The orginial point was that the example Shooter used (that of a conventional standard car engine) was invalid and a better comparison would be a F1 engine but then he started with incorrect statements about that and so on and so on (keep going till you reach old age or your fingers drop off)
it irratates me when he passes his opinion or assumption off as factual 9especially when it would only take 30 seconds to look it up)

A second comp would be the first Gen Merlin at 1030 HP on 87 Octane gas?
Numbers are 1,773.1 CM^2, 26,951 CCM, 1,535 pounds, IIRC? dOES NOT LOOK GOOD DOES IT?

 

to the ignorant, such as you proved to be.

 

Separation, extension, break, and reverse are terms you would NOT know the true meaning of. 

 

Those who can read can SEE what I know.

 

B.

 

B

 

We can add inability to follow an argument, to the sums of ignorance about subject on display.

 

OBNW was politely telling you TO BACK YOUR BOASTS as you have vainly tried to get me to do.

 

You can decline, but then the COMPLETE NONSENSE you've posted for TWO years would condemn you, Stuart. You would have NO DEFENSE.

 

So put up; or let your past posts exhibit what you truly know. which apparently is nothing about race-cars and aviation. I freely up front told OBNW I was ignorant of racing, but even I know enough to call you on it and CAN PROVE it.

 

For example, why do racers use SLICKS?  I at least know that much.

 

B.

Who is this addressed to?

OBNW understood IMMEDIATELY what I meant when I noted that. Apparently you were too ignorant to understand the simple CONCEPT and difference. It's these simple things that trip you up.

 

B.

After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute. Given that there are eight atributes on this list, and that no-one has chosen to add any more, I will now weight this list as I think things aught to be. Remember that eight catagories means that the AVERAGE is 12.5% Please feel free to change them as you like for the discussian by the rest of us, or just pick my choices all to hell and back! The entire idea is to have a good argument.

1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 20%

Why is crusing speed a major requirement for a short ranged inteceptor?  you job was to get up hit the bombers and return not hang arround twiddling your thumbs

 

 

2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 20%

wrong returning to base with 2/3 of your fuel means that you were ovefueled, both the RAF and Luftwaffe when defending flew with less than full tanks so persistance only comes into play when you change the design requirements (someting that was not early considered)

 

3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 15%

 

Rate of roll? not a biggy the FW 190A had a wonderfull roll yet was outclassed by later aricraft with inferior roll rates, ability to point at the target, surely that is turn ability? something you have down at 8

 

4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 15%

 

your problem is that you are restricted to what is available, high MV and low RoF for heavier calibler and lack of weight for rifle calibers, and as the prefered choice cannot be centerline mounted you have to compromise with wing guns, however on the plus side wing guns are preferable for pilot with limited training/experiance (both Galand and Hartmann both agreed that wing guns were better for inexperianced pilots and noticed a sharp drop off of hits when said pilots lost ther wing guns)

 

5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 10%

 

so pitch is important and turn isnt?

 

6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 10%

 

climb is avery inportant factor in an inteceptor but it has to be sustained climb and not zoom climb by mid 1940 was thier any airforce flying without constant speed props? cetainly the RAF and Luftwaffe wernt

 

7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 5%

 

If you are significantly slower the its highly likely that you will be the pey not the hunter

 

8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! 5%

 

so the ability to evaid if attacked is pretty worthless in your oppinion, says a lot, the turn was the PRIMARY defense against attack yet you  negate it, 80% of kills came from diving atacks from th rear and yet you want to remove  the primary defense? or are you assuming that your aircraft are always going to be the attacker and not have to worry about defendin themselves?

It would be nice if you would explain why a modern car engine is not equivilant to an antique aircraft engine?
Just a few points to concider;

ut what power delivery, you say there is no power low down!
I was not talking about power down low, they do not have any, so why bother with traction control. I refer to mid-high to high RPM Bands, where they do have the power to spin the tires.

then explain how they get to that power, they cant spin the tyres and they cant slip the clutch, basically you are stuck in the 70s when a small powerband was the norm, nowadays they have quite wide powerbands and actual tune for lowdown and midrange as this can be big boost in lap times, the renault engine has less power than the Merc or ferrari but has more driveablity

partially right, but mainly beacuse it allowed the driver to floor it and not worry about spinning up the tyres, usually out of slow corers when the revs are low(oh low revs !!) It is not possible for an F-1 car to spin it's huge semi-slick tires at low RPMs!

wrong it is possible to spin the tyres at relativly low revs especially on primes

you are showing your lack of F1 knowledge again, firstly F1 cars use slick tyres not semi slick (which I presume you mean the groved tyres that were done away with years ago)  secondly one of tha main concern of modern day F1 drivers is to avoid wheelspin as it damages the tyres, have a look at last seaon and watch a  car hat has spun off and how easy it spins its wheels to spin it self back facing the right direction
And this changes my point how? The cars spin the tires at higher revs if the driver is not careful.

actually at high revs they are less likely to spin  the tyres than at lower revs, if you watch F1 you will see that they spin them most coming out of slow corners, ie when accelerating from low revs

yet they banned it must man (Meen)
 

If you are goning to correct me at least check that your correction is correct, the word is meAn unless you mean a Lebanese Rock band founded by Fouad and Toni Yammine?

 

that no driver finishes an F1 race then
  What?

well you say its because the engines make the power so quickly that no driver could control it, yet traction control is no longer allowed then they cannot be driven!

oh and how  did they managed with 1500hp that was available in the qualifying engine turbo era? as there was no traction control then

Please link to same.
why? you know it and I know it and everyone here knows it
you also claim to have raced cars and have never provided evidence and in fact claimed to have raced yet documents from the period fail to show you in the event!
Please link to same.

no YOU provide link it is your claim it is YOU that wants us to believe these claims are true so far we disbelieve you, can you provide a single poster that believes a word you say?

After scraping out the Stuart crap. let's look at the criteria?

1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 20%

I use the term target defense interceptor for a defensive WW II fighter.

 I further subdivide that set of aircraft into area defense and point defense.

I further divide that into day-fighter and night-fighter.

Now what does that mean? Defensive fighters in WW II were highly specialized. That being the case, (four classes) right away we see that Stuart's catalog of terms is bullsh!t. What works for the English Midlands in daylight will not work over central Germany at night.

What Shooter calls cruise speed is what I refine as ENDURANCE ALOFT in minutes at patrol speed and altitude. Each defensive fighter class gives a different weight to that characteristic.

Since OBNW explains it rather well for the point defense target interceptor day fighter that endurance was not so important as rapid climb to merge and engagement, I will note that night fighters and area defense day interceptors needed endurance aloft to cover areas over time more than a point defense target interceptor day fighter.

2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 20%

CONSUMMABLES is the proper term.

Wrong returning to base with 2/3 of your fuel means that you were ovefueled, both the RAF and Luftwaffe when defending flew with less than full tanks so persistence only comes into play when you change the design requirements (something that was not early considered)

HMMM.

Fuel, coolant, lube, hudraulics  shooting time in seconds from the guns, onboard oxygen for the pilot, all of that is considered TOGETHER, when you consider what kind of fighter it is and how much weight to give to the characteristic. If you are over your own country and thirty to sixty minutes aloft is all you need per sortie, then those consumables will be metered accordingly. Straight up and down, to replenish. If you are flying six hours area defense and have to patrol against an enemy bomber stream, or have to ESCORT your bomber stream into enemy air-space, then you will have to have everything you need onboard for the complete mission.

[next post.]

3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 15%

 

More SHOOTER nonsense.

 

7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 5%

TOP ACHIEVABLE SPEED at HIGHEST ALTITUDE.

Speed is life. (Chennault, Thatch, Bong, Gabrewski, Bader, Hartman or any pilot worth listening to.)

If you are significantly slower the its highly likely that you will be the pey not the hunter

8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! 5%

GET INTO the SADDLE, SHOOT HIM, and GET OUT.

Whether attack or defense, the plane in which the pilot finds that he farts around and wastes time getting into shooting position is a pilot-killer. So that AMQ quality to BREAK and TURN into the enemy to post yourself behind him offset ¼ to 1/3 tangent to his turn or roll to minimize exposure to his enemy gunfire is PARAMOUNT so that you can become the attacker and the enemy becomes the DEAD attackee.

So the ability to evade if attacked is pretty worthless in your opinion, Says a lot, the turn was the PRIMARY defense against attack yet you  negate it, 80% of kills came from diving attacks from the rear and yet you want to remove  the primary defense? or are you assuming that your aircraft are always going to be the attacker and not have to worry about defending themselves?