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       7/30/2013 1:10:42 AM



 
So while "Winkle" has definite things to say, anyone who thinks the F4F was a delight to fly against Zeros is a few combat experience points short in qualifications.

Given the K/L ratio of the two planes, I would tend to agree with Captain Brown!    I would prefer to refer to the men who FOUGHT. That is why I would agree with Captain Brown, he agrees with very many men and a few women who fought and won! 
PS. As opposed to those who flew Zeros and lost!



 


 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/30/2013 1:45:44 AM
And you would be wrong for the  reasons I stated. I do not regard your opinion at all,  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Because you are too narrow minded, or mindless?   7/30/2013 8:56:19 PM



And you would be wrong for the  reasons I stated. I do not regard your opinion at all,  

 

 



And you are wrong all the time because of your narrow mindlessedness?

 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/30/2013 9:03:04 PM
When the liar complains, about being called a liar, how am I expected to answer?
 
 How about with the truth?
 
I am constrained by FACTS. You can lie because you have no connection to the truth.
 
I'll take my constraint over your fantasy, 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/30/2013 11:21:13 PM

Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS[nb 1]. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire. 
I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/30/2013 11:21:51 PM

Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS[nb 1]. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire. 
I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/30/2013 11:23:38 PM
I am constrained by FACTS. You can lie because you have no connection to the truth.
Like the fact that the P-47 Thunderbolt out rolls the Spitfire up to and including the Mk-XIV?
Like the Mk-IX Spitfire was only tested to 2-300 MPH?
Finally, why did they change the entire construction technique and shape / profile of the Spiteful wing? 
By 1942, Supermarine designers had realised that the aerodynamics of the Spitfire's wing at high Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS[nb 1]. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire. 
I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/30/2013 11:35:52 PM
All lies. See above.
Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS[nb 1]. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire. 

I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!

 
 

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/31/2013 3:12:56 AM
I am constrained by FACTS. You can lie because you have no connection to the truth.
Like the fact that the P-47 Thunderbolt out rolls the Spitfire up to and including the Mk-XIV?
ok so you compair a mkII P47 you know the one with the redesigned wing and it only out rolls at the highest performance band talk about cherry picking data

Like the Mk-IX Spitfire was only tested to 2-300 MPH?
 
this shows eitheryou are a lying as accused or cannot read a simple diagram? which is it?

Finally, why did they change the entire construction technique and shape / profile of the Spiteful wing?
 
could it be that aero science moved on and a new profile was identified? or that due to huge increases in power the wing needed beefing up? or the fact that they tried the laminar(ha ha what a joke that is they cant keep laminar flow on on 21st century aircraft let alone 1940s vintage) on the late model spits and found they did nothing for its performance. oh and why , if the roll performance was so important did the ta152 have such a poor roll?
 
By 1942, Supermarine designers had realised that the aerodynamics of the Spitfire's wing at high Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS[nb 1]. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire.
I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!
 
how do you reckon that as the P38 had DIVE BRAKES added to cure diving issues something never considered on spits, also the Spit was the aircraft choose to investigate high mach numbers in a dive why was that?more one sided rubbish from shooter
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       8/2/2013 5:20:07 PM

Mach numbers might become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was the aeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h) IAS[nb 1]. The aeroelasticity of the wing also limited the roll performance of previous models of Spitfire.
 
I might add that the P-38 had a "Safe" diving speed of 505 MPH, or 25 MPH faster than the Early Spitfires mentioned above!
how do you reckon that as the P38 had DIVE BRAKES added to cure diving issues something never considered on spits, also the Spit was the aircraft choose to investigate high mach numbers in a dive why was that?
They added dive breaks to the P-38 because it could so easily exceed that 505 MPH limit! They used the Spitfire because that is all the RAF had!   
 


 



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics