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       6/26/2013 8:39:14 PM

no post war aircraft that had wing guns eh?
what about the Meteor NF? or the Douglas Skyraider?
And the Meteor's & Skyraider's first flights were? Their design started when? Just because they modified it in some way, does not make them post war AC.
and as jets were moving to thin wings it was impossible to fit bulky cannon
This is simply not true! Because the thinness of the ring is expressed as a %age ratio, the larger, but thinner ratio wing is actually much thicker in actual measure than any WW-II fighter plane wing!
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,
Yes that is true. Wing mounted guns, far from the LOS are bad and cause a great reduction in the actual effect of fire.
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?
Because of factors not related to effectiveness, that are related to manufacturing and ease of maintenance.
In response, why did the Germans, acknowledged masters of all things combative, insist that all of their primary weapons be mounted on the nose, or wing root, close to the CL?

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/26/2013 8:43:27 PM

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?
From the side, or in planform as if turning, the Spitfire and all other smaller single engine planes will show more area than the P-38 nose on in the attack!
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
Post a link to this assertion! 
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!
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       6/26/2013 9:11:16 PM
It is to laugh. I counted one fact correct.
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/26/2013 9:11:23 PM

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 efficient 
Made my point above and the five or even six bladed single plane single rotation prop will never be as efficient as a CR Prop. 

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
  I thought it was because of the increased demand for range and cruise efficiency?
 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? Because it was all they had at the time! What, are they going to send a Hurricane?
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
  When in the history of war have you heard of any weapon that was not put to new and different purposes than it was designed for?

 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 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
Not according to the pilot's manual.
 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
How many Spits had automatic VS Props at the start of the BoB? How many Spitfires can cruise at 360 MPH?
 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!
The reports I have seen all rate the Spitfire as a fighter exceptional
So you believe all the propaganda then?

Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/26/2013 9:52:30 PM
And not one right fact in that one.
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/26/2013 10:29:17 PM

Note that the 37 MM gun was sized to fit in the engine bay of the P-51 if required!
5. Their synchronizers were no good for the 12.7 mm Brownings. (Ditto the HS 404s when the British gave them the drawings.)
Since they mounted two .50s in the nose of the first P-51s, I would think you are wrong again.
6. The bullet dispersion and interference problem. WTF? Dispersion is a fact of life with machineguns! You have to think of them as long range shotguns! Not serial sniper rifles!

7. Wing mounted guns allowed a planing buzz saw effect in the fire cone, especially in a TURN. WTF is a "buzz saw effect?
But the fire cone is THE Problem! There are bullets in the cone, but none near the LOS through the gun sight at ranges other than that at which they are synchronised!
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 synchronizerSynchronizers are not heavy! 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.  



Very poorly thought out answers, or should I say a severe lack of thought processes at all!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/26/2013 10:49:07 PM

Browning AN/M2 "light-barrel" dorsal nose-mount synchronized machine guns and two .303 Browning machine guns in each wing to be inadequate.[22] 

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. 
  So did Ranger!
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

So much for expert opinions!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/26/2013 11:30:24 PM

7. Wing mounted guns allowed a planing buzz saw effect in the fire cone, especially in a TURN. 
This is pure BS! Mounting the heavy guns and ammo out in the wings hurts performance and causes divergence! Divergence is much worse than dispersion! Wing mounted guns also cause greater miss distances when the shooting plane is in a bank! Because the guns have to be pointed both up and to the side to converge on the LOS, when the plain is banked, the force of gravity is now perpendicular to the sight's vertical plane. That make the bullets go wide of the aim point and the distance from the CL now causes the bullet streams to go high and low in addition to wider that the would in level flight! Looks like you blew this one all the way around!
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
The idea that a concentration of fire was required instead of a spray is why they pointed all the guns at a single point in space and range to zero the gun sight! So spray your bullets so than most miss and then wonder why there is so much gun camera film of missed targets escaping!   

8. Wing mounted guns (more of them and more room for ammunition than can be fitted in the nose cowl.)
True, there is room for more of them, but half of them will automatically miss at ALL ranges but that at which they are zeroed!
as nose mounted guns had MORE ammo than wing guns in most of the aircraft fittedTrue!

Incorrect. Trays held more than drums.
But the cannons were all drum fed at first and then linked ammo also helped the planes with nose mounted guns as much if not more than the wing mounted guns! How many Spits had 175-275 rounds per 20 MM gun? Just asking!
 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.
Except when they used electrically primed ammo, then each only weighed a few GRAMS!    

"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

45-Shooter    Vague and un-differentiated?   6/26/2013 11:31:32 PM

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Vague and un-differentiated?   6/26/2013 11:34:30 PM

And not one right fact in that one.
When you make such sweeping statements that are so demonstrably wrong on all counts, what is the clinically correct label that we should apply?

Quote    Reply