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
JFKY    OBNW   4/2/2013 4:01:50 PM
Range is important for DOMESTIC reasons, in US forces.  It's pointed out in Fire in the Sky that the US is a BIG place.  Just xsfering aircraft from station-to-station  requires considerable range.  The example Bergerud uses is a USAAF pilot flying a Spitfire across the US.  He simply was amazed at how many times the Spitfire had to land and refuel, it had such short legs.  Realize the USAAF had to plan on moving A/c from New York to California.  It also had to plan on fighting in Pacific distances and have a/c that could ferry from California to Hawai'i.
In short the CONUS is HUGE as compared to Europe....and that was just to move A/c from the factory to a CONUS staging area...and it was even further to Hawai'i...again not a combat area.  The US simply needed a/c with long range for internal administrative reasons as well as for strategic reasons.
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 6:37:02 PM

When caught in your foolishness you always try to agree with the man who called you a fool? This is most curious.
I did not come to your point of view. I pointed out that you compare values that are not congruent or equivalent and call those values equal. It never occurs to you that no two technologies measure the same thing the same way? Besides when you cite Wiki over and over again you do push maximum ideals as opposed to the real world performances of the planes.
Did you not read what Levett quotes I provided about Mustang, Spitfire and Avia S199 aircraft in Israeli service? All flown by a common air force against a common set of enemies mostly equipped with British RAF equipment?  
It is hard to argue either the findings that the three planes were used in the 485-570 km/h range at 3000-9000 meters altitude, and that the pilots thought the planes were fairly close enough so that it came down to the pilot. The pilots, especially the American ones, --> preferred the Spitfire because it had the best overall fighter qualities they desired if they got into trouble. They could count on it to out-turn the Arab flown Spitfires because the Arabs did not have the skill to exploit the Spitfires virtues. (angle fighter.)     
"Absolutely true! Great points!"
Because you never thought of them or wrote them before I did


I make that comment because it is true! It also makes my point in that there is little to chose between them as those pilot's pointed out and you posted. I do like it when other people post things that re-enforce my points!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 6:55:09 PM

What about torque do you understand? Unless the plane has CR Props, it will be plaigued by Torque effects!
What about control force do you understand? Yes, and how does it affect the lack of directional stability? The DI is there with or WO strong pilots and the variation in stick forces.
What about wetted surface area do you understand? More is bad and less is good! That is why the RAF chose not to add as much rudder/Vert-stab and Horizontal Stab/Elevator as required to fix the problem in the first place! What about stall do you understand?Post stall maneuvering is, or more exactly can be good and unintended stall is bad!
What about weight loading do you understand? Less weight is better than more weight, if all other things are equal. What about the B-17, a bomber noted for crab do you understand? That you all, colectively, that is fail to differentiate between the few hundred early models and the ~twelve thousand later models absolutely free of this vice. What about aircraft do you understand? Enough to have passed the A&P at one time! Also to have several degrees earned from Avionic schools in the Army and the UoNY, Regent's Coledge. So I guess that I know more than you. Nothing. What a shame that I understand so much more and am willing to share and all you do is want to fight instead of have an honest conversation.
You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane. These are factors of the problem you mentioned, but have almost nothing to do with the problem I mentioned.

Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 7:03:32 PM

Shooter try actually reading your source, the early high back MKXIVs were fine after the new tail of the prototypes, they were  a handful on the ground but all piston engined fighters of this period were.
Well, The great British Test Pilot does not agree with you as the quotes of him that I posted clearly show!
the source then goes on to refer to the later cutdown rear "high visibility" models with the extra rear tankage, yes these suffered stability issues - WITH FULL REAR TANKS just like those sufferd by the P51 yet it was, you claim, a problem with the spit but fine with the P51
I was not reffering to the "Verticle Stability" that you mention above, but the "Snaking and Horizontal Instability" specifically mentioned in his reports. But now that you bring it up, I think we should also discuss this seperate issue as well!
It even says in your source that this was only an issue with a full rear tank so unless whoever read it to you failed to mention it means that either you didnt understand a simple statement or ignored it to make the Spit look bad
I was not reffering to the "Verticle Stability" that you mention above, but the "Snaking and Horizontal Instability" specifically mentioned in his reports. But now that you bring it up, I think we should also discuss this seperate issue as well!
Oh and it is of interest that they DID fix this issue in later spits but never in the P51, in fact the H model was forbidden to use the rear tank
Except in time of war, and for only one unit, not AF wide! Note that the RAF made the same demands for ALL Spitfires with the aft tank world wide post war.

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 7:21:56 PM

I am confused, why would a plane in motion stop when it reaches an arbitrary point in a manoeuvre for 3 or 4 seconds? Because it is the time interval between two different maneuvers! IE a left turn and a right turn. The plane travels in a straight line in between those two different maneuvers.
I know that any manoeuver in a single plane will hit a defined attitude, ie if in a dive - climb it will be straight and level at some point if only for a fraction of a second, as this is near the point of maximum force applied to the airframe (not actually the maximum force as this is slightly post the apex) then it will be a dwell point, but if an aircraft takes 3-4 seconds to transit this point then there is something seriously wrong with its control surfaces. Not at all. There is a definate and finite interval between the end of one maneuver that requires a bank in one direction, until it can convert from that bank to the bank in the other direction, which must be done BEFORE ANY plane can start to perform the maneuver in the other direction. IE change from a right to a left turn, or vice verse.

If a plane "rests" 3-4 seconds between banks then this is due to pilot input.

The plane is not "Resting". The pilot is aplying huge forces to the plane to force it to roll around it's longitudinal axes in spite of it's polar moment of inertia that resists that movement because he wants the plane to spend as little time as possible going straight in the interval between those two quite seperate maneuvers.

But as these manoeuvers are in multiple plains then there is no guarantee that the plane will be straight and level I never ever stated "Strait and Level" at any point in this discussion. The plane can be climbing, diving, or not, as the case maybe. at any point as the apex of one plain of manoeuver may not (and is likely not to ) be at the same point as the apex in the other plain Yes, this is certainly true. More importantly, it is almost certainly going to be the case! But the point of view also changes at the shooter tracks the target. It is from the shooter's point of view that we are concerned. The intersection of the various planes of maneuver is transectioned by the bullet stream and all we are conserned with the the dificulty of putting those bullets on that target!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 7:29:05 PM

This is often a point of confusion. Relaxed control when a plane flies horizon level is not 'straight' There is always variant lift and side shove forces that act on the plane. The controls that manage pitch and yaw, (elevators and rudder) must always bite or the plane enters into a natural spin. That is the necessity of constant three axis control and why a plane always must have pilot input, whether from a man or a machine to correct for the oscillations.
Some planes can fly for hours with out the pilot touching the controls at all! They are naturally stable and resume their original flight attitude after a gust departure. This also applies to the statement below. 
This, the problem of three axis control, and the realization that the heavier than air machine based on lift and thrust is constantly unstable, is why the Wrights understood that it was three axis control and not lift that was the secret to the airplane. It is why they are the inventors of the airplane and not this imbecile.
Planes do not fly straight and level. They are corrected by control forces.
SOME planes clearly do fligh straight and level WO pilot imput! At least as long as the fuel hold out. 

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 7:35:07 PM

I was having a look at what range could be squeezed from the spit and found that a US developed Long range spit MKIX had a combat range of over 800 miles using the 60 gallon wing tanks (rather than the 110 gallon units on the P47 used to get similar range)
Whilst it was never progressed it is interesting for a couple of reasons,1, it shows that whilst P51D range could not be matched a long range spit not only was possible (Vickers also made a long range MkIX that didn't quite match that of the US plane and was less stable until the fuel burnt off) but actually made
2, and I find this intriguing, why were the US experimenting with extracting long range from a Spitfire when they had the P51D,P47 and the P38?
The original report, if it is the one I think it is, is most interesting! Read the whole thing! You will be surprised!



Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/2/2013 7:43:32 PM

Another question. Why is it only US posters who regard long range as THE most important factor in a Fighter, looking at the "wish" list of  land based Air forces (as opposed to Carrier fighters) it would seem only the US have long(extra?) range as a major requirement, if you look at the different requirements of different countries and rate them as they did, and then average these requirements then long range actually comes out at the bottom of the wish list,

As this is used to judge the superiority of the P51 then I am not convinced that a requirement only highly rated by the US can be used to justify a US aircraft being the best.
it strikes me that it is a circular argument, the US made the best long range fighter so long range must be the deciding factor in judging the quality of a fighter   
There are more than a few historians who think that lack of range was the main, if not only reason why the Germans lost the BoB. There are other historians who think that the Spitfire lost the Battle of France because of it's short range.
Note that even in modern times, many European AFs think a plane can be had that has considerably less range than we like to have in America. See Rafale, Grippon and proliferation of the Mig-29 family. Note that they all are forced to cary drop tanks all the time inorder to fly missions outside of their own countries. They do this because lack of range saves them huge amounts of money in all facits of it's procurement. IE, less range means less airfraim weight, less engine power to lift that weight, smaller wings and surfaces, etc...

Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/2/2013 10:06:41 PM
Two reasons.
The British plane was just a superior angle fighter, all around.
To see what they could do, if they had to license build it for the Pacific. 


2, and I find this intriguing, why were the US experimenting with extracting long range from a Spitfire when they had the P51D,P47 and the P38?




Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/2/2013 10:12:38 PM
See what is yellow?
It is sufficient to note that you repeat your previous behavior.

You agree and then try to claim it as your own. This is what those who are caught in the middle of a foolish statement do.
You also lie. You never made those points.

Quote    Reply