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: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 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!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 2:59:21 PM


ook at it another way.
 
The Brewster Buffalo- a horrible plane in most operation areas, was an outstanding winter weather fighter in the hands of dedicated pilots who knew how to exploit its weird cold weather advantages against the Russians.
 it also score well againt the 109 



"During the late winter of 1944 occurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV (no such spit the MK XV was a Seafire and in late 44 only six prototypes had been built) and a P-38H of the 364FG (364 was a P51 unit by winter 44). Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning circle than the P-38 confirmation of the better turn? well it would be if Lovell wa actaully trustworthy as a source), Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall (the p38 had a stall speed of 3mph less than a spit and was far less forgiving in a stall than the spit, in fact one of the best p38 pilots of ww2 died when he stalled at low level ), then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. (either this was completely diferent to the unstood maneuver of this name or it would not have had this result) After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. (a spit would need 1200ft to survive a split S and a p38 needed 1800ft )After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. (if he had tried a split S at 1000ft he would have returned in a box) This contest was witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground. yet his is the only source
 
The RAF pilot named by Lovell (Donaldson ) was a Desk jockey that hadnt flown combat in 4 years after being shot down and was hardly a top RAF ace (although with 5 confirmed kills he was an ace)

Lovell was hardly a good source, he regulary claimed he had 16.5 kills yet is only credited with 7.5                                                         he also claimed to have dogfighted with Galand and 6 other 190ds in his P38 yet the 190d didnt enter service untill after 364 had been reequiped with p51s also Galand is not recorded as flying the 190d in combat (and was a staff office at this time) 
 


 
Note earlier what I said about horses and cowboys? If you know your plane better than the adversary knows his, you will exploit your strengths against his weakness.  
This is true, a great pilot will usually win regardless of the aircraft involved 
There is a story (and as its by the person on the reciving end its plausable) of a lockeed hudson that was attacked by 6 Zeros one of which was flown by one of IJN  top aces that not only survived for 10 minutes but very neally shot down the Japanese Ace and his second in comand and thats a Hudson!!
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 3:22:02 PM

Filters, humidity problem, wrong carburetor choke, SALT, wrong steels. Just because you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do some homework in the Australian and British unit history archives. You'll find the American stuff on a site called Hyperwar.   

these issues were quickly solved the Spits got the sand filter as developed in the med, the grease was replaced with a higher melting point one, wrong carb? the only carb changes were the Mr Shilling Orafice and then the negative G bendix neither one was specific to the pacific

what wrong steel? again pulled from thin air and not in any merlin or spitfire history I have read and as you are using this argument it is for you to provide a source as I cannot see anything in hyperwar that refers to it
 

 
fuel injection is not the answer as the carb cooled the charge something Fuel injection didnt, RR was well aware of fuel injection but it was a technical decision to go with carbs.

    Wrong decision. Automated power-eggs (Kurt Tank invention for the FW 190) work better through the aspiration chain when you can meter the fuel aerosol mix at the cylinder! USN went for it IMMEDIATELY when they discovered the advantages after they tested a captured FW-190.  


er no, the USA was using fuel injection in engines prior to ww2 and yet both ht packard, pw double wasp and the Alison used carbs (even post war alisons used carbs)

and as a lack of correct fuel was a supply problem not an issue with the spit as it would have been the same regardless of aircraft using this to claim the spit was inferior is rather dishonest
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/10/2013 4:27:46 PM
All true, yet what pilot isn't a liar? The incident AS DESCRIBED here.
 
"Top-Guns" By Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan
 
Source citation and quote:
 
"Our Group recieved several P-38Ls just before the P-51s arrived. This latest "Lightning" had dive-flaps under the wings, improved power and a gun camera located away from the nose. On a day we were 'stood down" (no missions), General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English aces, Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honington and show us slides of English Spitfires that had been equipped with external tanks like U.S. fighters. Those tanks allowed Spitfires to penetrate deep into Germany. Most of the U.S. pilots didn't know about the Spit's long-range, and some Spitfires had been fired upon before American pilots realized that their insignia was the Royal Air Force circle and not a German Swastika. ME-109s, P-51s and Spitfires were not easily distinguishable from one another until close enough to "make combat."

All 364th Fighter Group pilots attended Donaldson's slide picture presentation in our briefing room. When he had finished, he described the new Spitfire XV he had flown to our base. It had a five-bladed prop, a bigger engine, and improved firepower. Then he said, "If one of you bloody bastards has enough guts, I'll fly mock combat above your... field and show you how easily this SpitXV can whip your best pilot's ass."

The entire group started clapping and hollared, "Big John! Big John!"
That was me, so I asked him, "what is your fuel load?"
He replied, "Half petrol."
"What is your ammo load?"
He said, "No ammo."

We agreed to cross over... the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes. I took-off in a new P-38L, after my crew chief had removed the ammo and put back the minimum counter-balance, dropped the external tanks, and sucked out half the internal fuel. I climbed very high, so that as I dived down to cross over the field at 5,000 feet I would be close to 600mph.

When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight-up while watching him try to get on my tail. When he did a wingover from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail. Naturally, he turned into a full-power right Lufbery as I closed in. I frustrated that with my "Clover-Leaf", and if we'd had "hot guns", he would have been shot down. He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split S'ed from about 1000 feet. I followed him with the new flaps, banked only about 45 degrees, but still dropped below the treetops.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/10/2013 4:29:35 PM
The men of the 364th were watching the fight and saw me go out of sight below the treetops. Several of them told me later that they thought I would crash. But they were wrong. All I had to do was move over behind his Spit XV again. He was apparently surprised. He had stated at our briefing that he would land after our fight to explain the superior capabilities of his Spit XV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base. I was most pleased with the reception I got upon landing."
The details as to planes performance (Spitfire XIV it would have to be, not XV, and somewhat earlier than June 1944) and tactics used by each described are ACCURATE except for two MAJOR problems I see. The P-38L would compression stall at 530 Knots IAS. No Spitfire made can split S at less than 1700 feet altitude without slamming into the ground.    
 
So Lovell has his "memory" problems, just not major ones.
  
But as to the P-38 and what I told you? Here is a bit of inf
 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html
 
Note" target="_blank">link the climb rates? 
 
General data on various aircraft here:
 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
 
I" target="_blank">link would suggest using the FW190 as the benchmark. 
 
For a FULL in depth NO BS discussion of aircraft criticized here in this thread; I encourage you to read this thread;
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=97075&sid=2097c22b6eede8b5e60176700a2d54f3
 
Separate" target="_blank">link chaff from wheat. Keep to data as much as possible.
 
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
 
for" target="_blank">link P-38 combat performance data.
 
Note that it could OUTCORNER any German fighter including the FW-190 at most altitudes, which meant it could OUTCORNER any British fighter as well.
 
Remember that flight is a transient condition and that the plane best known by its driver performs best from moment to moment.
 
B.
 
P.s. Spitfire Vs were sent to Darwin with the Med kit you described. They FAILED. QED.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    corrected links   1/10/2013 4:35:05 PM
The men of the 364th were watching the fight and saw me go out of sight below the treetops. Several of them told me later that they thought I would crash. But they were wrong. All I had to do was move over behind his Spit XV again. He was apparently surprised. He had stated at our briefing that he would land after our fight to explain the superior capabilities of his Spit XV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base. I was most pleased with the reception I got upon landing."
The details as to planes performance (Spitfire XIV it would have to be, not XV, and somewhat earlier than June 1944) and tactics used by each described are ACCURATE except for two MAJOR problems I see. The P-38L would compression stall at 530 Knots IAS. No Spitfire made can split S at less than 1700 feet altitude without slamming into the ground.    
 
So Lovell has his "memory" problems, just not major ones.
  
But as to the P-38 and what I told you? Here is a bit of inf
 
Note" target="_blank">link the climb rates? 
 
General data on various aircraft here:
 
 
I would suggest using the FW190 as the benchmark. 
 
For a FULL in depth NO BS discussion of aircraft criticized here in this thread; I encourage you to read this thread;
 
Separate chaff from wheat. Keep to data as much as possible.
 
 
for P-38 combat performance data.
 
Note that it could OUTCORNER any German fighter including the FW-190 at most altitudes, which meant it could OUTCORNER any British fighter as well.
 
Remember that flight is a transient condition and that the plane best known by its driver performs best from moment to moment.
 
B.
 
P.s. Spitfire Vs were sent to Darwin with the Med kit you described. They FAILED.
 
Keep up the good work. Your comments are often spot on and accurate, even if we interpret some of it 'facts' differently    
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 5:00:23 PM

The details as to planes performance (Spitfire XIV it would have to be, not XV, and somewhat earlier than June 1944) and tactics used by each described are ACCURATE except for two MAJOR problems I see. The P-38L would compression stall at 530 Knots IAS. No Spitfire made can split S at less than 1700 feet altitude without slamming into the ground.    
 
wrong a spit could split S at 1200ft and barely make it a P38 would go splat at 1200ft, so you agree that the spit could outturn a p38?
I see a lot of major problems with his account not least claiming a british pilot would claim to hand him his ass!
 
So Lovell has his "memory" problems, just not major ones.
  
 
how come your quote is important yet mine is not? both have a single source both have as much proveable truth and both are in print yet mine is dismissed and your requoted, sorry if I believe mine not yours
 
But as to the P-38 and what I told you? Here is a bit of inf
 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html</div> </div><div>Note" target="_blank"> link the climb rates? 
 
General data on various aircraft here:
 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/</div></div><div> </div><div>I" target="_blank"> link would suggest using the FW190 as the benchmark. 
 iam i missing something as i dont see a spit later than a mkI
 
 
For a FULL in depth NO BS discussion of aircraft criticized here in this thread; I encourage you to read this thread;
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=97075&sid=2097c22b6eede8b5e60176700a2d54f3</div> </div><div>Separate" target="_blank"> link chaff from wheat. Keep to data as much as possible.
 
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html</div><div> </div><div>for" target="_blank"> link P-38 combat performance data.
 
Note that it could OUTCORNER any German fighter including the FW-190 at most altitudes, which meant it could OUTCORNER any British fighter as well.
 
have you noticed that for every report tht says the P38 was the best there is another that says it was the p51 or the spit or.......
 
realy most reports say otherwise, infact the Spit MkIX out turned the FW190 it was only roll that the fw was superior in fact US reports that the FW wasnt a particular good turner and had horendus stall properties
 
Remember that flight is a transient condition and that the plane best known by its driver performs best from moment to moment.
 
yet you insist that the P38 was superior
 
B.

  
P.s. Spitfire Vs were sent to Darwin with the Med kit you described. They FAILED. QED.
did they?
first they had the early type Vokes  filter (big duck bill things) rather than the later Aboukir? filter
they were also pretty clapped out
 
what about the MkVIIIs? of which Aussies got more of than they did MkVs!
 
even what happened at darwin is disputed
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/10/2013 5:30:57 PM
The actual data I've presented says 2200 feet, but recorded instances of 1700 feet exist. You are in error. 
 
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/10/2013 5:50:00 PM
P.s. Spitfire Vs were sent to Darwin with the Med kit you described. They FAILED. QED.
did they?
first they had the early type Vokes  filter (big duck bill things) rather than the later Aboukir? filter
they were also pretty clapped out
 
No they weren't.  Factory crated.
 
what about the MkVIIIs? of which Aussies got more of than they did MkVs!
 
Same problem, European solution to Pacific war. Aussies had to fix them, locally.
 
even what happened at darwin is disputed
 
Not at all. The US kept good records on what didn't work. So did Australia. That is why I referred you  to Australian archives.
===========================
Or try;
"Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia" by Anthony Cooper
 
The conclusions against the Spitfire and P-40 versus the Japanese Zekes and Oscars one can draw is quite scathing. Mostly pilots are the problems, but he covers the opposing sides' technical deficiencies I mention quite well.
 
B.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 10:20:19 PM

show you know nothing as the TURBOCHARED engine in the P38 required a lot more management than he SUPERCHARGED engines in most other aircraft,  
Yes, there were 33.3% more procedures to do in the P-38 to go from Cruising speed to Combat Power than the Spitfire, or any other plane than the Fw-190 and it's variants! But there were 400% more procedures to do in the P-38 than in the Fw-190. Also, there were 300% more procedured to do in the Spitfire than the Fw-190! Except for the Fw-190, ALL other aircraft of the time that had adjustable, or variable pitch, or constant speed props all required the following procedures! 1. Adjust the throttle, then the mixture, then the prop pitch, or wait, was it mixture, pitch then throttle, or pitch, throttle and then mixture? You see it changes from plane to plane and it could be done out of sequence, IF it was all done and nothing forgotten. 
 it is amazing how your definitions are at odds with everyone elses, to take your point aabout jump off bridges, if everyone is jumping it makes sense to check why you are the ONLY one not, whilst you may be correct evidence points to you being wrong Neat Logic! Twisted, but neat anyway! the extra weight of fuel is always a undesirable, Is that why ~50% of all GCI missions flown in the BoB FAILED to make their intercept points?
realy so youd fuel your fighter for 500miles even if its a 50 mile trip? Yes, they do do that! Did you know that the F-100 in the F-16 uses almost 75,000 pounds of fuel per hour at low altitude and full zone five after burner? Just how much gas to you think those things carry? Did you know that all other foriegn engines in that thrust class use more fuel than that?
True! But, have you ever noticed that the F-16 never goes ANYWHERE WO drop tanks in the real world?                        maybe because they are peacetime missions not combat, why do they use inflight refueling and not just load all the fuel on to strt with?

No! I am talking about combat missions! Do you know why they have tankers standing buy for the return trip? It is because more than a very few minutes at AB can drain the tanks dry and leave you WO fuel for the RTB!
Look at pics and films of recent Wars and combats like desert storm. Note they all had the drop tanks on and their were ALWAYS tankers on standby! You obviously have no comprehension at all how thirsty aircraft are. Even from WW-II. Did you know the Mk-60 serries Merlin used over 200 gallons per hour at WEP? The Spitfire has what, less than 100 gallons all up?
I know you will not believe me if I do a flight plan, but I will any way. Start at the landing and work forward to the take off.
1. 30 minutes economical cruise reserve in the tanks when it touches down. Use whatever rate of consumption you like.
2. Fast Cruise at most ecconomical mixture from the combat zone over France back to base.
3. Combat Cruise rich mixture over France after Combat.
4. 5-15 Minutes of combat at WEP(5 Min.) and 10 Minutes at the 15-30 minute restricted rate. (This is what the reserve is partially for, in case you have to leave the throttle in max-restricted pos, for the extra 5-15 minutes! Because IF you do, you will never get back to HOME!)
5. Combat cruise at rich mixture over France on the way in.
6. Most economical cruise from base to edge of the combat zone over the Channel on the way to France.
7. Take off and climb to formation point!
Since I do not know the numbers for the Spitfire off the top of my head and the numbers have been posted here so many times, it should be easy to get them and plug them in. Then add them up.
OR, if you do not like my flight plan, do your own, for the same basic mission.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 10:43:04 PM

maybe you do a bit of reading about those operations, maybe just maybe the loses were more about the way the operations were conducted rather than the aircraft? This is absolutely true! The BoB and the Sweeps over France were both different and exactly the same, depending on your point of view! why should we do your digging it you that is making the claime yet you now say that you cannot be bothered to actaul reasearch your posts then why should we bother taking you seriously?Because when I make factual but unsupported, of thinly supported claims, no-one believed me are dismissed them out of hand!

It is my contention, backed by interviews with many pilots, both then and now, that the following conditions prevailed in those two instances.
1. Over Southern England, the Germans were at long range and forced to use lower throttle settings for most of the mission, excluding combat.
2. Over France, the exact same conditions applied to the RAF!
3. Because it was very hard at the time to go from cruise speed to WEP with out blowing the engine up, the plane that is at reduced throttle at the start of combat is greatly disadvantaged. The defender is trying to intercept the attacker and is at the largest practical throttle opening he can manage and still complete the mission. See the seven steps above for the attcker who is at a disadvantage.
4. Because the defender is at larger throttle pos, he is going faster and has more energy to play with.
5. When bounced the attacker has to advance the throttle and dogfight. The Defender is already at full throttle.
6. The statistical average of very many thousdands of encounters shows the deffender gets the best of it most of the time, given planes of equal, or nearly equal performance.
 
These facts are why the RAF won the BoB and lost the Sweeps Battle over France!
 
PS. As a seperate factiod, most people here on this board do not believe that a fighter plane engine can destroy itself in such short order. Two things to think on;
1. The Merlin/DB601 made more power for longer than any modern passenger car engine! If you do not belive it take one to the track like Boniville, or Daytona and run it flat out for five minutes at a wack! I have done both and have watched so many fast cars blow up you would not believe it. It only takes 90 seconds to make a pass at the salt flats, read the results to see how many "Door Slammers" blow up in just that time. I mean Ferrari's, Turbo Porsche's and all the others too! If it's not built for the test, it blows up and that is using modern technology far in advance of anything in WW-II.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics