns from both the P40 and P51 and why did the the USN  not require thier fighters to have them?
 
Unlike, Shooter, I can answer that question... easily.
 
1. The rifle caliber guns were ineffective.  
2. The 12.7 mm machine guns the Americans had were too large to fit properly.
3. Ditto their auto-cannons  (23 mm Madsen and 37 mm Browning) at the time. 
4. They didn't have a motor or a motor cannon that could allow them to build a shoot through the propeller hub cannon. The P-39 was an engineering experiment and abomination that tried to solve the problem by putting the motor behind the pilot and use a complicated long PTO to open space in the nose for a cannon through the hub propeller transmission.
5. Their synchronizers were no good for the 12.7 mm Brownings. (Ditto the HS 404s when the British gave them the drawings.)
6. The bullet dispersion and interference problem.
7. Wing mounted guns allowed a planing buzz saw effect in the fire cone, especially in a TURN. 
8. Wing mounted guns (more of them and more room for ammunition than can be fitted in the nose cowl.) DON'T need a heavy synchronizer, one for each machine gun, which is just one more thing to cause misfeeds and jams in machine guns that already were known to have those issues.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       6/26/2013 2:45:12 PM
actually you are wrong
 
1. The rifle caliber guns were ineffective.  
until 42 rifle calibre were actually fairly effective making up in volume what they lost in weight, the .5 was not a big leap in firepower
2. The 12.7 mm machine guns the Americans had were too large to fit properly.
the 12.7mm Browning was fitted to many US fighters even before the War and the Japanese version was cowl fitted late in the war but proved ineffective
3. Ditto their auto-cannons  (23 mm Madsen and 37 mm Browning) at the time. 
this one is true
4. They didn't have a motor or a motor cannon that could allow them to build a shoot through the propeller hub cannon.
this was pointless as they had no engine design that allowed a motor cannon fitment
 
The P-39 was an engineering experiment and abomination that tried to solve the problem by putting the motor behind the pilot and use a complicated long PTO to open space in the nose for a cannon through the hub propeller transmission.
true the P39 was an attempt to fit a cannon to a single engine fighter and was a failure
5. Their synchronizers were no good for the 12.7 mm Brownings. (Ditto the HS 404s when the British gave them the drawings.)
this is completely wrong, firstly the synchronizers work fine and I have never read of any issues with them, however the .5 browning suffered really badly in loss of ROF which made them of marginal effectiveness and was the reason for them being deleted, the HS404 however was incapable of being synchronized due to its design
 
the British didn't give the US the drawings of the HS the US bought the rights from HS directly, they did however supply details of the changes they made to improve reliability, details the US ignored
6. The bullet dispersion and interference problem.
dispersion is less of an issue with nose guns but it also means that you have to be far more accurate to achieve hits
7. Wing mounted guns allowed a planing buzz saw effect in the fire cone, especially in a TURN. 
 
not sure what your meaning is, the idea of walking your shots onto target only ever worked on larger targets, it does however produce a kill zone rather than point source
8. Wing mounted guns (more of them and more room for ammunition than can be fitted in the nose cowl.)
as nose mounted guns had MORE ammo than wing guns in most of the aircraft fitted
 DON'T need a heavy synchronizer,
they used hydraulics' and weighed little more than a few pounds  
one for each machine gun, which is just one more thing to cause misfeeds and jams in machine guns that already were known to have those issues.  
miss feeds and jams were actually rare on nose guns in the 30s mounted near the centreline they suffered less g force and the engine meant that they different suffer the two main reasons for jams, this combined with the low RoF leant it self to reliability
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/26/2013 6:10:31 PM


2. The 12.7 mm machine guns the Americans had were too large to fit properly.

the 12.7mm Browning was fitted to many US fighters even before the War and the Japanese version was cowl fitted late in the war but proved ineffective
 
Incorrect. Name one single US post 1937 design of a 650 kilowatt+ engined fighter that carried 12.7 mm cowl  guns , besides the Brewster Buffalo? It, by itself, that plane proved that the guns did not work. 

3. Ditto their auto-cannons  (23 mm Madsen and 37 mm Browning) at the time.

this one is true

4. They didn't have a motor or a motor cannon that could allow them to build a shoot through the propeller hub cannon.

this was pointless as they had no engine design that allowed a motor cannon fitment

I said that. Perhaps you misunderstood? Besides the Ford Motor company did have an engine in development,as did Continental that could have accepted the Hispano if the Americans had not botched their copy up. 

The P-39 was an engineering experiment and abomination that tried to solve the problem by putting the motor behind the pilot and use a complicated long PTO to open space in the nose for a cannon through the hub propeller transmission.

true the P39 was an attempt to fit a cannon to a single engine fighter and was a failure
 
The Russians preferred it to the Hurricane, much like the Finns preferred the Brewster Buffalo to the Hurricane. Peculiar conditions favor oddball planes that ordinarily would not be acceptable.  

5. Their synchronizers were no good for the 12.7 mm Brownings. (Ditto the HS 404s when the British gave them the drawings.)

this is completely wrong, firstly the synchronizers work fine and I have never read of any issues with them, however the .5 browning suffered really badly in loss of ROF which made them of marginal effectiveness and was the reason for them being deleted, the HS404 however was incapable of being synchronized due to its design
 
Brewster Buffalo previously mentioned. Engine vibration disrupted the synchronizers. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/26/2013 6:13:44 PM
the British didn't give the US the drawings of the HS the US bought the rights from HS directly, they did however supply details of the changes they made to improve reliability, details the US ignored
 
Incorrect. The French refused to supply technical drawings. The British supplied technical drawings and a working model which the Americans proceeded to copy before the fact. Licensing was done AFTER the first American production was started.  

6. The bullet dispersion and interference problem.

dispersion is less of an issue with nose guns but it also means that you have to be far more accurate to achieve hits
 
See below.

7. Wing mounted guns allowed a planing buzz saw effect in the fire cone, especially in a TURN. 

Bullet interference is mutual when simultaneous from barrels spaced too close together.  Additional, the nose wander on the plane scatters nose mounted gun streams more than wing mounted streams (cone versus plane of flight trajectory).    

not sure what your meaning is, the idea of walking your shots onto target only ever worked on larger targets, it does however produce a kill zone rather than point source
 
See above.

8. Wing mounted guns (more of them and more room for ammunition than can be fitted in the nose cowl.)

as nose mounted guns had MORE ammo than wing guns in most of the aircraft fitted
 
Incorrect. Trays held more than drums.

 DON'T need a heavy synchronizer,

they used hydraulics' and weighed little more than a few pounds
 
4 x 20 lbs apiece is 80 lbs hydraulics (fire hazard) that an American or British fighter could not afford. It could be the difference between self sealing fuel tanks or an additional 5 seconds of firing time or a backplate of armor for the pilot. All were design choices rthe Americans made for the WILDCAT and the Japanese did not for the ZEKE.

one for each machine gun, which is just one more thing to cause misfeeds and jams in machine guns that already were known to have those issues.  

miss feeds and jams were actually rare on nose guns in the 30s mounted near the centreline they suffered less g force and the engine meant that they different suffer the two main reasons for jams, this combined with the low RoF leant it self to reliability
 
You contradict yourself.
 
"however the .5 browning suffered really badly in loss of ROF which made them of marginal effectiveness and was the reason for them being deleted"
 
The AN M2 had a rate of 900 r/rm which was ferocious for a weapon of its caliber. That was with the synchronizer.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics