Best fighter [Archive] - Page 3 - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

Lightning

4th January 2005, 00:08

Hi Kutscha and azrael,

Happy New Year to you both and to all the other respected colleagues of these forums who have made my year so interesting and informative.

Kutscha:
The air battle to which you refer took place over, I believe, Jugoslavia late on the war. The Russians had advanced unexpectedly during the previous night, and, for some reason, the Americans were unaware of their new positions. The P-38s were called in for an air strike on what they believed to be German positions.

The Lightnings (either "J" or "L" models) inflicted damage and casualties on the Russians who, understandably, called in their own planes (Yaks) to drive off the attack. In the ensuing air battle, three P-38s and five Yaks were shot down.

Update: See Capilatus's new thread this date. This requires double-checking.

azrael:
I,ll get back to you with details re: P-38 raids on the Ploiesti oil refineries. Yes, they did suffer rather heavy casualties, but they did a significant amount of damage. Also keep in mind that, in addition to intense ground fire, they had to do their own fighting against enemy fighters on the way in, over the target, and on their way home to their base.

The Ploiesti refineries never were knocked completely out of commission, even by the B-24s in their much-more heralded raid during which the Liberators also lost many of their number. The effectiveness of the P-38 mission was, in the oppinion of many, as good--or better--than that of the B-24 mission.

Regards,
Lightning

ickysdad

4th January 2005, 02:52

azrael,
The tests also says that the Mustang & XIV should never be enemies and which one you pick is a matter of taste. Which is also MHO however I brought up the whole boost/fuel grade to show that you have to be careful comparing speeds as the examples of the XIV & F6F-5 prove. Look at it this way the F6F-3 has been listed as having a max speed of around 380 MPH as has the F6F-5! Now how can that be when the F6F-5 had more boost and water injection added? Which it is also fair to add was retrofitted to the F6F-3?
On the Hellcat verses Zero I'm thinking the F6F-3 outclimbed the earlier A6M/2-3's but was inferior to the later A6M/5 up to about 10,000' where they equalled out, then at 14,000' the F6F-3 started getting the upper hand. There was a test at Pauxtatent early in '44(I think) that bore this out .The later F6F-5 completely erased even the A6M/5's climb advantages over the F6F what was left of them. In zoom climb the F6F-3 had a huge advantage over both models of A6M.
In turning alot can depend on the speed your going and at high speeds alot of planes could outturn a Zero. The P-38L was a very tight turning aircraft pilots that flew both Spitfires(IX's & XIV's) & P-38L's say that no Allied aircraft could turn with a Spitfire but that the LIghtning was extremely close to it. In tests the P-38L,at slow speeds ,could almost turn with a Zero.

GregP

4th January 2005, 12:37

Azrael, thansk for the link comparing the Spit XIV to others. A nice bit of stuff!

As for the Hellcat, both the F6F-3 and thf F6F-5 had 250 gallons of internal fuel and 150 gallon drop tanks. So, the Hellcat had 1100 miles range on interla fuel, and a 1,760 mile range with drop tank ... assuming the Hellcat could use all the drop tank fuel before being forced to drop it. That's about an 800-mile combat radius, and was way more than the Bf-109 could manage on its best day ever.

If the Hellcat went off on internal fuel only, using the belly mount for a bomb instead of a drop tank, then it could match or slightly beat the Bf-109 who had to fly with a drop tank instead of any offensive payload.

You must like to argue to defend the 109's range. As a short-range offensive fighter, the Bf-109 was superb and may well rank near the very top, expecially considering the kill tallies of the Bf-109's pilots. When range becomes a factor, it drops out of the running.

C'mon, let's be reasonable here. In fighter versus fighter combat, both the Bf-109 and the Spitfire were both excellent. If the fighter had to go 650 miles, then fight, then return, then neither of the above aircraft was much in consideration, while the escort fighters were. Let's face it, if the fighers had to go that far and then fight, then it was either American or Japanese fighters that did it.

Withness Pearl harbor and the interception of Admiral Yamamoto.

The British had long range aircraft, but the Spitfire, in MOST of variants, wasn't among them. Ditto the Bf-109.

Since this IS a best fightrer thread, I'll say that both were superb aircraft at one mission, fighter-vs-fighter. They perhaps had no peers except maybe the Russian Yaks or Lavochikns. But again, that wasn't the only criterion in my book.

That seems to be the center of many arguments, fighter-vs-fighter combat. Please remember the OTHER missions a fighter had to perfrom. They have been hashed over so I'll not repeat them here again, but fighter-vs-fighter was only one of 5 to 8 missions the "best" was called upon to perform.

Keep the great links coming!

Ricky

4th January 2005, 18:03

quote:fighter-vs-fighter was only one of 5 to 8 missions the "best" was called upon to perform.
And the only one the Spitfire did not perform was the long-range escort...;)

azrael

4th January 2005, 20:43

GregP,
glad you liked the article about the Spitfire-Comparison. It is of course not completely addressing our discussion, as the FW190 discussed there must have been an A-model with the BMW radial-engine, and not our contender, the Dora, with the DB603 inline engine (hate that word, inline, as it is normally used to distinguish between V engines and those that actually have all cylinders in a row. The DB603 was a V engine lol!!). Same for the Mustang, it was a Mustang III (P-51C) not a P-51D. But close enough I guess.
On the issue of range, I was not saying that the Bf109 was such a great long legged bird, just found it strange that you put down the 1000 mile range it could reach with a drop tank as the Hellcat had about the same range on internal fuel. 1000 miles is very respectable I think, look at the Dauntless and its range. That was the bird that had to do the striking in the PTO! Sure, it was not enough to escort bombers from London to Berlin and back. But it was not a short range by any means.
Also, Ricky is right, the spitfire did fly all figher missions, except for long range escort, although it did fly escort. The again, the Hellcat did not escort long-range bombers either, so how is that an argument for the Hellcat? Do we even have to ask about the Hellcat's performance as a PR plane (a role the Spitfire excelled at)? Ground-attack, sorry, not a real strength for either bird, although both did it. The Hellcat was just as much optimized for fighter to fighter combat (or fighter against Vals and Kates or Bettys, none of which were more robust or harder to kill than fighters) as the Spitfire and, given the limitations imposed by it being stationed on a carrier, it was outstanding, one of the best in the war. Better than the Spit? You yourself said it, no.

Ickysdad,
the test says that Mustang and Spitfire should never be enemies and which you prefer is a matter of taste, yes. But it also shows that the Spitfire XIV proved to be superior to the Mustang III in all categories except for range (and a tiny edge in diving). I also have to disagree with you on the topic of the turning of a Lightning. The P-38L was NOT a fast-turning plane at low speeds, there it was actually outclassed by just about everything flying. It was HOWEVER an excellent turning plane at very high speed (300+ mph) as it featured hydraulically (or electrically?) boosted control surfaces. When it comes to the speed of Hellcats, I see the F6F3 listed at 603 kph and the F6F5 at 620 kph. Yes, it was faster, no, it was out of competition with the Mustang or Spitfire when it comes to speed. And no boost or fuel will change that, sorry (keep in mind that top speed scales with the square root of the power-output of the engine, roughly. The Hellcat would need a 35% increase in power to reach the 720kph of the Mustand or the Spitfire. I find it highly unlikely that any ammount of charging the engine or any fuel in the world can give it that).

CAPILATUS

4th January 2005, 23:00

quote:Originally posted by KutschaOn the La-7 combat.
It was in the Berlin area, April 1945. The Soviet pilot was Kozhedub, who seeing a some LW fighters attacking some heavy bombers went to the bombers aid. Two P-51s attacked him. In the following combat Kozhedub damages the wingman's enough that he has to run for home but has to bail out of his smoking Pony. Kozhedub then gets on the leaders tail and in the process of shooting him down sees the American star but it is too late.

Yeah, I post the info about this somehow. The info taken from Kozhedub's interview he didn't see some FWs, he was fighting with them, defending USAAF bombers! And P-51s came later on tried to dog with as La-7 very much looks like FW-190. In the interview Kozhedub mentioned he downed one Mustang straight away and AFTER that set in smoke another.

As he himself says for shooting them he was punished and didn't get the third STAR of hero as though he should've as he scored by that time more 60 victories. The third STAR he got just in August and didn't expect to.

Lightning

5th January 2005, 00:45

Hi azrael,

I'm going to disagree with you on the P-38L tight-turning issue. It was universally taken for granted that the Lightning was a poor "turner". That's why so many enemy pilots got the surprise of their lives (and deaths) when they tried to out-turn the P-38--especially the "L"-- at low speed and low altitude.

The maneuvering flap, the boosted ailerons, and proper use of asymmetrical thrust of the two engines made all the difference in the world over what was expected from a twin-engined fighter at the time. Ergo the erroneous and deadly preconception that the Lightning was a poor performer in a manuevering dogfight.

The comments made by ickysdad concerning this issue are not figments of his imagination, nor did he concoct them merely to make his point. I have read the same points in publications from many different sources.

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

5th January 2005, 01:06

quote:The maneuvering flap, the boosted ailerons, and proper use of asymmetrical thrust of the two engines made all the difference in the world over what was expected from a twin-engined fighter at the time. Ergo the erroneous and deadly preconception that the Lightning was a poor performer in a manuevering dogfight.
Sorry if this comes across as annoyingly pernickity...
Does this mean that the P-38 was a very good turner, or a very good turner for a twin-engine fighter?
In a spirit of enquiry, not accusation!:)

Lightning

5th January 2005, 01:17

Hi Ricky,

Both.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

5th January 2005, 02:04

Hi azrael,

As promised, here are the details on the P-38 bombing raid on Ploiesti:

The raid took place on June 10, 1944. It involved a force of 75 P-38s consisting of 36 "bombers" from the 82nd FG and 39 escorts from the 1st FG. These were all probably earlier-model "J"s.

The planes took off from Foggia, Italy. Each of the bombers carried a 300 gal drop tank and a 1000 lb bomb for a total of 2800 lbs.The distance to the target was 600 miles.

The P-38s were engaged in combat throughout the mission. Enrout, one sq. of escorts broke up a 15-20 plane formation of type not specified. The other two sq. of escorts destroyed 6 Do-217 bombers and were engaged by about 20 Rumanian IAR-80s which were mistaken for Fw-190s.

Over the target, the bombers were intercepted by 28 assorted Bf-109, Bf-110, and Me-410 fighters. They pushed forward the attack and dropped a total of 36 x 1000 lb bombs on target. They lost 7 of their number to ground fire. At the same time, some of the escorts were strafing targets 5 miles west of Ploiesti, were they encountered 30-40 Bf-109s.

On the return to their base in Italy, two P-38s were lost to ground fire while strafing targets of opportunity.

The raid destroyed and/or damaged oil-refinery plants, storage tanks, and facilities.

The total losses due to fighters and ground fire throughout the mission was 30%.

Compare these numbers to the B-24 raid (Operation "Tidal Wave") on August 1, 1943. There were 164 B-24s that reached the target. Of these, 41 were lost to enemy action (25%)and 14 to other causes (12%) for a total of 37%. The destruction to the target was about40%

Neither of these raids shut down the production of the refineries at Ploiesti.

regards,
Lightning

ickysdad

5th January 2005, 02:51

azrael,
Yes that test showed the XIV as being superior in all catergories but I have published figures,British ones at that from same website,that show at regular manifold pressures & 100 octane fuel the P-51 hit 380 MPH at SL and the XIV hit 369 MPH at same,now with the Mustang pulling 25lbs. of boost and using 150 octane fuel it could hit 405-410 MPH at SL with the XIV hitting 389 MPH using same settings & fuel. Erich Brown even states for the most part that the Mustang was slightly faster IF USING THE SAME BOOST & FUEL but the XIV accelerated better .He also states that the XIV was superior in climb,but the P-51 the better zoom climber,the XIV was quicker into a dive but it was suicide to stay in a dive with a P-51. He goes onto say the XIV was the better turner but the P-51 rolled better. So there you have it even in an area where one of the two is better the other has an edge in a sub catergory in that area(turning/rolling,top speed/acceleration ,climb/zoom climb, dive/intiation of dive).
Remember also those tests were conducted by the British themselves so it should be no surprise thier aircraft is going to be considered better. I'm an American and I'm also skeptical of the USN tests showing the F6F & F4U being superior to the '190, equal to yes superior no.
The P-38 turnung question was even answered by tests by the British in mid-43 that showed the P-38 quite clearly out-turning '190's & 109's at low speeds ,now the early P-38's rate of roll left something to be desired but once into a turn it turned quite tightly.Now when it got airelon boost it could roll extremely fast ,in fact was close to being the best at 300 MPH+ at rolling. It was an extremely good turner period ,not just for an twin-engined aircraft. Several Luftwaffe pilots stated you didn't want to dogfight a P-38.
On the F6F speed I've never said it was to the level of the XIV or P-51(well maybe as fast as the Spitfire IX) but the difference isn't as great as one might be lead to believe. An F6F-5 according to my sources can hit 409 MPH at full WEP power and 100 octane fuel a P-51/XIV are both in the 435-440 MPH range at full WEP(or boost) and 100 octane fuel. Now some figures I've seen indicate the XIV hit 446 MPH USING 25 lb(or full boost) and 150 octane fuel(compared to the P-51's getting up to 435-440 MPH using 15 lbs. boost & 100 octane) but this whole field of speed(whoose fastest) and what boost/fuel grade is being used is very confusing.

Kutscha

5th January 2005, 03:17

Lightning, (41 + 14) / 164 * 100 = 33.5%, not 37%. (just to be picky;))

On the P-38 raid, I did not see how many P-38s were lost to enemy a/c.

On German a/c range, the comment was only to show Greg that the Germans did not ignore long range for their a/c and as stated previously they had added external tanks to their fighter a/c in the SCW before WW2 started.

On the Fw in the Spit report, this most likely was a fighter-bomber. Possibly PE822 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-4/U8 - W.Nr.7155 or PN999 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-5/U8 - W.Nr.2596 - "White 6" of I./SKG10. The only true fighter the British captured was Faber's, MP499 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-3 - W.Nr.313 - single chevron of III./JG2 - SoC September 1943.

A couple of links if not known of already.
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/captive-index.html

ickysdad

5th January 2005, 04:52

I would like to post a warning about putting too much faith into fly-offs between 2 fighters. One point is a captured enemy plane maynot be in the best of condition. Point two is you probably don't have pilots & ground crew as familiar with an enemy plane as the enemy does. Point three is if you have a RAF pilot expierenced in flying Spitfires then have him fly a P-47 in a test against a Spitfire well the test isn't going to be that indicative of the P-47's fighting ability. The Spitfire pilot is going to be used to fighting an angles style fight not one of energy. Vive-versa a P-47 pilot flying a Spitfire may find his energy game(especially in diving away) disappointing. Luftwaffe pilots routinely dived away from Spitfires to get away and got a rude shock when they tried the same thing against P-40's,P-47's and even F4F's similarly Spitfire pilots were used to besting Luftwaffe planes in turning then got a rude shock when same was tried on Zeroes.

BuzzLightyear

5th January 2005, 11:06

Sort of odd comparing the Spitfire to the Hellcat. The Spitfire wasn't a carrier plane and didn't fight battles over far flung islands and return hundreds of miles to a carrier shot full of holes.

The proper comparison would have been against the Seafire. Contemporary Seafires appear to have been worse performers than any Hellcat. Seafire Mk IIs and IIIs were both slower than the F6F-3 Hellcat. Both had a worse rate of climb. Neither compared in range. They weren't anywhere near as rugged. And deck handling manners were poorly regarded. US pilots evaluated the Seafire at the Joint Fighters Conference in 1944 and one stated "the Japs would knock it hard."

The Seafire XV didn't enter service until May 1945 - and saw no war service. It was a much better performing than the previous Seafire, but inferior in both speed and rates of climb to the contemporary F4U-4 and F8F Bearcat.

===

BTW, different top speeds for the Hellcat can be obtained by testing in different manners. For instance, the published top speed for the -5 Hellcat is approx 380 mph. However, in USN tests against the A6M5 the -5 revealed a top speed of 409 mph.

GregP

5th January 2005, 11:54

I'm not going to argue for argument's sake, so I'll just state that the F6F-5 was the best piston fighter in the world in my opinion. Can we let it go at that and state you all simply disagree?

I stand by kill ratio. So does the American Aces Association.

I also mentioned in an earlier post about the article in Flight Journal by Corky Meyer. He was a factory Grumman test pilot and they tested the F6F Hellcat alongside the F4U Corsair in a side by side manner. By the published numbers, the F4U should have run away froim the F6F, but it didn't. Corky wasn't particularly surprised since the F6F and F4U had the same engine and propeller (except for Main Stage boost method), and approximately the same frontal area. He says the F6F had a "correct" pitot-static placement while the Corsair had an "optimistic" airspeed system. I believe him. The Hellcat SHOUILD have been in the low 400 mph range given the power, prop, and form drag. According to Corky, it was, as later verified in testing.

Also according to Corky, the two performed nearly identically in low boost and high boost, while the Corsair had a slight edge in the main stage where the Corsair used ram air and the F6F did not for safety purposes. Lack of ram air meant that very few F6Fs were lost due to carburetor icing since they used a downdraft systems. The Corsair cannot make the same claim.

The F4U-4, however, was pretty fast at 470 mph, was a very good roller, could carry a lot of bombs or rockets, and was still in service with the home nation when Spitfires had already been retired by England.

The F4U-5 was faster yet, but didn't make it into WWII.

Many people, not just a small few, feel the F4U-5 was the ultimate piston fighter. I have never flown any piston warbird other than a North American T-6G (definitely not in the fighter category), but I lean toward the Hawker Sea Fury as the ultimate best, with the F4U-5 being right in there.

I have almost no practical knowledge of the Lavochkin La-11 but feel it might be right there with these two other "greats." All I have are the "numbers," and they don;t tell the whole story.

You, of course, may disagree. Considering the past few pages, I expect at least Azrael to be in total disagreement. Your mileage may vary ...

I'll stick with a factory fresh F6F-5 with a fresh R-2800 with water-methanol injection and a battle-proven 19-to-1 kill ratio with U.S. Navy pilots in the driver's seat ... that could take enough punishment to down several Spitfires while still being airworthy and in the fight.

BuzzLightyear

5th January 2005, 12:13

The F4U-4 was a 452mph plane, the F4U-5 was a 470mph variant. The F4U-5 by some accounts had too many automatic features, other say it was a breeze to fly because of the automation. But most seem to agree it was a very good fighter (although few were produced as day fighters).

I really don't think the La-11 compares favorably. It wasn't begun until 1946, and had a top speed of 419 mph. That's pretty low for a 1946 fighter. Climb was mediocre. But it purportedly could perform a 360 turn in 19.5 seconds (unknown start speed).

The La-9 wasn't much better at 429 mph.

ickysdad

5th January 2005, 13:06

greg and everybody...
I keep bringing up the speed of the F6F-5 verse the F6F-3 because it's not rational to say that when some published sources & websites show both having a top speed of 380 MPH when the -5 has extra boost & water injection compared to the -3. Also there seems to be some dispute as to which is faster the P-51 or Spitfire XIV and once again some sources give conflicting and/or biased info mainly in reference to engine settings and/or fuel used. The same with all these tests conducted you have to know engine settings ,pilot & ground crew familiarity with aircraft ,ect.,ect.,and ect.. The Spitfire Testing website even gives conflicting numbers on that airplane's performance. Another reminder in comparing the Spitfire to the Mustang not all Spitfires were the model XIV fewer than a thousand were produced out of 23,000 total Spitfire & Seafire production. When you evaluate the P-38 you can't just look at the"J" & "L" versions you also have to look at the D-H that had all those engine problems though they still rendered sterling service.

GregP

5th January 2005, 15:52

Good points. Yah, you gotta' know the boost and fuel.

After all, an engine is just an air pump. More fuel equals more power. The way to get more fuel was ram air and boosted air. Boost equals turbocharging or supercharging. All it is is more air through the engine. In turn, it draws more fuel.

100 Octane fuel is MUCH better than 88 Octane. 150 Octane is the best, and is not made anymore as far as I know.

As I understand it, the limit (on a Merlin) of power on 87 Octane fuel was about 1,175 hp. The same engine on 100 Octane fuel could generate 1800 hp, assuming engine development could manage to do that. Several Merlins DID (Merlin 66 at 18 lb boost). If you added water injection, you could get about 2,075 hp from the same engine. The limit on 150 Octane fuel was about 2,400 hp. At least one Merlin made 2,625 hp on 150 Octane fuel plus water injection for extra cooling capacity.

The piston engine limit was close to 6,500 hp. Past that, the supercharger consumed the extra power that it produced. As far as I know, the largest aircraft piston engine ever made was the experimental Lycoming XR-7755 radial. It was nine 4-cylinder engines mounted to a common crankshaft, with 36 total cylinders. One still survives in a museum. It displaced 7,755 cubic inches (127 liters) and made 5,000 hp at 2,600 rpm at 44 inches of manifold pressure. It was intended for 6,500 hp, but development of jet engines spelled the doom of the big radial.

The Russians , as far as I know, have built the largets radials ever, the Zvezda radial. It has 7 rows of 8 cylinders each, displaces 8,760 cubic inches (143.6 liters) and turns 2,500 rpm while developing 6,035 hp. It is used for tractor pulls and has 4 valves per cylinder. But ... it is NOT an aircraft engine.

Maybe someone will develop a piston engine that can develop the theoretical engine limit of 6,500 hp or so. If so, they haven't stepped forward yet.

Still, I have flown a North American T-6G with a 650 HP radial in it, and I'd simply LOVE to fly something with an Allison , Merlin, Hispano-Suiza, or a Mikulin (developed from the Hispano-Suiza) ... or a big radial, like an R-2800 P&W, or something with a big BMW radial in it.

Face it, power is intoxicating. More is better.

It ain't likely to happen, but I can dream!

CAPILATUS

5th January 2005, 17:48

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear
I really don't think the La-11 compares favorably. It wasn't begun until 1946, and had a top speed of 419 mph. That's pretty low for a 1946 fighter. Climb was mediocre. But it purportedly could perform a 360 turn in 19.5 seconds (unknown start speed).

The La-9 wasn't much better at 429 mph.
La-11 was desinged as an escort fighter with range of 2235km of internal tank using, no data range with external tank 332l it could be equipped.

La-9 was no doubt the best Russian piston fighter ever built and no doubt the most fire powerful piston fighter around the world, havig 4(!) NS-23 (300 rounds) in nose section.

La-9 with laminar wing profile and full metal construction.

SL speed - 640km/h
speed at 6000m - 690km/h
rate of climb - 1064m/min
range - 1735km
Maneuverability - almost same as La-7's, but much easier could be controlled after out of spin as it had no wing slats.

Very impressive, isn't it? But... we're talking about WW2 planes, right? So lets forward to :)

Yeap I still keep nominating La-7. May be I would prefer any others, but you know... I wouldn't sale out 3x20mm in nose - no way! [8D]

some La-9 pics:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/la9/la9-8.jpg

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/la9/la9-9.jpg

Ricky

5th January 2005, 18:09

Nice pic Capitalus, it's easy to see how they could get mistaken for Fw190's...

Greg:
Yes, we can agree to disagree, but I am still a little amazed that you can base your choice on a statistic that is, in context, not entirely meaningful. The Buffalo could have racked up a respectable kill ratio against the opposition the Hellcat was facing.
(Ok, maybe that is a bit extreme, but hey, you get the idea)
The Hellcat had the good fortune to be introduced at a time when the opponant's pilots were, on average, poor, and the USN pilots were, on average, very good.
By the eway - anyone know of any claimed kill ratio for the Bf109?

Ah well. For me, after the discussions on here, it comes down to P-38 vs Spitfire, with Hellcat & P-51 following on in that order. Somewhere in the mix are the Fw190/Ta 152, the Ki100, the La7 and the Yak 3/9 series.

azrael

5th January 2005, 19:36

Ricky,
when Greg wanted other kill ratios I had a look around and found 7:1 for the BF109. I have no idea whatsoever concerning the validity of the claim as it was basically no more than a side note in the discussion of some other fighter (I think the Hellcat, not sure). Might be even worthless a number than kill-ratios tend to be already.

azrael

5th January 2005, 20:02

Ok,
the discussion about fuel is becoming somewhat absurd and mystified, sorry. Here is the facts concerning piston engines, what gives them power, what does not.
Fact 1: The efficiency of a piston-type engine, or any combustion-type engine, including a turbine, depends on the compression of the hot gas before it is allowed to expand (i.e. before it drives down the piston). This is simple physics and results in a maximum efficiency of about 67%, meaning 67% of the total energy involved in the process can be converted into motion.
Fact 2: The main source of the energy comes from burning fuel in the cylinders.
Fact 3: Fuel has basically a fixed energy content, 88 Octane fuel does not contain more energy than 100 or 150 Octane fuel, at least not to any degree of interest.
Fact 4: As a result the only things that matter is:
a) How efficiently is the fuel burned, how much is wasted (i.e. how
complete is the burning process). This is where the compression
of the original fuel/air mix (before ignition) comes in. The
higher it is compressed, the better the fuel burns off. Also,
this initial compression obviously helps to increase the final
compression after ignition.
b) How much fuel can be processed per time unit. The faster the
engine turns, the more fuel is burned (obviously). There is
however a limit as at higher turning speeds the effiency of the
actual burning process drops of (i.e. the fuel does not have
time to burn completely before it is ejected out of the
exhaust). As a result, all engines have an optimal turning speed
with maximum power. There is however a second limit. Air and
fuel have to be present at just the right mix to burn well or
at all. The limiting factor here is air, not fuel. To circumvent
this problem (especially at high altitude where air is even
rarer so to speak, superchargers and turbochargers were
invented. They are identical in effect, they compress air before
it is send into the cylinder (they only differ in the source of
power used to compress the air). More air means you can use more
fuel and thus get greater power.
c) Finally you can cheat a bit and inject additional reaction mass
like water. It does not burn like the fuel does but it does
expand tremendously when turning to steam (thus raising our
compression again).

Ok, now where does the Octane number of the fuel come in if it does not influence the energy contained in the fuel? Simple, the initial compression, pre-ignition, is about the most vital statistic of an engine. But a fuel-air mix tends to explode by itself when it is compressed beyond a certain pressure (that is how a diesel engine works). Since you do not want that to happen you need fuel that resists flaming by itself for as high pressure as is possible. And THAT is where the Octane rating comes in. Higher Octane numbers mean that the fuel-air mix can be compressed to higher pressures. 150 Octane fuel does NOT however mean 150% max pressure compared to 100 Octane. The number is the ratio between two isomers of octane in a mixture that can be compressed to the same pressure as the fuel we are looking at without exploding by itself.

Now that I have stated this I would like to point out that you cannot simply increase the compression or the loading pressure of the supercharger to any given number. Otherwise you could get any power form even the smallest of engines. The Merlin series of engines was exactly that, a SERIES of similar engines based on each other. They were however still quite different. I doubt that a 1200 hp merlin can be boosted to 1800 hp without blowing up. There were merlins of both ratings, but they were different versions of the same series.

Ickysdad, finally, yes fuel, yes boost (loading pressure of the supercharger), fine. But you keep showing numbers that support a QUALITATIVE result. Spitfire and Mustang at about the same speed, Lightning, P-47, Corsair a bit slower, Hellcat a lot slower. The actual numbers, the quantitative result is irrelevant and does not change this qualitative result.

ickysdad

5th January 2005, 21:30

azrael,
Yeah I've been putting alot of numbers up there but they.....
1. Show you have to be careful in comparing performance of aircraft
2. Show you to watch your references & websites,in other words read the fine print.
3. Be skeptical of tests where one side compares it's aircraft against the enemy's in wartime or anytime for that matter, spare parts & skilled enemy maintenance crews maybe hard to come by.
4. THe plane with the top speed maynot be the best accelerator,the best turner maynot be the best roller,best sustained diver maynot intiatate it as well, best climber maynot zoom climb as well.

azrael

5th January 2005, 21:59

No doubt about it ickysdad, I never denied that. I was just saying that your posts concerning speed do not contradict my ranking of aircrafts in speed. It might critize the actual numbers, but not the qualitative result. Neither of your lists pushed the Mustang way ahead of the Spit in terms of speed, nor did it push any of the other planes into a higher or lower place in the rank list. A 400 mph Hellcat is STILL slower than a 440 mph Spit and by a comfortable margin. You clarified the quantitave result without changing the qualitative one.

azrael

5th January 2005, 22:02

Ickysdad,
I also never doubted that the test I posted was subjective. However, the main comparison I was referring to was the one between a Mustang and a Spitfire, the others were just a nice bonus. And I am decently sure that the RAF knew how to handle both planes and had capable maintenance crews to service them as well.

azrael

5th January 2005, 22:07

BuzzLightyear,
the F4U5 cannot really be object of our discussion as the prototype did not fly until 1946, long after the war. The F4U4, while a late-comer (entering production in Octobre of 1944 and being deployed only for the last 4 months of the conflict, never seeing much combat), was fast at about 720kph, a topspeed similar to the Spitfire and the Mustang.

azrael

5th January 2005, 22:27

Lightning,
thanks a lot for the info on the Ploiesti raid. I have to say though, that it did not look like a great day for the Lightning. First, they flew escorted, so no, the "bombers" did not have to fight free their own way as you originally claimed. It was merely the same type of planes that did the bombing and the shooting, not the same planes. Second, a 30% loss sounds horrible! That mission was a desaster however you want to look at it! Third, in your assesment of the B24 raid you make an unfair comparison. The B24 lost 25% to enemy influence, not 33% (you also counted only air-to-air and aaa losses when you gave the number for the Lightnings), which admittedly is still desastrous. I do not think that either one of these raids is a shining example of either plane's and used strategies' brilliance. Both raids got slaughtered and both did not accomplish what they set out to do.

azrael

5th January 2005, 22:37

Lightning,
one more thing...
quote:Over the target, the bombers were intercepted by 28 assorted Bf-109, Bf-110, and Me-410 fighters. They pushed forward the attack and dropped a total of 36 x 1000 lb bombs on target. They lost 7 of their number to ground fire. At the same time, some of the escorts were strafing targets 5 miles west of Ploiesti, were they encountered 30-40 Bf-109s.
Wow, none of the bombers was shot down before it could drop its bombload (you said there was 36 bombers with one 1000lbs bomb each)? You also did not say how extensive the damage to the refinery was. Now, 164 B-24s.... each can carry up to 4000kg or 9000lbs of bombs... even if they flew with a severely reduced bombload, lets say 4000lbs, they would have dropped about 17 times as much payload on the refinery as the Lightnings did. And they managed to cause 40% damage to it (whatever that means, 40% reduced output?). Again, I do not see how the Lightning did so much better in that raid. The whole thing sounds more like a prime example of why daylight bombing against an opponent whose air defense assets have not been utterly crushed is a pretty dumb idea.

azrael

5th January 2005, 22:53

Here is a nice link comparing the P-38L to the Mustang and (sometimes) the FW-190A. Interesting charts really
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html
BTW, this was the chart I had in ming talking about turning (I confused turning with rolling, I stand corrected).

azrael

5th January 2005, 23:24

Hmm I have been unable to find good quantitative data on the turning abilities of the Lightning. Only thing I read was that it was about the worst US fighter without using its maneuver flaps and still not a legendary turning fighter with the maneuver flaps. The flaps did improve turning drastically but at the expense of speed, they bled of energy quickly.

JoeB

6th January 2005, 01:46

"The F4U-5 by some accounts had too many automatic features, other say it was a breeze to fly because of the automation. But most seem to agree it was a very good fighter (although few were produced as day fighters).

I really don't think the La-11 compares favorably..the La-9 wasn't much better at 429 mph."

Most things I've seen lean toward negative about F4U-5, because of automatic stuff that was not really "smart" enough and thus a nuisance not to do manually (cowl flaps, auto blower control made formation flying difficult for example) or else hazardous bugs (switch contact welding in electric trim that put the plane in uncontrollable dives in some accidents). I believe there were 223 straight F4U-5's of 568 total but they were hardly used in Korea, only by VMF-212 in the first year of the war AFAIK.

The night versions however were the only night Corsairs in Korea, and most photo-Corsairs, a few -4P's were also used. But where -5N/NL's served alongside F7F-3N's they were distinctly less popular with VMF(N)-513 the longer serving Marine night unit, per their reports and analysis: mainly the basics of single v. twin, crew/engine in night interdiction mission, attacking road traffic under flares, over NK.

All this somewhat irrelevant I guess to how well liked it would have een in daylight air combat against high performance prop opponents, a much different situation than Korea.

While Guy Bordelon's 5 victories in an F4U-5N in 1953 are usually listed as over Po-2's and Yak-18's, Bordelon later said the first two were Yak-18's but latter 3 La-9's or 11's, and he believed 11's. The North Koreans did use La-9's and 11's as night raiders late in the war per a Russian source. A certain Corsair/Lavochkin engagement was off the coast of China in 26 July 1954 VF-54 AD-4's (yes, fighter sdn with Skyraiders) searching for survivors of an airliner downed by the PLAAF were attacked by what they i'd as 2 La-7's, undoubtedly -9's or -11's, and downed one. An F4U-5N of VC-3 came to their aid and shared credit for the other.

Other combat career of La-9/11 besides several recon/bomber cold war type shootdowns was ops by Soviet unit in China pre-Korea, they claimed some victories, and one Nationalist F-51D can be confirmed. In 1954 a Nationalist F-47N was downed by a PLAAF La-11.

Then in Korea the confirmable victories of Soviet La-11's are 2 or possibly 3 B/RB-26's at night (some additional were claimed). Chinese La-11's went 0:3 and NK La-9's 0:2 v. F-86's proving not much, one of the Chinese a/c managed to hit an F-86 though. Early credits of La-7's to US a/c were probably Yak-11's, anyway not La's.

Joe

ickysdad

6th January 2005, 03:50

azrael,
The book "Luftwaffe Fighter Planes & Aces" has articles by Luftwaffe pilots testifying to the P-38's turning ability WITHOUT manuver flaps. Joe Christy's book "P-38 Lightning at War" and "Fork-Tailed Devil,The P-38" by Martin Caidin also have testimonials by USAAF & Luftwaffe pilots on how tight-turning the P-38 was. Now in rolling it was somewhat deficent till the late "J"'s & "L" versions which were extremely good rollers ,at least above 300 MPH. Alot of turning ability depends on altitude & speed ,for example at low alt's ,a P-40 was a match for the '109F's & G's and could take on a '190.Even the P-39 was quite capable at low alt's just ask the Russians. A P-40 engaged at low altitude & speed under 300 MPH will out-roll & outturn a P-51. An Me109 was generally inferior to a P-51 in rolling & turning but if it's low altitude & low speed the '109 will probably be the superior plane.

BuzzLightyear

6th January 2005, 10:27

quote:Originally posted by azrael

BuzzLightyear,
the F4U5 cannot really be object of our discussion as the prototype did not fly until 1946, long after the war. The F4U4, while a late-comer (entering production in Octobre of 1944 and being deployed only for the last 4 months of the conflict, never seeing much combat), was fast at about 720kph, a topspeed similar to the Spitfire and the Mustang.

If we're strictly speaking in terms of WWII fighters, then I'd agree the F4U-5 doesn't qualify. Neither would the La-9 or La-11.

However, I'd gladly nominate the F4U-4. On 115/145 grade fuel, available in the Pacific after the defeat of Germany, the plane was capable of 452mph (clean, it was capable of this speed on 100/130 grade fuel). It had an initial climb rate of 4,770 feet per minute. The climb rate of the F4U-4 on 115/145 grade fuel was better than that of the Bf-109K-4 (at 1.98 ata - AFAIK never approved for service) all the way to its ceiling.

The F4U-4 was manueverable, tough, fast, climbed and dove well. What else could you ask for?

Kutscha

6th January 2005, 10:54

BuzzLightyear let me quote Olivier Lefebvre (he is writing a book on the 109 that will be the 'bible' on the 109 as is Spitfire: The History is for the Spitfire), noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:

The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.

As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation.

BuzzLightyear

6th January 2005, 12:29

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

BuzzLightyear let me quote Olivier Lefebvre (he is writing a book on the 109 that will be the 'bible' on the 109 as is Spitfire: The History is for the Spitfire), noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:
....

I know well who Oliver, aka Butch2k is.

That 1.8 or 1.98 ata was or wasn't approved for use is rather irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. If it was approved, ok. I brought it up because the K-4 is renowned for its climbing ability. However, on 115/145 grade fuel the F4U-4 did as well or better than the K-4. What better way to demonstrate the climbing potential of the F4U-4 than to compare it to the famous climbing ability of the Bf-109K-4?

Kutscha

6th January 2005, 13:25

Glad to know you who he is, but maybe others do not.

I was just pointing out that 1.98ata was approved and giving a little history.

"(at 1.98 ata - AFAIK never approved for service)"

The climb rate of the K-4 is overblown for the Spit IX and XIV could match and or better its climb rate.

BuzzLightyear

6th January 2005, 13:36

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

... The 109 could be fitted with 2 dts.
... The Fw190A, if carrying 3 dts (198gal), could manage over 1500mi.

Could and did are completely different things. Did Bf-109s or Fw-190s ever sortie in these configurations? AFAIK, some of the longest range sorties by LW fighters were during Bodenplatte, and those sorties were short by Allied standards.

quote:
The La-7 should be considered in the 'best'. One La-7 pilot bested (shot down) some USAAF P-51s that mistook it for a Fw190. The only a/c that could come near to it would be the F8F, which did not see combat in WW2.

I've never seen any US source that verifies the Kozhedub claims.

As far as the La-7 goes, it appears to have been a highly manueverable plane, with a good turn ability (19.5 - 20.5 seconds depending on source). Roll rate is unknown to me (I think it's unknown to a lot of "experts," too). Production La-7 speed was rather mediocre (423 mph @ 22,300 feet). Time-to-height was good (4.5 minutes to 16,404 feet). All-in-all, a very average performing late war fighter.

In comparison with the F4U-4 (on 100/130 grade fuel), sea-level speeds were identical, 370 mph. But the top speed of the Corsair was almost 30 mph faster, achieving 452mph at just over 25,000 feet. 19,000 feet was achieved in 5 minutes (a little over 17,000 feet in 4.5 minutes).

The La may have had an advantage in terms of Turn versus the F4U-4, it was appears mostly inferior in performance. Fuel the F4U-4 with 115/145 grade fuel, and the climb test is a "walk-away" for the Corsair.

Kutscha

6th January 2005, 14:37

Yes Buzz the 109 and 190 were fitted with 2 dts and yes they did sortie.:)

Anyways, it seems that it has gone over your head, for the replies were in response to Greg's comment that the Germans did not pursue long range capability.

"The Germans never developed a long range capability"

Granted, what was 'long range' for the Germans was not what 'long range' was for the Allies, but then the Allies needed the 'long range' to reach the enemy.

Kindly post some proof that the F4U-4 could do the speed you claim.

GregP

6th January 2005, 15:05

Hi Azrael,

I hate to do this, but I disagree with your post on fuel. Bet you couldn't guess that, huh?

The numbers I posted about the limit of the Merlin design on a particular grade of fuel come from Rolls Royce and I, for one, believe them. You say that 150 Octane fuel has no more energy in it than 87 Octane and I state that you are completely wrong.

It has no more energy at the same compression ratio, but 150-Octane fuel can be compressed to a higher level before it detonates and, therefore, it CAN and DOES deliver more energy due to the higher compression ratio that is achievable before detonation occurs ... assuming you boost the compression, that is.

If you don't believe that, get your car, come to Boise, Idaho, U.S.A. and we can go to a dragstrip. My 2002 Cheverolet Camaro SS is running a 10.1-to-1 compression ratio. I can run up to maybe 4.5 pounds of boost on my supercarger before I get detonation. Hhhmmmm, let's see ... 10.1 + 4.5 is about 14.6. Interesting how that comes right close to atmoshperic pressure, huh?

If I try to run , say, 5.5 pounds or higher, I'll get detonation unless I go to a fuel that doesn't detonate right above atmospheric pressure (or unles I retard the timing). Maybe, say, Methanol, huh? Or 150-Octane racing fuel? At LEAST higher than the 93-Octane crap we can buy in the U.S.A. Still, it is better than 87-Octane ...

Actually, now that I think about it, bring YOUR supercharged vehicle and we can explore the detonation limit with regard to compression ratio. I like my LS-1 engine and the pistons in it just fine ...

So, at the same compression ratio, you are right. But why not up the compression if you have the correct fuel? I would if I wanted more power, and so did Rolls Royce in WWII.

They did it not with static compression ratios, but rather with improved supercharger gearing, resulting in more boost, measured in inches of Mercury.

A standard atmosphere is about 29.925 inches of Mercury, so 18 inches of boost means abour 3/5 of an atmosphere of boost. So, we get 60% more air through the engine which, in turn, draws about 60% more fuel.

18 inches of boost should, in theory, give me about 60% more power. Of course, I mean 60% minus expected losses due to higher friction and loads. All in all, I'd expect about 45 - 50% more power from an engine boosted to 18 inches than from an unboosted engine, assuming the fuel doesn't detonate first and assuming the propeller can absorb the extra power. This, of course, assumes the crankshaft can handle the extra power. That is not always a given.

The thing is, you CAN boost 150-Octane fuel to 18 inches and you can't if you are running 87-OCtane fuel.

Modern air racers are pulling over 100 inches of boost, and they ain't running 87-OCtane fuel! Happens every year in Reno, Nevada, U.S.A.

Last year, a WWII Mustang turned a closed-course lap of over 500 mph at Reno while pulling several G's for most of the laps. Pretty good, huh? Admittedly, the Mustang isn't exacly STOCK, but it IS interesting to note that the stock airfoil CAN be herded around pylons at that speed. At least, it is interesting to me.

Where does this lead? How about one example?

Suppose we have a stock, early-model WWII North American Mustang running a normally-aspirated Merlin that give 1200 hp at a 9:1 compression ratio. OK, we verify the Merlin has a spiffy new forged crank and valve trin than can handle, say 40% more power. How do we get there?

Easy, Put in supercharger geared to give me 11 pounds of boost. 11 pounds divided by 29.92 is about 37% of an atmosphere of boost. 37% times 1200 hp is 441 hp. 1200 + 441 is about 1641 hp. OK, I expect losses of about 10 to 15%. Let's say 15% (probably some extra cooling drag since I gotta' get the extra air from somewhere, maybe a new air scoop), which drops me to about 1575 hp, just about what was available to a Mustang at 11 pounds of boost on war emergency power, as long as the plane was below its critical altitude.

So, I claim again, along with Rolls Royce, that higher Octane CAN give me more power, but only if I design for it. If the crankshaft, or any OTHER part of the powerplant couldn't hande it, then I could not use the boost without risking engine failure.

And that is how the real Merlin was developed ... through progressive increases in the amount of power the engine and engine parts could handle coupled with better fuel and better superchargers, sometimes with 3-speeds and water-methanol injection.

What do you say to that?

Ricky

6th January 2005, 18:23

quote:I hate to do this, but I disagree with your post on fuel.
I know I'm just a pleb in these matters, but you seem to me to be agreeing, actually.
Azrael stated that 150 octane fuel contains no extra energy than 87 octane fuel, but it can be compressed more which allows for greater power output.
Greg stated that 150 octane fuel contains no extra energy than 87 octane fuel, but it can be compressed more which allows for greater power output.

I think I got that right...;)

CAPILATUS

6th January 2005, 19:13

...completing Ricky's thought I'd say you both talking abouth the same thing but different ways. Come on, guys! Forget it, othewise we'll start to divide the best fighters into 100/150 octane fuel! It doesn't matter is any engine is a part of any particular aircraft, which the subject.

I keep my mouth close, but if you keep going I will claim M-82FN never saw 100 octane fuel as though La-7 could handle 600km/h at SL and 680km/h being higher :D

azrael

6th January 2005, 19:39

GregP I say to that that you completely agree with my post, just as Ricky pointed out as well! Let me address your points in order:

quote:The numbers I posted about the limit of the Merlin design on a particular grade of fuel come from Rolls Royce and I, for one, believe them. You say that 150 Octane fuel has no more energy in it than 87 Octane and I state that you are completely wrong.

I am right, sorry, the energy gained from burning 87 octane or 150 octane fuel is basically the same. I did not however claim that the higher octane fuel had no advantages. If I recall correctly I DID state that it allowed for higher compression.

quote:If you don't believe that, get your car, come to Boise, Idaho, U.S.A. and we can go to a dragstrip. My 2002 Cheverolet Camaro SS is running a 10.1-to-1 compression ratio. I can run up to maybe 4.5 pounds of boost on my supercarger before I get detonation. Hhhmmmm, let's see ... 10.1 + 4.5 is about 14.6. Interesting how that comes right close to atmoshperic pressure, huh?

Leaving the "mine is bigger than yours" point aside (which you would loose if I showed up on my Hayabusa with its measly 1.3 litre engine putting out 175 hp and giving me an acceleration to 200 kph in under 9 secs), you are right and yet wrong. As you stated, part of the increase in the power of your car comes from higher compression. Now, higher compression is not something you can just adjust, you need to let the pistons travel further inside the cylinder, meaning a different crankshaft with longer stroke. Not something you can just do to an engine by turning a screw, is it?

quote:A standard atmosphere is about 29.925 inches of Mercury, so 18 inches of boost means abour 3/5 of an atmosphere of boost. So, we get 60% more air through the engine which, in turn, draws about 60% more fuel.

Sorry, incorrect yet again. As you increase the boost and the corresponding ammount of fuel injected, the actual burning process tends to become more wasteful. 60% is the correct number leaving aside that fact, the true increase would be considerably lower. One of the reasons that turbo- and superchargers never caught on outside the race track and on diesel engines where they offer unique advantages that are besides the point of this discussion. Twice the air and thus twice the fuel does not give anywhere near twice the power or turbo-charged cars would not be the terrible fuel guzzlers they are. The best turbo-charged cars would probably have been the Saabs or the supercharged VW and Porsches (NOT the 911 Turbo and derivates though). Those worked with relatively low boost to avoid that inefficiency.

quote:So, I claim again, along with Rolls Royce, that higher Octane CAN give me more power, but only if I design for it. If the crankshaft, or any OTHER part of the powerplant couldn't hande it, then I could not use the boost without risking engine failure.

And that is how the real Merlin was developed ... through progressive increases in the amount of power the engine and engine parts could handle coupled with better fuel and better superchargers, sometimes with 3-speeds and water-methanol injection.

THAT part was correct and in complete agreement with what I said! My point was that you could not just increase the boost on a given engine, feed it better fuel and poof you had twice the power. The Merlin was developed and improved over the years to allow this increase in power, but not modified enough to be called a different engine. All I was saying is that if you take a given engine you can only do so much to boost its output without detrimental effects on the engine (yes race-cars do use chargers to increase their power, but their engines are designed to live for one race. Imagine a WWII that would have to replace its engine after every mission! Would make the Me262 look reliable in contrast). Look at current day turbo-charged cars. Porsche 911 Turbo is a good example, you agree? The standard 911 Carrera has 325 hp from its 3.6 litre engine (at a compression of 11.3:1). The Carrera Turbo (in its most extreme version, the GT2) gets about 480 hp from the same engine (at 9.4:1 compression and a boost of 2 bar, which should corresponds to 29.92 psi or one atmosphere overpressure). As you can see, the increase is about 50% in power at double the air and this is nowadays, 60 years later with all the advances in technology.

Given this data, do you still want to claim that you can boost a WWII engine by 30% just by increasing the boost (the planes we are talking about WERE already boosted)?

azrael

6th January 2005, 19:51

Buzz,
quote:However, I'd gladly nominate the F4U-4. On 115/145 grade fuel, available in the Pacific after the defeat of Germany, the plane was capable of 452mph (clean, it was capable of this speed on 100/130 grade fuel). It had an initial climb rate of 4,770 feet per minute. The climb rate of the F4U-4 on 115/145 grade fuel was better than that of the Bf-109K-4 (at 1.98 ata - AFAIK never approved for service) all the way to its ceiling.
452mph corresponds to 720kph, exactly what I said. The climb is impressive, but about the same as the Spitfire XIV which is rated at 4600 fps (arghh converting back and forth between metric and your system is a pain!). Impressive none-the-less I agree. The Bf109-K4 was rated at 4850 fps initial climb though which is still a bit higher, or at least not lower. I think we can agree, given the usual margin of error that the three planes had a basically identical initial climb.

CAPILATUS

6th January 2005, 20:37

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear
I've never seen any US source that verifies the Kozhedub claims.
I didn't either! [8D] Sources which I had just web and some books [:I] Never seen original doc and belive I will not!:(

If you're interested: according to "sources" I mentioned. Official score 63 (2 P-51 not included). Privately, taken from his interview - about 108. The last figure seems to me more real as in VVS downed enemies never were counted if an event happened over enemy territory.
Kozhedub was one of few of those who were allowed to have a dogfight over enemy territory (free hunting).

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear
As far as the La-7 goes, it appears to have been a highly manueverable plane, with a good turn ability (19.5 - 20.5 seconds depending on source). Roll rate is unknown to me (I think it's unknown to a lot of "experts," too). Production La-7 speed was rather mediocre (423 mph @ 22,300 feet). Time-to-height was good (4.5 minutes to 16,404 feet). All-in-all, a very average performing late war fighter.
In comparison with the F4U-4 (on 100/130 grade fuel), sea-level speeds were identical, 370 mph. But the top speed of the Corsair was almost 30 mph faster, achieving 452mph at just over 25,000 feet. 19,000 feet was achieved in 5 minutes (a little over 17,000 feet in 4.5 minutes).
The La may have had an advantage in terms of Turn versus the F4U-4, it was appears mostly inferior in performance. Fuel the F4U-4 with 115/145 grade fuel, and the climb test is a "walk-away" for the Corsair.

If be honest I would never compare La-7 and F4U, neither the Spit and F4U as these planes are the diffirent classes.

As to talk about F4U-4 to La-7 as the FIGHTERS... Yeap, F4U-4 was faster a bit, but you never use speed in combat more then 450km/h as you maneuver all the time, otherwise you're dead.
OK, let's see. What we really need to evaluate a plane in maneuver? Here we go.

engine power/mass of the aircraft
F4U-4 - 0,43
La-7 - 0,56

wing upload
F4U-4 - 196,6
La-7 - 187,5

That's it! As we can see F4U-4 is comletley outclassed by La-7 as a fighter I mean in real DOGFIGHT, hmmm.. La-7 should've accelerated much better in vertical maneuver. I'm wondering F4U-4 had so high rate of climb, higher then La's! [:p]

Sure you, dear Ricky, flying Corsair could use Boom & Zoom tactic, but not to La-7! La-7 having 3x20mm in NOSE could shoot any F4U quicker then it would come to boresight of it's WING MOUNTED guns. Another words if you have possibility to open fire just from 200-270m ffrom the target, I can down your plane just from 500m. Easy.

Making a concludion I have to say we've got to divide all competitors to light (less 4000kg) and havy (4000kg and more) and sure low to medium fighters (upto 5000) and high operate fighers (5000 and higher), probably even one and multy engined.

It seems quite obvious to me as we've been trying to compare ffighters of different classes.

Suggest... [8)]

Kutscha

6th January 2005, 21:10

For those wanting to convert German boost to/from British and American boost.

1 ata = 1kg/cm^2 = 14.2 lbs/in^2 = 28.96 inHg

azrael

6th January 2005, 21:50

Buzz,
I have been trying to verify the climb-rate you gave and found it on some sites... the most common rate of climb given is 3,800 ft/s. Maybe it could do it on higher boost, clean, whatever, but it does not appear to be a number applicable to a standard combat-ready F4U-4. I do not doubt the validity of your source, but I guess the result was under special condition.

Here is a nice link with charts for the performance of the Corsair
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id46.htm
I am, however, suspicious of some of the results depicted here. The climb rate to altitude is particularly surreal as according to the chart the Corsair would have climbed at FULL INITIAL CLIMB RATE to 20,000 foot, which strikes me as highly unlikely...

azrael

6th January 2005, 22:09

Capilatus,
I agree, the La7 and the Yak3/Yak9 were superb fighter aircraft, particularly at lower altitude. Their high altitude performance was less than stellar, but that was unnecessary for the Soviets as they neither had to intercept high-altitude bombers, nor escort them. Soviet doctrine, just like that of Germany, stressed close-support of the ground troops. That meant dedicated ground-attack aircraft shooting up the enemy gropos and fighters having to protect those ground-attackers or having to kill them. The question is, however, does superb low-altitude (at the expense of high-altitude) performance make the best fighter? I am not so sure and do not really see a reason to seperate the existing fighter-craft along those lines. There were fighters that did excellent at all altitudes (Spitfire XIV, Mustang P-51D, P-47, Lightning) and they should be a measure for the more specialized aircraft. Same with heavy and light fighters, as towards the end of the war the distinction in performance (air-to-air) became blurred with the FW-190D or the Bf109 killing bombers and the Lightning doing dog-fighting. Heavy and light fighter became more of interest when looking at fighter-bombers.

The lack of high altitude performance was no flaw in the Soviet fighters as it was just not required of them. Same goes for the US fighters and their heavy-machine-gun only armament. Neither plane was less effective in the war because of those short-comings. But to be the best fighter a plane had to be not just effective at the missions it had to fly due to circumstances but at the other important fighter missions as well. I am not advocating ground-attack here, that was best left to planes dedicated to it, but air-to-air stuff. If your opponent is better at low altitude, well you stay high, zoom down, take a shot, zoom back up again. There is little that the opponent can do about this (as the Japanese found out in particular once the allies understood energy fighting). Example in case, I believe that the Luftwaffe forbade its pilots to tangle with the La (or was it the Yak?) below 5000 meters. Did that stop them from shooting down La's or Yak's? No.

Ricky

6th January 2005, 22:56

quote:I believe that the Luftwaffe forbade its pilots to tangle with the La (or was it the Yak?) below 5000 meters.
That was the Yak3.
The Soviet's dedication to lower-altitude flying did have the big downside that the Luftwaffe fighters tended to do a 'boom & zoom' policy. They could, and did, dictate where & when combat would be made, and how. To increase their chances against being 'bounced' the Soviet pilots tended to always fly on full throttle, which increased fuel consumption (and therefore range) and lowered engine life (although this was less of a worry!).
Low-altitude fighters are great, but are very vulnerable to an enemy who is flying much higher than them. Most downed planes apparently never saw the guy who shot them down (or is that another combat myth?)

azrael

7th January 2005, 00:00

quote:Most downed planes apparently never saw the guy who shot them down (or is that another combat myth?)
Sounds reasonable as many kills were scored by aircrafts booming and zooming in from behind. Additionally, if you are in a close melee, who can tell who shot you, I guess. You would be concentrating on the guy you are attempting to take it while his buddy swoops in and dusts you.

JoeB

7th January 2005, 01:10

"Most downed planes apparently never saw the guy who shot them down (or is that another combat myth?)"

Saying "most" makes it more likely, sometimes it's quoted like 75% which I believe is based on RAF "lessons learned" type documents from 1/2 half of WWII, not necessarily scientific analysis. Still I think sometimes the statement is overused and taken beyond its proper context. For example in air units practicing tight sub unit (division, pair) discipline an even successful attacker not spotted by anybody in a 4 plane division would be much less common. I've heard the statement even taken to the extreme, as when trying to confirm one side's air-air claims using AAA or operational losses of the other side, according to other side's records, that successful attacks occured when no pilot on one side was aware enemy a/c were even present, and that's why no combat is recorded by the other side. In the pre AAM era at least, this is ridiculous, a rare occurence at best. Anyway I think the context of the original statement is mainly every man for himself WWI-early WWII style combat and one has to be careful with it. Same with other truims, "aces and targets" etc. also have truth in general but degree depended on situation; training, doctrine and tactics of air arms involved, etc.

Joe

Ricky

7th January 2005, 01:29

True - though the statement does apply well to RAF 1939/40/early 41 fighters - those ridiculous 'vic' formations which meant that pilots were concentrating more on their formation than detecting the enemy (this was the job of the lead plane's pilot!), and inexperienced pilots, and those subjected to boom & zoom - "beware the hun in the sun" was still relevant up until the introduction of airborne radar!

Lightning

7th January 2005, 02:50

Hi azrael,

You said you couldn't find much on the Ploiesti raid except that the P-38s lost 50% of their number and that was not a very spectacular showing. Well, I did some research and came up with the account of the raid that I provided to you. I quoted the material as it was written in the sources used. I certainly was not there, but I find no good reason to disbelieve what was stated by those who were. It's too bad you're so skeptical.

First of all, this is not a discussion of the effectiveness of the Ploiesti raid. That mission was originally cited by me as an example of the P-38s versatility, and it is just that. (By the way, as you can see, the loss rate was far lower than the 50% your source stated.)

Not very spectacular??? A single-seat fighter, that was originally designed as an interceptor, takes off carrying 1800 lb of external fuel and a 1000 lb bomb, has to fly 600 miles one-way over enemy territory, while encountering enemy fighters en rout, to a heavily armed target, dive-bomb the target while under enemy ground fire and fighter attack, and then fight its way back along those 600 miles. YOU BET IT'S SPECTACULAR !

You get all caught up in "how many this, and how many that", and "what percentage of this and what pecentage of that". I don't care if only ONE bomb hit the target; what the P-38 Lightning did that day proves my point completely. No other fighter of the war could have done what the P-38 did on that mission.

Also, to try to minimize the Lightnings' performance by comparing it with that of a larger force of B-24 heavy bombers (that were designed for that type of mission) against the same target is ludicrous at the least and disingenuous at the most!

I didn't make the comparison originally; I merely stated that, in the oppinion of some, such a comparison had been made. As to the actual comparative damage done by the two raids in question, I don't know, but I have read several accounts that say the effect on the refinery's output of the P-38s' attack that day were possibly greater than that of the B-24s. I'm not going to get into a "duelling-references" debate with you over this. If you are truly interested in what happened that day, I'm sure you can find sources to adequately answer any questions you may have.

This is the "Best Fighter" forum. The Ploiesti raid by P-38s is one of the justifications for my choice. There are others.

Regards,
Lightning

simon

7th January 2005, 05:42

Care to enter the P-38 in the best bomber thread as well then? Since we seem to have resurrected this one so well why not that as well? :D

BuzzLightyear

7th January 2005, 09:52

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha
Anyways, it seems that it has gone over your head...

Now, now, Kutscha. Don't be so testy. One of the thing so enjoyable about this board is that things are discussed in a rational manner.

quote:
Kindly post some proof that the F4U-4 could do the speed you claim.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/dash4_speed.jpg

BuzzLightyear

7th January 2005, 10:20

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Buzz,
I have been trying to verify the climb-rate you gave...

No special conditions at all. I'm talking about a different Corsair variant.

That site contains documents pertaining to the F4U-1 plane, an earlier, less performant Corsair than the F4U-4. I've seen those home-made graphs. Haven't studied them enough to tell if they are accurate. Doesn't matter much since they don't pertain to the F4U-4 plane.

On 100/130 grade fuel, the F4U-4 was initially rated at 4,000 fpm at sea-level. Later increased to 4,400 fpm. I have BuAer docs to support both.

On 115/145 grade fuel, BuAer docs show an initial climb was 4,770 fpm at sea-level, increasing to over 4,800 fpm at 10,000 feet. Time to 20,000 feet was 4.9 minutes, or almost a 4,000 fpm average to 20,000 feet. I think these may be on the internet somewhere.

The best rate of climb I've seen for the Bf-109K-4 is from a copy of German doc I picked up off the internet somewhere that shows a high RoC of 21.6 m/s (4,251 fpm) at sea-level, increasing to 22 m/s at 1,000 m. I don't have a hard time believing it was capable of higher performance, I've just never seen a doc to ssupport it.

BuzzLightyear

7th January 2005, 10:28

quote:Originally posted by CAPILATUS
That's it! As we can see F4U-4 is comletley outclassed by La-7 as a fighter I mean in real DOGFIGHT, hmmm.. La-7 should've accelerated much better in vertical maneuver. I'm wondering F4U-4 had so high rate of climb, higher then La's! [:p]

In a tight, close-in, low speed knife-fight the La-7 may be better. Maybe not. At higher speeds, the F4U was considered very good and light on the controls.

Over at the HighTech board, someone posted this Rechlin test of the La-5. Neat read:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96545&highlight=La5FN

GregP

7th January 2005, 10:35

Hi Azrael,

Actually, I DO disagree with your post. You CAN make more power by turning a screw. It is called "Boost," and it is controllable. I can vary MY boost at any rate, and I can twist the boost until detonation starts, and then back off.

When I built a twin turbocharged sand rail, I put a Subaru turbo on each bank of VW cylinders. I then filled it up with gasoline, tuned until I got detonation, switched to methanoal, and raised the boost higher yet (after rejetting). I eventually got about 280 hp from a VW ... on adjustable boost.

I think Rolls Royce has more development resources than I do (ya' think?), and I still believe we disgaree, but not by too much. The Merlin was progressively improved by improving boost and fuel ... and the compression ratio need not be changed if you rasie the pressure of the incoming air-fuel mixture ... that IS more compression.

Have you ever built an engine? Not an accusation or an attempt to argue or disparage, mind you, just asking. My twin turbo sand rail was just under 2000 cc and made over 280 hp. All done in my garage or at a machine shop to my specifications. It sure was FUN!

Yup, you are right, I'd lose to your Hayabusa in my Camaro. However, we can fix that; bring a car. Then we can have some fun. No matter who wins or loses, we'll still have had a legal drag race, shared some beer, and probably argued WWII fighters face to face.

What could be better except to go fly one? ... and THAT can be arranged if we so desire. All it takes is money.

azrael

7th January 2005, 17:54

GregP,
would love to take you up on that offer, my car is, however, not exactly fit for racing... unless the goal was to come in last. Over here you are not allowed to modify your car without it passing technical inspection afterwards. And while not exactly sluggish, a 525i BMW is no racer by any means. I prefer bikes for the quick stuff, smaller, handier, almost as fast as any car and far better in acceleration. The beer and flying planes part sounds good though, but let's fly first, then have the beer (and you do the piloting, I do not have a license for that). Talking planes we can do both before and after the beer.

Changing the power of an engine by turning a screw, yes, you can do it with a turbo or supercharger, but not without detrimental effects to the engine (unless you still stay within the design parameters). Stress on the valves and the (English?) piston seals is a big problem and does require modification. You were talking a drag racer, a car build for a race lasting less than a minute with extensive service in between races. Aircraft engines had to hold up for dozens of missions on the other hand with a minimum of maintenance. Kinna like the difference between a F1-engine and a truck's, similar power but would anyone ever want to equip an 18-wheeler with a racing engine (completely and criminally ignoring the issue of torque)? RR did have vast resources back then but also far less knowledge than an engineer can draw from nowadays. If Porsche can draw a 50% power increase from an engine nowadays (from non-boosted to 1 bar overpressure), then I doubt that RR and could have done better in WWII, even less so by increasing boost from 16 (whatever unit ickysdad used, I get confused with those non-metric measurement systems) to 25.

BTW, no I never build an engine, I am a physicist by training, and a mathematician and software designer by career. In short, not the most practically inclined of people. Have been screwing around (as we say, referring to actually playing with the screws) with car and bike engines, even racing-worthy ones, but never really build or modified one to any greater extent.

azrael

7th January 2005, 18:24

Lightning,
I did not mean offense but I still do not see how the Ploiesti raid proved the effectiveness of the P-38L as a fighter. First off, they were escorted by other p-38Ls and at a pretty good ratio. Second, yes, they were attacked several times in and out by axis fighters and had to fend them off. Was that done by the bomb-carrying planes? I doubt it, that was the escorts job. Third, they lost over 30% of their numbers, which is a devastating loss. It took losses far lower than that to cause the Brits to abandoned unescorted daylight bombings of Germany. Just imagine another raid or so by the P-38Ls and those squadrons would be completely gone!

So, was it an amazing feet for a single-seat (yet twin-engine and rather heavy) fighter? Yes, from a purely engineering point of view it was and yes, there was probably no other fighter that could have done it. Did they perform all that well? I think 30% losses speaks for itself (plus did they ever try that trick again afterwards? Honest question). The Lightning proved that it could do the job, but not all that well, the concept of the mission itself was badly flawed.

Also, the comparison to the B-24 raids on Ploiesti is not all that fair, I think as they were executed in August of 1943, while the Lightning raid was in, what, late 1944? The axis defenders were worn down another year at least in between the two operations.

The only thing the Ploiesti raid by the Lightning proves as far as I am concerned is that the Lightning had a great range and could carry quite a load of bombs. Besides that it proved that daylight bombing of a heavily defended target is suicidal and should not be attempted by Lightnings. The whole thing says little about the plane and a lot about the mission.

CAPILATUS

7th January 2005, 22:45

quote:Originally posted by Ricky
The Soviet's dedication to lower-altitude flying did have the big downside that the Luftwaffe fighters tended to do a 'boom & zoom' policy. They could, and did, dictate where & when combat would be made, and how.

Ricky and others interested in this subject, I do respect your opinion, but let me say something.

1) "Boom&Zoom" is not something dictated by air performance of any particular aircraft. Basically is a tactic using E(energy)-performance of an ANY craft. In the Soviet aviation history it was widely used first in the war in Spain by I-16 against Me-109's and was called "Hawk's strike". I-16 used this tactic to get some extra E by diving to Me-109's as they had no chance to catch them by speed. It could be applied to all the aircraft even to bombers. So assuming I said, "Boom&Zoom" is some extra E.

Boom&Zoom as a tactic. First of all I should say not far every one could win the dogfight having extra E. I'm out of doubts every fighter pilot, even modern one, will tell you it's a matter of first contact. Gents, real flying and real dog far not something you play in IL-2 simulator, where you could determine a plane 8-9km below you, I flew about ten years ago and can judge from my own experience about visual contact. Even when you're told by ATC where and at what alt the target is it's quite hard to find it! 30m size plane you can find 12-7km away depends on air condition and this having the sky, as a background. On the Earth background - forget it! You're lucky if see the plane 2-3km below, then just reduce it to the size of 8m plane and imagine what you'd see in real, the more so the target has a camo paint!

2) You cannot win a war just Boom&Zoomming! Your goal as a fighter is to FIND and destroy the enemy plane whatever it could be. And to find a target you WILL HAVE to change your alt up or down to find it. Let me tell you how most of combat happened (sure without radar cover, forget it on the Easten front) you fly in routine patrol, suddenly you have contacts. Next step is simple if contacts below nothing to care about you think which tactic you could use. Any tactic you'd choose would be kind of Boom&Zoom. Whatever you fly, La-7, F4U or Spit.
If you're below yourself you'll start thinking how to protect form Zooming planes (if you're not dead by that moment). A single decision for La-5,7 and Yak's either - frontal attack. As I posted before nose gunned plane can eliminate any wing guns mounted plane in frontal attack before it comes to boresight.

The favor stile of Pokryshkin (2d scored USSR ACE, P-39) was to cruise along front line losing alt and having some extra E at the same time, then climbing back. If his guys saw the enemy at the same alt they always had E-bonus for the attack.

3) Performance of La-7. As I said in my post you can dog having 450km/h speed and less, otherwise you'll have black-out due high G. It depends on the alt also, higher>less G, I believe Azrael could explain it much better, but here it is.

As it was said from Buzz posted doc, kindly gave to us, captured La-5FN (which had less performance due some fix) had quote: an outstanding roll, having 90degree/sec at 450km/h.
To as far as I know ONLY P-38L with airlerone boost had the same data.
FW-190A-4 with it's famous roll had 65dg/sec at the same speed
P-51B - 75dg/sec
P-38J - 45dg/sec

the highest figure of almost all aircraft (exempt P-38L) had max roll figure at about 300km/h (FW-190 - 145dg/sec at this speed)

I really wish to know which roll La-7 had as max!
quote:Originally posted by Ricky
To increase their chances against being 'bounced' the Soviet pilots tended to always fly on full throttle, which increased fuel consumption (and therefore range) and lowered engine life (although this was less of a worry!).
Low-altitude fighters are great, but are very vulnerable to an enemy who is flying much higher than them. Most downed planes apparently never saw the guy who shot them down (or is that another combat myth?)

"on full throttle"? I don't think it could apply to most of the pilots, really. In a dog - yes, do doubts. Why? I think I gave quite good answer above. [8)]

Lightning

7th January 2005, 23:58

azrael,

Again you miss the point. The Ploiesti raid by P-38s (most probably earlier-model "J"s--not "L"s) was not cited to prove the prowess of the Lightning in its primary role as a fighter but to demonstrate that it was so versatile that it could undertake such a mission in the first place--a mission that could not have been carried out by any other fighter.

Sure they lost around 30%, but the B-24s lost an even higher percentage. Does that mean that the B-24 was an ineffective bomber? Of course not. And remember, the B-24 was performing the mission that it was designed and built to perform.

As to the target being less effectively defended because the raid took place later in the war, the argument is just as valid that it could have been even better prepared having experienced other raids in the interim. Both of these arguments are pure conjecture, and I feel that it is counterproductive to pursue them further.

Also bear in mind that this mission was carried out at extreme range. The escorts did not have the luxury of unlimited air-fightning time. Nor is it sensible to question the fact that the "bombers" did not provide for their own defense. Would you really expect them to dogfight enemy fighters while carrying a large drop tank and a 1000 lb bomb? And remember too that they could not jettison either, or the mission would have been aborted then and there.

If you still think that the results of this raid prove the lack of quality of the P-38 as a fighter, ask yourself this: How well would the Spitfire, P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U, or any of the other fighters of WWII done under the same conditions? Would that have made them bad fighters?

Ricky

8th January 2005, 00:09

Hi Capitalus,

Yes, I agree with pretty much all of what you said about the whole 'Boom & Zoom' tactic. It is a classic method of neutralising your opponant's ability to out-manouver or out-run you. Hence it's use by the Luftwaffe against the VVS, or by Americans against the more nimble Japanese fighters.
Any fighter can defeat any fighter if it can effectively ambush them, and the pilot can shoot straight. However, planes with greater altitude performance (or even just the ability to get to a higher altitude) have a clear opportunity to use this tactic more often. After you pounce & shoot, you use your extra energy to get the heck out of there before the remaining enemy aircraft can shoot your tail off, so your low-level dogfghting ability is hopefully never tested...
In theory.
Yes, in real life, low-flying planes can be a bugger to see (even in flight sims!;)). But if you can see them, even if they can see you, whoever has height has the advantage. That principle dates from WW1, and still applied until arguably the widespread use of air-to-air missiles.

My source about the Luftwaffe fighters tending to patrol at high(er) altitude and then pounce on any Soviet fighters (well, any Soviet planes at all) that they saw, and the Soviet response of flying everywhere on full throttle, was taken from an article where they interviewed a Soviet Pilot. If only I could remember where that article was...[:I]

Lightning

8th January 2005, 00:56

simon,

No, I wouldn't want to enter the P-38 in the "Best-Bomber" thread. If I did, however, it would come out a lot closer to the top of the list than any of the other airplanes in the "Best-Fighter" thread.

Regards

Lightning

8th January 2005, 02:00

Hi azrael,

I have been meaning to respond to your posting regarding your use of the "root-mean-square" statistical method when comparing the kill- ratios of the F2A vs the F6F.

The use of such a method is valid when predicting the outcome of studies in which the individual events are of the same nature with tightly defined variables. Examples are: Coin flips where there are only two possible choices--heads or tails; Public oppinion poles--yes or no, good or bad, etc.; Political exit poles--Kennedy or Nixon. There are other, more complicated, examples of course, but the above serve to demonstrate my premise.

The individual events in the subject controversy are the air engagements in which a shoot-down took place. Each such action had so many variables and differences from all the other actions in both samples (i.e. F6F and F2A) that such a mathematical model cannot be invoked.

There are differences in the individual planes, in the pilots, in the type of missions engaged in, in geographical/meteorological conditions, in aircraft maintenance, etc. ,etc. etc. The list is long.

Intuitively and logically, the more battles engaged the more realistic the kill-ratio becomes. With this in mind, I don't consider the 500 combats of the F2A as being nearly as significant as the 5000 of the F6F. There is no way that the Buffallo would have maintained a 26:1 kill ratio over 5000 engagements. Otherwise it would have to be considered as being competitive with the Hellcat, and we both know that is not true.

History bears out the F6F's superiority over the F2A. It could go faster, higher, farther; it could carry more; it could out climb/dive it; it had heavier armament/armor; it had self-sealing fuel tanks, a better gunsight, and better electronics; and it had pilots second to none.

I must say, at this point, that I don't consider kill-ratio as being the only important measure of a fighter's ability. The quality of the enemy's planes and pilots must be taken into account. In the case of the Hellcat, however, a 19:1 kill-ratio over more than 5000 engagements just can't be minimized.

Regards,
Lightning

azrael

8th January 2005, 03:14

Lightning,
as we more or less decided to let the issue of kill-ratios rest, I will restrict myself to the purely mathematical nature of discussion. The square-root-law does apply to ANY statistical sample and 500 samples are pretty good already. Not as good as 5000, sure, but still precise enough as a 4% error proves. You are however correct in your statement that a kill-ratio is a critical thing to discuss statistically. It is most definitely not an IID (independently identically distributed) set of random variables as each variable (i.e. individual plane) was not flown by all pilots, but by one pilot only (well at least close enough). However, the square-root formula is used for things like insurance statistics e.g. which are obviously of a very similar nature. Not to mention that the mere fact that we use kill-ratio (a probability) implies a certain statistical nature of the quantity, at least in our view. Either way, from a purely empirical/mathematical point of view the statistics are both quite reliable. The fact that they contradict what we know to be true (Hellcat was a hell of a lot better than Buffalo) should make us question our basic assumption leading to the statistic, not the mathematics involved in getting a result from those assumptions.

azrael

8th January 2005, 03:25

Lightning,
quote:f you still think that the results of this raid prove the lack of quality of the P-38 as a fighter, ask yourself this: How well would the Spitfire, P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U, or any of the other fighters of WWII done under the same conditions? Would that have made them bad fighters?
I did not say that the raid belittles the abilities of the Lightning, not at all! What I did however say is that a desastrous mission is not a good example FOR the quality of an airplane. That does not mean that it was a good example AGAINST those qualities either. As I said, it shows that the concept of those raids was not very effective. BTW, no, the B-24 DID not loose more planes (percentage) than the Lightning, your stats for the Lightning was from enemy influence only, the one for the Liberators included other losses. Recalling your post, the Libs lost 25%... either way, the losses were crippling.

I think we can agree that besides proving the technical concept of the Lightning (fast, long-ranged, good payload), it did not exactly prove he tactical virtues of the plane (again, because the whole affair proves more about the mission than the planes involved as BOTH raids were massacred).

GregP

9th January 2005, 03:55

In this thread about the best fighter I haven't seen much discussion supporting a German fighter.

I thought I'd offer a statistic.

I downloaded the TGPlanes victory list and analyzed in Microsoft Excel. In WWII, 64,125.2 aircraft were claimed as air-to-air victories.

The countries rank as follows:

1) Germany 43,765.0 kills (68.2%)
2) USA 9,664.0 kills (15.1%)
3) USSR 1,999.0 kills (3.1%)
4) Finland 1,427.7 kills (2.2%)
5) Japan 1,233.5 kills (1.9%)
6) UK 1,192.0 kills (1.9%)
7) Italy 961.0 kills (1.5%)

There were 35 countries with pilots who scored air-to-air victories in WWII. # 8 was New Zealand with 672 kills and #35 was Denmark with 6 kills.

Looking at the kill tally, I'd say that some German fighter was the best since they had 2/3 of all air-to-air kills, more than 4 times as many kills as the next closest contender, and had more than 35 times as many kills as the UK.

So, while the Spitfire might be an absolutely WONDERFUL fighter (and I believe it WAS), it was apparently far from the best at aerial combat effectiveness in wartime.

Now some of you are not particularly fond of kill ratio, if past posts are any indicator, but how about total kills? The victory list doesn't state what fighter was the winner and loser in any contest, but there certainly weren't any Spirfires that figure in German victories.

Maybe we'd better all take a second look at the Bf109 and Fw-190, huh? Seems like one of them is very probably the "Most Effective Fighter" in WWII.

Now it is a different story when it comes to pilots who scored at least one air-to-air kill in WWII. They look as follows:

1) USA 1,269 pilots with a kill (44.0%)
2) Germany 882 pilots with a kill (30.6%)
3) Italy 124 pilots with a kill (4.3%)
4) Finland 94 pilots with a kill (3.3%)
5) UK / New Zealand 80 pilots with a kill (2.8% each)
6) USSR 55 pilots with a kill (1.9%)

Interesting that Germany and the USA accounted for 74.6% of all pilots who scored a kill. I can't say much about what this may mean to anyone except that the USA apparently had the best pilot training program in WWII, but it does offer some numbers to consider.

BuzzLightyear

9th January 2005, 05:15

Greg:

Depends on what is being shot down.

The Bf-109s and Fw-190s are shooting down I-16s, Yak-1s, and bombers.

American and British fighters are shooting down Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

The Bf-109 may have shot down more planes than any other in WWII, but I'd hazard a guess and say it was the single most shot down plane of WWII, as well.

Just don't think the number of planes shot down is necessarily a good gauge.

GregP

9th January 2005, 05:52

Hi Buzz,

I thought I might hear that from somewhere.

To me kill ratio or number of kills makes the BEST measure.

In the U.S.A., many people like football. When we look at the great teams, we look at win-to-loss ratio over a time period. When we look at the best team this particular year, we look at the best record. Read that wins. People who back the tems that lose are called "loyal fans." Nothign wrong with being a loyal fan, but the winner is the winner.

When we look at the world's best drivers, we look at win percentage, When we look at the all time best driver, we look at wins or wins versus starts.

OK Buzz, you don't think that kill ratio is a good indicator and you don't think total kill is a good indicator either. I'd really like to know, by country, how many fighter combat sorties were flown. That way, I could get "kills per combat sortie." Whould THAT be a good indicator to you?

So, what IS your "good indicator?"

Mine can be either kills, kill ratio, or perhpas kills per sortie. The thing is, I don't have complete data on fighter sorties or losses by country, so I am left with what, to me, is probably the best indicators: Kills or kill-to-loss ratio.

Of course, I'd ALSO like to know how many fighters were lost to non-combat reasons, like running out of fuel, takeoff and landing accidents (cane you say, "Bf-109?"), and losses to "pilot had to bail out, ditch, or ceash land for unknown reasons."

That way. we could start a thread about the fighter, bomber, etc, with worst losses to non-combat reasons. I'd also love to know how many man-hours of maintenance were required for each type between missions.

Call me an engineer, since I am one, but the qualities that make the best fighter should also result in the most kills. The fighters that gets that number is the world's best in my opinion, regardless of the intangibles.

People who tout the "intanglbles" as the mnost imnportant indicator of almost anthing where scores are involved are usually loyal to some contender that did not finish at the top. As I stated earlier, nothing wrong with loyal fans.

Give me the wnnner every time as "the best." Maybe that's "too competitive," but it's me.

JoeB

9th January 2005, 05:54

I downloaded the TGPlanes victory list and analyzed in Microsoft Excel. In WWII, 64,125.2 aircraft were claimed as air-to-air victories.

Those numbers don't look right. I think I maybe see the page you're speaking of but the German pilot number is claimed aces (maybe a typo you said "one or more kills"). But the Soviet number on that site is 200+ claiming *20* or more and from other sources around 2,700 Soviet pilots who flew in WWII claimed 5 or more (in a few cases including claims v. Japan in 1939 and US in Korea). Number of Brit aces was also much higher. The total of planes downed are also way too small for most of the countries.

I'll try my take on the stats issue one more time. *Claimed* kill ratio's or number of claims for that matter are not useful without at least general knowledge of the difference between claims and results specific to each case. People seem to brush that off with "oh of course", but then implicitly assume the discount between claims and reality was usually about the same in all cases, or undeterminable. But it wasn't the same, rather all over the map even sometimes within a single AF over time. And in many cases nowadays it can be figured out, hence my pet peeve about basing discussions on old one sided claims, that's getting really out of date for WWII.

But assuming we could approximate a *real* kill ratio for each type, it would tell us relative effectiveness, relative to their opposition, of the units (planes, pilots, all other factors put together) equipped with that type. It couldn't tell us about absolute capability of planes themselves. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Joe

simon

9th January 2005, 06:03

"So, while the Spitfire might be an absolutely WONDERFUL fighter (and I believe it WAS), it was apparently far from the best at aerial combat effectiveness in wartime."

You what?!?

With all due respect Greg the statistics you've posted don't prove that at all, since Britain (and the Commonweath, including the RAF, RAAF and FAA and RAN equivilent of the FAA) used a multitude of types, not just the Spitfire, including US designs, amongst which was of course the Hellcat.

These Statistics could just as easily be used to prove the Hellcat's ineffectiveness.

Personally I believe that a lot can be interpretted by statistics, but these have to be taken in context you cannot take the Hellcat's Kill/Loss ratio without taking into account that the Japanese Planes it fought were obsolescent and the Japanese Pilots largely untrained, you equally cannot take figures that apply to Britain and the Commonwealth as a whole (Which as a group flew everything including the P-51D, Spitfire F.24, and Blackburn Roc and Hawker Fury (The Bi-plane!)) and use these figures as a stock to prove that a certain aircraft was a poor performer!

This is manipulating statistics beyond all credible belief and as you yourself said in an earlier post, smacks of gerrymandering.

"Interesting that Germany and the USA accounted for 74.6% of all pilots who scored a kill. I can't say much about what this may mean to anyone except that the USA apparently had the best pilot training program in WWII, but it does offer some numbers to consider."

Germany fought the longest, the USA provided the most pilots, no real surprise there. Yes the US had a good pilot training programme, from what I've read and I am certainly no expert on the Eastern Front the Soviet Union operated a kind of "In at the deep end" attitude to Pilot training, and Great Britain had a similar set up to the US but with far, far fewer pilots.

I'll end this on a simple note, statistics are useful, but taken out of context they are valueless.

"There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics!

GregP

9th January 2005, 06:08

Hi Joe B.,

No, I don't disagree. I suppose "ralative ffectiveness" is a resonable difintiion of what the kill ratio numbers represent. OK, I'll say Joe B. is right, kill ratio can be summed up as "Relaitive combat effectiveness versus the opposition."

Pitty the poor European Axis pilot who was temporarily reassigned to the Pacific, since the local oppostion was mostly Hellcats and Corsairs with wonderful records against opposition. However, the "What ifs" are fun, huh?

simon

9th January 2005, 06:11

"So, what IS your "good indicator?""

Not wishing to speak for Buzz here, but my good indicator is to look at an aircraft with a commonsense approach, if it has better performance, manouevrability and firepower than another aircraft then regardless of some meaningless statistic it is better.

Whether another aircraft plunged into completely different circumstances achieves more than said aircraft fighting an altogether more capable enemy or not is largely imaterial. That is down to the pilot.

Convince me that you can design pilot quality into an aircraft and I'll concede this one, you wont because as I have said several times now pilot quality is a reflection on the airforce not the aircraft, otherwise the Japanese produced not a single good aircraft after February 1943.

Post statistics saying that aircraft "X" shot down a huge number of untrained boys flying obsolescent fire-traps, or airforce "X" and "X" shot down the most planes when they either fought longer or provided the greatest number of trained pilots will not convince me that manipulating statistics to try and prove your point is right either.

Sorry, but I may be out of my depth when it comes to discussing fuel and engines (Which is why I have left this one alone for now), but it seems to me that a certain application of commonsense is required here.

BuzzLightyear

9th January 2005, 08:16

quote:
Originally posted by GregP
To me kill ratio or number of kills makes the BEST measure.

Not for me.

For one thing, kill:loss ratios usually take into consideration aerial kills vs losses-to-all-causes. Unless you know you are dealing with like numbers, you can’t get an accurate picture.

Even if you did know this, then you would need to know if Group A met Group B on equal footing. Did A attack B from altitude while B was low and heavily laden with bombs?

Also, kill:loss ratios are heavily influenced by numbers or planes taking part, and skill of individual pilots. Large numbers of well piloted planes may be able to decimate a small formation of super-fighters flown by ill-trained pilots.

quote:
In the U.S.A., many people like football. When we look at the great teams, we look at win-to-loss ratio over a time period. When we look at the best team this particular year, we look at the best record. Read that wins. People who back the tems that lose are called "loyal fans." Nothign wrong with being a loyal fan, but the winner is the winner.

Then why did the USAAF and RAF win, and the Luftwaffe lose if the LW had a better kill:loss ratio?

Additionally, your argument fails to consider the fact that teams are made of individuals. Some play poorly, and the team wins in spite of them. Some teams lose, despite the fact that they have one or two outstanding players.

I liken the Air Force to the Team; the offensive, defensive, and specials teams to Groups; and the individual players to the planes. When we get down to it, we want to know who the best kicker is, or who the best center is, or who the best quarterback is.

quote:
When we look at the world's best drivers, we look at win percentage, When we look at the all time best driver, we look at wins or wins versus starts.

Do we look at the cars?

quote:
OK Buzz, you don't think that kill ratio is a good indicator and you don't think total kill is a good indicator either. I'd really like to know, by country, how many fighter combat sorties were flown. That way, I could get "kills per combat sortie." Whould THAT be a good indicator to you?

Why would that be a good indicator? The USAAF flew thousands of sorties over Germany and never saw a plane, because near the end, the Luftwaffe no longer existed as a creditable force. Does that detract from the fact that they had outstanding planes?

quote:
So, what IS your "good indicator?"

If there is a single best way to determine, then someone far more qualified than we would have found it by now. And then there wouldn’t be any discussion, no fun debates – as all the questions we have would be answered.

Notwithstanding that, my preferable method is a side-by-side specifications comparison, and anecdotal evidence from pilots.

I’m not going to respond to the rest, as I would be repetitive. You get my point.

Falco

9th January 2005, 09:09

I'd like to state some obvious factor about any plane's combat worthiness : for one US had the best spares,amo & provisions in ww2
largely because of their shere industrial strength & great organization.Finns had to canibalize some of their 44 Buffalos in order to keep them just airworthy.They used german radio/nav , and as much as everything else they could replace and use.USAF never had to do sucha things.
Then consider that F6F's and other USAF planes massively outnumbered any oposition whetever in ETO or PTO.So did the Soviets.
1.USA = 321.000 planes 1939-45
2.SSSR = 156.000
3.UK = 137.000
not to mention Canada,Australia and other allied states

Axis :
1.GER = 109.000
2.JPN = 77.000
3.ITA = 15.000

So if u compare this digits it's easy to understand what kind of struggle was going on.But on the other hand US lost 262.000 of them (data from "Bericht van de tweede wereld oorlog" 1975 comprehensive dutch source of ww2 in 17 books of 320-360 pages)
How many of the 262.000 were combat loses can be estimated but loses
are loses.
Another thing is longevity : F6F got out from 1946-1950 completely.
Mustang was in use until mid '80's (!!!) in poorer air forces such as Dominican Rep. AF, F4U was also used till early 80's,Sea Fury & Firefly until mid 70's,but no F6F's and P-38's saw any postwar combat.F4U's even scored against MiG 15's in Korea.As for Axis planes no one used them after mid 50's because there was no production of spares what so ever (exc.Spain's Ha 1112/Bf 109,and Czech Avia S99/Bf 109's).
I'm also suprised that none mentiones G55 Centauro or Re2005 Saggitario excellent fighters.
Bare in mind that Hawker Fury's of 1931 design scored against Bf109 & Bf110,Avia BH33 of 1926 against SM79 & MC200;Gladiator of 1934 against MANY,Bulldog of 1927 against SB-2 & I-16,and even bizarery outdated types such as Fokker C5 & C10 or Fairey Fox scored!So it CANNOT be that one fighter is rated as the BEST of ww2,nor that you can underastimate the pilot's that fly them : training,tactics,motivaton & other things played a major role in ww2
air combats.
One can only state that some planes were terribly influential in ww2:
Legendary Ju87 StuKa was one of them in such a manner that even nowadays almost every german plane of ww2 is mentioned as "StuKa" by general public.Their precision in bombing in 1935-36 was such that wasn't really surpasses by decades.Bare in mind that Ju87 never got any radars,GPS's,laser guidance or any fancy gadget of nowadays aircraft.WW2 with stuka is one thing ; without completely different...
I know that this is best ww2 fighter forum but i'll mention the significance of types such as Ju52 & Dakota as priceless.

GregP

9th January 2005, 09:17

Hey guys,

The thread was getting dull, so I threw in a simple analysis that simply said that the Germans shot down 68% of all aircraft lost in combat in WWII. I didn't say which fighter was best, but more than half of all WWII victories go to the side with the Bf-109, and all of the great aces accrued the bulk of their kills while flying the Bf-109.

When great fighters are discussed, it would be criminal not to mention the Bf-109 and the Fw-190 since their records are without equal anywhere else in the anals of fighter aircraft, piston or jet.

I didn't mean to start a fight and I didn't throw a lot of statistics at you either, though many are possible. I observed that Germans shot down more than 35 times the aircraft in air-to-air combat than the British pilots did. The kill totals speak for themselves.

So, while you may well argue for some intanglible as the determining factor, the numbers give lie to any conclusion that leaves the German fighters out of the final fray. They simply outfought and out flew everything that was thrown against them until lack of fuel and other raw material beat them.

Of course, they WERE beaten by the combined air and ground operations of the Allies and the unrelenting Russian winter and Soviet forces, but the German pilots were beaten by lack of fuel and replacement planes & pilots, not by hordes of marauding Spirtfire XIVs.

I merely observe that the air-to-air victory numbers favor the Germans heavily. I do not state much of anything else. Despite opinions that relegate the German Luftwaffe to "aslo ran" status, they were easily the most effective fighter force in the air during the bulk of WWII. Their kill total cannot be said to be anything but the best.

I'd like to know how the Luftwaffe kill total breaks down by fighter type, but have not found it yet. Maybe it will surface ...

ickysdad

9th January 2005, 09:53

Actually the Luftwaffe was beaten by the time of the P-51's or Spitfire XIV's MEANINGFUL introduction. For the RAF it was really the Spitfire V's & IX's and for the USAAF the P-38's & P-47's that took the heart out of the Luftwaffe. For the VVS(we mustn't leave the Russians out of this!) it was the Yak I's.early Yak IX's, Lagg's,and other models earlier than the LA-5's,LA-7's,and Yak III's that devastated the Luftwaffe on the eastern front.
In the Pacific it was the Solomon's/New Guinea campaign that started the attrition of IJN/IJAAF pllanes & pilots that lead to thier downfall and for the most part it was the F4F for the USN/USMC while the USAAF did it with P-40's & P-38's. Of course don't forget the New Zealanders & Australians flying at best Spitfire V's.
The real damage done to the Luftwaffe,IJN,and IJAAF was alredy set in motion and the tide turned by the Allies EARLIER AIRCRAFT not thier BEST AIRCRAFT.

Falco

9th January 2005, 10:32

By the way,iv'e come up on a bizare fact :
in early 1992 (!) croatians then in war with serbia,got one P47 from a technical museum display in Zagreb and got it in to flying condition.Plan was to use it against serbians as COIN fighter but i don't know wheter it did really fly.

JoeB

9th January 2005, 13:52

quote:Originally posted by simon

"[i]
Personally I believe that a lot can be interpretted by statistics, but these have to be taken in context you cannot take the Hellcat's Kill/Loss ratio without taking into account that the Japanese Planes it fought were obsolescent and the Japanese Pilots largely untrained,

"There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics!

It doesn't contradict your point on relativity of kills/losses, rather illustrates it, that you can exaggerate the weakness of JNAF like that and it's not *provably* untrue.

I believe there is a tendency, esp. of fans of the non-US ETO air arms, to understate the capability of the Japanese and therefore discount esp. USN's pretty remarkable successes in air combat in PTO esp. as the war went on. More specifically to paint a picture of a highly capable JNAF in early 1942, which is too obvious to ignore, that suddenly collapsed to a very weak air arm by say late 1942. Even older one sided US accounts tend to promote this picture by presenting just the claims of US units in later 1942 and 1943 which show a sharp reversal from the admitted defeats in air combat in say the Philippines and Dutch East Indies (at at time Commonwealth air units were generally beaten even more badly than USAAF). Yet judging by actual successes rather than claims the JNAF's decline wasn't that fast.

The "second generation" of war expanded JNAF fighter units were not half trained or incapable. They were in a weaker position relative to the generally much better trained and more experienced JNAF pilots of 1942 v. most Allied opposition in 1942 (with the exception of the USN F4F's to whom the 1942 generation turned out about equal). And their equipment didn't stack up as well as it had. But the real problems came when that second cadre had been worn down by the end of the siege of Rabaul (early 1944). The 1943 JNAF could still be quite tough as the Darwin Spit debacle shows. It's really just assertion to say they were obviously much less capable than also gradually deteriorating German opposition in 1943, or more sharply deteriorating Germans in 1944.

There aren't many clear points of direct comparison but the few that exist suggest the Japanese path from formidable to overmatched didn't differ that much in timing or absolute magnitude from that of the LW:
1942: we can make some special allowances for "second string" Commonwealth units in Far East, but still types like Hurricane which could hold own to some degree in MTO in late 1941 were totally uncompetitive v. the Japanese, many to one ratio's in JNAF's (and actually JAAF's too) favor.
1943: the Spit debacle
1945: in limited combat FAA Seafires did fine against the JNAF, but by then FAA FM-2 Wildcats defeated Bf-109G's off Norway in at least one encounter: the quality of all Axis opposition had deteriorated greatly.

Joe

CAPILATUS

9th January 2005, 15:13

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

Actually the Luftwaffe was beaten by the time of the P-51's or Spitfire XIV's MEANINGFUL introduction. For the VVS(we mustn't leave the Russians out of this!) it was the Yak I's.early Yak IX's, Lagg's,and other models earlier than the LA-5's,LA-7's,and Yak III's that devastated the Luftwaffe on the eastern front.
The real damage done to the Luftwaffe,IJN,and IJAAF was alredy set in motion and the tide turned by the Allies EARLIER AIRCRAFT not thier BEST AIRCRAFT.

I'd say I-153, I-16, MiG-3, Yak-1, LaGG-3 regarding VVS. It's not a secret most of job done I-153 and I-16 for first few months since the war started. And I'm completley agree with all you Ickydad saying. But. The topic is called "the Best".
I suggest we have to agree what we do call the best: characteristics, pilots, air kill ratio, effectiveness or whatever. Otherwise we'll keep argued utill the next century!

I insist we have to forget about everything exempt Flight characters, divide the fighers into groups: light/havy, low alt/high alt; start think logically from the data we have and at last got the winner from each single group. That's it.

For me personally the best fighter is considered only this one I would preffer to fight on!

ickysdad

9th January 2005, 16:05

Well capailatus the topic is the "best" but my point is that the "best" can be described as the one that was availiable at the most critical points of the war. For the US/UK the P-51/Spitfire XIV didn't do them any bit of good when they were trying to supply Malta,during TORCH landings,or in the '43 MED campaigns. The F4U or F6F didn't do anything at Coral Sea/Midway , Guadalcanal or Papua campaigns ,or anything before mid-43. The LA-5,LA-7, or Yak 3 didn't help at Stalingrad or Kursk(to any large degree) .
I'm not criticising your post or anything just that we focus so much on say best performance of a certain plane or it's subtype .

CAPILATUS

9th January 2005, 17:11

Icky, I go along with your point, well, back to mine, we could separate the planes by year! [8D]

ickysdad

9th January 2005, 18:08

capilatus,
That would probably be a good idea. I'm going to think it about it and post later tonite my picks year by year.

CAPILATUS

9th January 2005, 18:49

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad
The LA-5,LA-7, or Yak 3 didn't help at Stalingrad or Kursk(to any large degree) .
I Just noticed that. La-5 first saw combat at Kursk and met FW face to face.

ickysdad

10th January 2005, 00:08

How many LA-5's were availiable for Kursk?

Kutscha

10th January 2005, 00:37

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

How many LA-5's were availiable for Kursk?

Don't know but just over 1100 La-5s had been delivered from the Gorkiy and Tbilisi factories from July to year end 1942. Production man-hours is said to have been reduced up to 40% in the 6 months preceding Kursk

azrael

10th January 2005, 00:56

Hi there GregP,
could you please explain in a little more detail what your statistic shows?
quote:1) Germany 43,765.0 kills (68.2%)
2) USA 9,664.0 kills (15.1%)
3) USSR 1,999.0 kills (3.1%)
4) Finland 1,427.7 kills (2.2%)
5) Japan 1,233.5 kills (1.9%)
6) UK 1,192.0 kills (1.9%)
7) Italy 961.0 kills (1.5%)
I simply do not comprehend these numbers. The Germans lost about 1,300 planes in the BoB alone, so how can the Brits only have killed 1,200 planes throughout the war? Same with the USSR, 2,000 kills? How the hell did they ever get anything done against the Germans. The other statistic confuses me even more
quote:1) USA 1,269 pilots with a kill (44.0%)
2) Germany 882 pilots with a kill (30.6%)
3) Italy 124 pilots with a kill (4.3%)
4) Finland 94 pilots with a kill (3.3%)
5) UK / New Zealand 80 pilots with a kill (2.8% each)
6) USSR 55 pilots with a kill (1.9%)
This would mean (looking at the first statistic) that every German pilot that scored one kill, scroed over 70 on average? Sorry these do not make any sense without some background

simon

10th January 2005, 01:39

I don't know whether you'd have to go as far as year by year, you could seperate it out into Early War (September 1939-December 1941), Mid War (December 7th 1941-July 1943) and Late War (July 1943-End).

I picked July '43 just as a sensible-ish dividing point.

Then I'd say divide into Theatres, say Europe, Eastern Front, SE Asia and Pacific as appropriate.

That would seem like a reasonably practical proposition.

azrael

10th January 2005, 02:38

I agree, simon, seperation into time intervalls and theaters would make sense. But basically speaking, is that not what we have done anyways? Well, at least we have been limiting ourselves to late war planes (La7, Yak3/9, P-51D, P-47D, P-38L, F4U4, Spit XIV, FW190D, etc).
Let's try to make a list of contenders for each period:
I) Early War (1939-end of 1941):
A) ETO (including East Front):
a) BF109E and F
b) Spitfire I, II and V
c) Hurricane I, II
d) Yak 1, LaGG 3

II) Mid-War (end of 1941-1943 Kursk)
A) ETO
a) Bf109F and G
b) Spitfire V and IX
c) La 5, Yak 7 and 9
d) FW190A and F
e) P-39
f) P-47C and D
g) G55
h) Re 2005

B) PTO
a) F4F3 and F4F4
b) A6M2 and A6M3
c) P-38F, G and H
d) F4U1
e) P-47C and D

III) Late War
A) ETO
a) Spitfire XIV
b) Tempest Mk V
c) P-38L
d) P-51 B, C, D
e) FW190A, D, Ta-152
f) Yak 3/9
g) La7

B) PTO
a) F6F3
b) F4U4
c) Ki-84
d) Ki-61
e) P-38L

Any other candidates I am forgetting? There must be a lot of them....:D

GregP

10th January 2005, 04:14

OK guys, here's how I got the numbers in the earlier post. I downloaded the TGPlanes aerial kills list into Excel and did a pivot table on it.

I made no claims about the accuracy of the lsit, and it ran just under 4,000 records. After I read your questioning post, Azrael, I went and searched out other aerial kill lists. It came out very different.

The longest kill list I found results in 7,440 records for WWII. I surmise the list here in TGPlanes is a bit short. When I analyze the longer list I get the following results:

1) Germany: 62,218 kills (57.5%)
2) USSR: 18,693 kills (17.3%)
3) USA: 9,542 kills (8.8%)
4) Great Britain: 4,456 kills (4.1%)
5) Japan: 3,976 kills (3.7%)
6) France: 1,421 kills (1.3%)

Total kills were 108,219 and there were 38 countries represented. Thanks for taking the time to doubt, Azrael.

If anyone wants the long list in Excel, I will happily email it to you. It takes some fiddling in Excel to get from a text list to a proper database, but I got it done and, if you want it, you are welcome to it.

It shows 7,440 aces in WWII with Germany having 2,463 of them (26.9%). Great Britain had 1,466 Aces in WWII (13.3%). The USSR had 1,437 (14.6%) and the USA had 1,293 (15.1%).

I think these numbers make much more sense, and I apologize to all for posting that without checking it against other sources. I do not think the list here in TGPlanes is wrong, just incomplete.

OK Azrael, you are correct that my earlier post didn't check out. I stand corrected, but the logic is similar.

The Germans shot down only 13.9 times as many planes as Great Britian, not 35 times. The Germans shot down 3.3 times as many planes as their next closest competitor, which was the USSR. I still say they were an effective fighter force when compared with anyone else.

Just from looking at the numbers, I think we all should take a closer look at the Bf-109 and Fw-190, but the numbers ARE somehwat different than my earlier post indicated.

Anyway, if anyone wants this spreadsheet (11,054 records), email me with your email address. Mine is: "greg.pascal@mindspring.com". Please put "Victory List" in the subject line so I don't screen your email out as spam.

I also have a fairly extensive aircraft database in Excel, but I can't email that since it is over 100Mb in size. If anyone really wants it, I can make you a CD and send it.

I'm not really too interested in WWI, so my database starts at about 1935 or so and goes forward from there. While there are a few civil aircraft in it, it is mostly military in nature, and is broken out by piston, turboprop and mixed power, jet, and rocket, with a few other tabs in there for X-Planes, aircraft guns, etc.

Recently I also started a small database on piston aircraft engines. It has most of the main engines used in WWII, but I still need to populate the jet section. I'll probably break it out as turbojet and turbofan. The Lycoming XR-7755 (36-cylinder 4-row radial) is in there, and it was an amazing engine. Essentially, it was nine 4-cylinder engines mounted on a common crankcase, and was to produce 6,500 hp. Early tests produced over 5,000 hp, but the jet age spelled it doom.

JoeB

10th January 2005, 05:02

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The longest kill list I found results in 7,440 records for WWII. I surmise the list here in TGPlanes is a bit short. When I analyze the longer list I get the following results:

1) Germany: 62,218 kills (57.5%)
2) USSR: 18,693 kills (17.3%)
3) USA: 9,542 kills (8.8%)
4) Great Britain: 4,456 kills (4.1%)
5) Japan: 3,976 kills (3.7%)
6) France: 1,421 kills (1.3%)

It shows 7,440 aces in WWII with Germany having 2,463 of them (26.9%). Great Britain had 1,466 Aces in WWII (13.3%). The USSR had 1,437 (14.6%) and the USA had 1,293 (15.1%).

I think these numbers make much more sense,

Closer to making sense but some of those numbers are still clearly too low. For example USAAF fighters alone claimed almost 15,000 enemy a/c in the air in WWII (source: USAAF Statistical Digest, counting by theater from several tables), not counting thousands more by USN and USMC. The Brit claim total also looks too low.

On aces as mentioned other sources list 2,700+ Soviet WWII aces by name.

I think it's actually quite difficult to create a list of individual claims complete enough to add up to the correct total of claims even for any one country let alone all of them. And of course my standard comment we can't assume 100 claims of one AF in one period of the war would represent a similar number of real kills to 100 claims by another AF in another period: those results could be very different.

Joe

GregP

10th January 2005, 07:32

Hi Joe,

I went to the Maxwell Air Force base database for US aerial victory credits. It is located at: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_index.html

If you download the WWII section, screen by screen, and alalyze it, you get a total of 15,864 credits for US pilots recognized by the United States Air Force. These planes were shared among 7,316 pilots. Of those, 708 had 5 or more credits, making them "Aces" in the eyes of the USAF. The combined "Aces" shot down 5,446 planes.

So, the "official" US aces numbered 9.7% of all US pilots with a kill, and shot down 34.3% of the planes shot down and officially recognized.

The credit list I am using shows 1,293 US pilots with a kill and credits them with 9,542 kills. I will try to find the site again ... I forget the URL, but the list on that site was perportedly checked for consistency with losses allowed by the other side.

So, I'd say my real problem lies in finding numbers we can all agree with. The official USAF database is somehwat suspect in my opinion, and I have not located an "official" website for German, Russian, English, or any other aerial victory summary ... so I am left with nothing definite.

Further, the USAF official site doesn't even show Gregory Boyington, so I am left think the Maxwell AFB website is for the USAAF only, and excludes any Navy and marine pilots.

In turn, that makes me wonder a LOT about the various victory databases. Let's just say I have no faith in any of them at this point.This subject deserves its own thread.

azrael

10th January 2005, 18:05

GregP,
thanks for the efforts and for finding that data. I think, leaving aside the absolute numbers, we can agree that the ranking and maybe even the percentage is half-way correct in quality if not quantity. I am pretty certain that the Luftwaffe show down way more planes than any other nation, especially early in the war but also later. I read somewhere that supposedly they shot down three bombers for every fighter lost during the strategic bombing campaign. Now before people point out that many of their kills came early in the war, that is nonsense. Yes, they had a field day with the French and Polish airforce and even with the Soviets at first. But those do not matter in numbers compared to what the Soviets build in pure numbers after the end of 1941 or what the Brits and US were throwing at the Luftwaffe from 1942 on. The early years might have been the easy ones but mostly because there was LESS planes to fly around and shoot each other down.

So, does the Bf109 and the FW190 deserve a closer look? Yes they do, IF we are talking about most effective fighter of the war, or should I say most efficient? Best fighter, no, the Bf109 was outdated by 1943-44 and the FW190 was either bad at high altitude (A-series) or low altitude (D-series and Ta152).

Another strange effect is that it was not the best planes that fought the decisive battles. The Hurricane was clearly inferior to the Spitfire but was available in greater numbers and as a result more instrumental in winning the BoB. The Lightning (G, H series) was at first a horrible escort but it was the Lighting that took the fight to the Germans and ground down the Luftwaffe. The Thunderbolt was not as good as the Mustang in air-to-air combat, yet it continued where the Lighting left off. The Mustang, the best of the lot probably, just cleaned out the remains. The Hellcat was clearly superior to the Wildcat, yet it was the Wildcat that won Midway, fought in the Coral Sea and Cap Santa Cruz, defended Guadalcanal, breaking the backbone of the IJN-Airforce. La5 and Yak7 and 9 were inferior to the La7 and Yak3 and yet they helped turn the tide in the East leaving their better successors to mop up the rest. Late war planes were clearly better but it was the early and mid-war planes that won the war.

Ricky

10th January 2005, 19:33

quote:Well capailatus the topic is the "best" but my point is that the "best" can be described as the one that was availiable at the most critical points of the war. For the US/UK the P-51/Spitfire XIV didn't do them any bit of good when they were trying to supply Malta,during TORCH landings,or in the '43 MED campaigns. The F4U or F6F didn't do anything at Coral Sea/Midway , Guadalcanal or Papua campaigns ,or anything before mid-43. The LA-5,LA-7, or Yak 3 didn't help at Stalingrad or Kursk(to any large degree) .
I'm not criticising your post or anything just that we focus so much on say best performance of a certain plane or it's subtype .
Well, if we're going to look at service throughout the war, then we are definately back with the Spitfire!:D

simon

10th January 2005, 19:59

...and the Hurricane, Bf109 and Bf110, arguably the Curtiss Hawks (P-36 to P-40), although I think the only real contender to the Spitfire here is really the Bf109.

Ricky

10th January 2005, 20:11

By 1945, the Hurricane, Bf 110, & P-36/40 were nowhere near 'best fighter' candidates. The Bf109 kinda was, but not really.
The Spit is a candidate for 'best fighter' throughout the war.
The only real 'hiccups' are: initial disasters against the Zero (but who didn't...) and the Spitfire V against the Fw190 (cured by the Spitfire IX).
:)

ickysdad

10th January 2005, 22:14

Ricky,
Yes your probably right about the Spitfire or '109 being the best throughout the war. A caveat though the best of those two though the XIV & K4 aren't the best in my book the "best" by my definition would be say the V & IX for the Spitfire & the various F & G models of the '109.
On the P-38 not being the best at the end of the war certainly the L model was just about equal to any other contemporary ,foriegn or domestic.

Kutscha

10th January 2005, 22:33

Sorry if this link has been posted before but I am not going back through some 40 pages to check.

The Best Fighter Planes of World War II

The Bf 109, Spitfire, FW 190, P-51, A6M Zero, P-38, F4U

By Chuck Hawks

http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_fighter_planes.htm

Ricky

10th January 2005, 23:24

quote:On the P-38 not being the best at the end of the war certainly the L model was just about equal to any other contemporary ,foriegn or domestic.

Sorry, that was a typo, I was referring to the P-36 Simon mentioned!
I have edited my original post to avoid further confusion.[:I]

azrael

11th January 2005, 03:22

Ickysdad,
the V and IX Spits were the most superior version for their time, you are right. But basically any version of the Spit ranked right up there with the contemporary best of any nation.

ickysdad

11th January 2005, 04:01

azrael,
I quite agree on the Spitfire being equal bit. What I was getting at is that the best for both sides were the ones that were there at the most critical times of the war. Look at the V & IX versions of the Spitfire how many of them were produced? Now as far as the XIV I think less than a thousand were made. What long range Allied fighter covered Allied convoys/landings in the critical MED campaigns in '43? It sure wasn't the P-51 it was the P-38.

azrael

11th January 2005, 19:36

Ickysdad,
when it comes to the med we should not forget the Beaufighter as cover for the allied convoys during the critical phase of the Northafrican campaign, 1942. Not a brilliant fighter by any means, but good enough to kill the Axis bombers and long ranged enough to provide some measure of cover for the convoys.

You are right, the most important planes were those around when the critical battles were fought. The planes that followed had a way easier time but of course performed far more "spectacularly". Point in case Wildcat wore down the IJN airforce (Coral Sea, Midway, St. Cruz, Guadalcanal) while the Hellcat seemed a wonderplane flying against what was left at a time when the Allies were basically already winning. The Spitfire and Hurricane beat back the invincible Luftwaffe in the West, the LaGG3, La5, Yak1 and Yak7 in the East, followed by the "bad" early model Lightnings escorting the bombers and fighting for air-superiority. But the Thunderbolt and Mustang swiped the skies clear of the already beaten Luftwaffe afterwards and got the fame there.

Maybe that is one of the reasons why we tend to overlook the Soviet airforce? They never won air-superiority, they had to fight for it til basically the end of the war. They never really had it easy and could not perform as impressively as the Western aircraft did towards the end. Then again, that could also mean that their aircrafts and tactics were less effective since they never gained the upper hand on a large scale. Hard to tell, something to ponder though.

simon

11th January 2005, 19:46

I believe the FAA operated Fulmars in the Med as well, both land and carrier based.

azrael

11th January 2005, 21:11

Simon,
they did I think, and the RAF was still flying a few Gladiators out of Malta as well. Not exactly the cream of British aircraft designs, even for the time, but hey, they did get the job done, saving North Africa as a base of operations for the Allies, allowing Operation Torch and giving the US Army some combat experience, then making the invasion of Sicily possible, etc etc

Lightning

12th January 2005, 01:59

Hi azrael,

First off, I stand by my statement regarding sample-sizes and the lack of any meaningfull correlation because of so many unrelated variables involved. We'll just have to disagree.

More importantly, I'm going to make my last reference to the P-38 raid on Ploiesti, because you keep missing the point which I put forth in great detail in at least two of my previous postings i.e. It does not matter how unsuccessful this ill-advised-and-planned mission was, the fact that the P-38 demonstrated its ability to carry it out when no other fighter had any possibility of doing so--to any possibility of success--illustrates only one of the aspects of the veratility of this fighter.

The problem here is not that you can't understand what I'm saying, it's that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you can understand it.

The point has been made. If you say it hasn't, then I will leave it up to the judgement of our fellow forum members.

Regards,
Lightning

GregP

12th January 2005, 11:38

Hi Azrael,

Great post at the top of page 41. I agree with EVERYTHING you said.

Personally, I really like the Spitfire and the La-5FN and La-7, but I have trouble differentiating the "long nose" Spitfires from the "short nose" models in the kill lists, so I don;t have any idea how effective the later model Spits were.

Suppose we take the Spitfire Mk XIV as an example. Normally I am loathe to make a distinction between the various models of a fighter, but just suppose we do it anyway.

I have no way to differentiate the kills of XIV since I have no list that shows both the victor and victim aircraft types. Even the "Aces" that tell you what plane they were flyinh don;t differentiate between the models.

makes it tough for us "number freaks" to deal with!

azrael

12th January 2005, 21:09

Lightning,
the statement about sample-size was from a purely mathematical point of view. I agree with you that the modelling that leads to the application of the mathematical theory is highly questionable. At best we have a non-IID set of random variables (individual planes of a single type), at worst, and this might very well be the case here, we have a rather deterministic system.

Concerning the Ploiesti raid, let's just agree on disagreeing, even though I DID understand your point very well.I think we do agree on the point that the P-38L was a superb fighter-bomber/replacement-strategic-bomber without having to agree on the details of that one single mission.

azrael

12th January 2005, 21:14

GregP,
agreed, differentiating between the single subtypes makes a quantitative analysis of the planes' perfromances a lot harder. The question should also be if we want to crown an "overall-winner" from the time-period/theater winners, or if we want to look at the whole series of a given aircraft or just one "ultimate" model. Method one and two would favour planes like the Bf109 and Spitfire, while the last leaves the field wide open (as can be seen by the discussion in this thread).

andyo2000

12th January 2005, 22:17

Finally, an answer to our prayers!

Well, kind of. While surfing the net, I found this website:
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

Everyone in this discussion should take a peek, at the least. Basically, it claims the F4U-4 Corsair was the best fighter of the war. But it doesnt' stop there. The writer of the website takes a look at many aspects of the airplane, and gives reasons. I'm sure that it will spark a lively discussion.

Ricky

12th January 2005, 22:53

Very interesting!
Just an initial reaction...
quote:Indeed, the Corsair earned the respect of enemy pilots flying the MiG-15. Vought's Corsair was a fighter that could not be treated lightly. In a turning fight below 350 knots, the MiG pilot could find himself in big trouble very quickly.
Well, yes. Below 350 knots most WW2-era fighters could outmanouver the MiG15, surely?
But I'm just being picky.[:p]:)

There is the problem, already highlighted, of comparing (using the example here) the F4U-4 and the P-51D, as the P-51D is a year younger than the F4U-4, which in WW2 terms equals a big gap.

btw - I notice that the Hawker Tempest has barely been mentioned on here. Any thoughts?

JoeB

13th January 2005, 03:15

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Well, yes. Below 350 knots most WW2-era fighters could outmanouver the MiG15, surely?

Sure and we could cascade that statement back through WWII, an A6M not to mention an A5M could be dangerous to a Corsair in a low speed turning contest; from WWI to pretty recently wing loading progressively increased in fighters and slow speed turn is heavily influenced by wing loading.

Also we remember a Corsair downed a MiG-15 in Korea because it was a remarkable achievement. We tend to pay less attention to the fact that MiG-15's downed 3 Corsairs during the war (including the one that downed the MiG). Even with Sea Fury its claim of a MiG (which probably happened but can't be confirmed like the Corsair incident) is often mentioned, but the loss of a Sea Fury in same combat (belly landed on UN held island) is almost never mentioned. Again fine in context of lauding remarkable feats of airmanship, where it gets off base is using those victories only to suggest that Corsairs or Sea Furies had much capability against esp. well piloted MiG-15's which neither one did, nor as you suggest is there any reason to think much difference in that regard among any late WWII prop fighters even if those fighters might have differed in head to head against each other. Afterall Skyraiders claimed two MiG-17's in Vietnam, one of which at least can be confirmed in Vietnamese accounts, it doesn't mean a Skyraider could easily take on a Corsair or Sea Fury.

Joe

azrael

13th January 2005, 07:16

Ricky,
the Tempest is a good contender, I mean shooting down more V1s and Me262 than any other allied plane is a feat not to be taken lightly.

JoeB

13th January 2005, 07:57

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Ricky,
the Tempest is a good contender, I mean shooting down more V1s and Me262 than any other allied plane is a feat not to be taken lightly.

V-1's: it seems possible Me-262's: P-51's shot down many more 262's than any other plane, well over 100 (real). 10 April 1945 alone the LW lost around 25 262's to USAAF fighters over Czechoslovakia (actually exceeding US claims, all by P-51's except 1 by P-47, no other Allied claims). The RAF claimed around 30 Me-262's for the war. Tempest was the first to down a jet bomber though, Ar-234 Christmas 1944 claimed damaged by 60 Sdn is first air combat loss of type verified in LW records.

Joe

Kutscha

13th January 2005, 08:20

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Ricky,
the Tempest is a good contender, I mean shooting down more V1s and Me262 than any other allied plane is a feat not to be taken lightly.

Tempest claims of 262s were made by RAF #483 - 2, #56 - 1, #80 - 1, #274 - 1, #3 - 1, and a Wg Cdr - 1, for a total of 7.

The P-51s had more. In March 1945 alone, they shot down at minimum of 14 Me262s. I stopped looking after the Tempest claims were doubled.

azrael

13th January 2005, 08:31

Hm I read something along the lines of 20 of the about 100 Me262 actually seeing combat... also makes it hard for the Mustangs to have shot down over 100...

Kutscha

13th January 2005, 10:23

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Hm I read something along the lines of 20 of the about 100 Me262 actually seeing combat... also makes it hard for the Mustangs to have shot down over 100...

You need to find better reference sources azreal.

Dec 18 1944

I./KG 51 has 20 Me262s take off on a mission

Jan 1 1945

I./KG 51 has 21 Me262s take off on a mission

Feb 22 1945

III./JG7 has 34 Me262s take off for bomber intercept mission

KG 51 has 19 Me262s take off on a mission

Mar 20 1945

III./JG 7 has 45 Me262s take off on a mission

There was just over 1400 Me262s made of which the LW accepted just under 1000.

Here is a good Me262 website, http://www.stormbirds.com/werknummer/index.htm

JoeB

13th January 2005, 11:37

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Hm I read something along the lines of 20 of the about 100 Me262 actually seeing combat... also makes it hard for the Mustangs to have shot down over 100...

I'm counting up the incidents in "Me 262 Combat Diary" by Foreman & Harvey where a P-51 claim appears to check out. He compares Allied and Me 262 claims and real losses for each day of its combat career, I get around 120 actual kills by Mustangs.

Maybe you read about just the small experimental unit Ekdo 262 in 1944 or are thinking of another of the German jet/rocket types? As I mentioned JG7 lost 27 Me 262's in the air in *one day* April 10, 1945, apparently mostly corresponding the 17 Mustang and 1 P-47 claim of the day which seem to been an understatement.

Joe

azrael

13th January 2005, 18:23

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Hm I read something along the lines of 20 of the about 100 Me262 actually seeing combat... also makes it hard for the Mustangs to have shot down over 100...

You need to find better reference sources azreal.

Dec 18 1944

I./KG 51 has 20 Me262s take off on a mission

Jan 1 1945

I./KG 51 has 21 Me262s take off on a mission

Feb 22 1945

III./JG7 has 34 Me262s take off for bomber intercept mission

KG 51 has 19 Me262s take off on a mission

Mar 20 1945

III./JG 7 has 45 Me262s take off on a mission

There was just over 1400 Me262s made of which the LW accepted just under 1000.

Here is a good Me262 website, http://www.stormbirds.com/werknummer/index.htm

Kutscha, that exact database claims 24 losses of Me262s to Tempests, not 7 as you claimed. (just put the keyword Tempewst into the search engine and look at the result).

There is a lot of entries for P-51s, but on closer look you will find that many of them are ground-kills, something that the USAAF credited but not the airforces of most other nations. Many of the other losses include the statement "shot down by p-51s or by bombers).

Also, when you consider planes seeing combat, those numbers can be very different to planes produced, planes accepted or even planes deployed in frontline squadrons, especially in a plane as problematic and unreliable as the Me262.

That database does however claim 180 Me262 being shotdown, so you are right on that point.

JoeB

14th January 2005, 02:10

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Kutscha, that exact database claims 24 losses of Me262s to Tempests, not 7 as you claimed. (just put the keyword Tempewst into the search engine and look at the result).

That database does however claim 180 Me262 being shotdown,

I get 180 entries in that database when I enter P-51. It's one nice source, but the Foreman book is a well recognized one, and as I said in there are around 120 *aerial* victories by P-51's counted one by one (counting possible/probable, one might conservatively say "over 100" as I did originally). Without exhaustive analysis it doesn't seem inconsistent with that site's database. I wasn't quoting claims but actual shootdowns per the incidents in the book, so the issue of crediting ground victories isn't relevant. Also it's implausible that US bombers shot down very many Me262's because they didn't even claim many, and their credited victories anyway were usually something like ballpark of 4 times the actual losses in WWII*, v. around 3/4 correct for fighter claims. That database is perhaps reflecting the German view, plane didn't return after combat with fighters and bombers, but my count from Foreman book is factoring in actual Allied fighter claims.

On that site for Tempest it's true 24 entries return but a lot of those are also damaged, possible, etc. Again Foreman's books lists 30 dest claims by the RAF, doesn't give types for most, a few are given as Spits and a few as Tempests

There is no reasonable doubt the P-51 had the most aerial victories by far over the Me262; the far ranging 8th and 15th AF fighter units, by 1945 when lion's share of jet kills were scored almost all equipped with P-51's, had by far the most opportunities to meet Me262's, as well as all other German fighters, which is why they also scored a high % of the Allied victories in general in daylight combat in 1944-45.

*a real verified result of bombers v. jets is US B-29's in Korea, claimed 27 MiG-15's seemed to have downed 3 per each side's accounts, easier to tell causes in a smaller air war like that; where losses to fighters were once again around 75% of the confirmed victories to fighters.

Joe

Kutscha

14th January 2005, 03:57

Tempest claim list (ref Thomas/Shore book) and the Tempest & Sqd

13 Oct 44, EJ750, #3
3 Nov 44, JN750, 122W, later downgraded to damaged
19 Nov 44, JN858, #486
3 Dec 44, EJ722, #80
17 Dec 44, EJ750, 122W
25 Dec 44, EJ624, #486
23 Jan 45, EJ663, #56
11 Feb 45, NV645, #274
25 Apr 45, EJ711, #486

So this missed one in the table.

Besides the above,

10 Dec 44, EJ522, claimed as damaged but a 262 from I./KG(J)51 lost that day
11 Apr 45, SN165, strafing attack, but was seen to climb to 2000' on fire and the pilot bailed out

Typhoons claimed 3

14 Feb 45, MN144, #439
14 Feb 45, RB281, #439
26 Apr 45, shared by 2 pilots of #263

Ricky

14th January 2005, 18:13

However, notwithstanding the Tempests record against the Me262, is t a serious contender?

Lightning

15th January 2005, 01:46

Hi All,

Just a reminder: Many of the Me-262 kills by propeller-driven fighters were scored when the jets were either in the take-off or, more importantly, in the landing phase/configuration. In fact, P-51s were positioned to wait for returning '262 sorties so that they could attack them in the landing pattern.

I don't know how many Me-262s were shot down during legitimate fighter-to-fighter combats, but I'm sure it wasn't many.

Regards,
Lightning

azrael

15th January 2005, 01:54

Ricky,
I would say the Tempest is a contender. Definitely was one of the bet Brit fighters, if not the best. Had some weaknesses compared to the late Spits (high-level performance, top speed) but some advantages, too (better range, better ground-support capability). The Tempest sure was the plane that the Brits envisioned when they first created the Typhoon.

JoeB

15th January 2005, 05:48

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi All,

Just a reminder: Many of the Me-262 kills by propeller-driven fighters were scored when the jets were either in the take-off or, more importantly, in the landing phase/configuration. In fact, P-51s were positioned to wait for returning '262 sorties so that they could attack them in the landing pattern.

I don't know how many Me-262s were shot down during legitimate fighter-to-fighter combats, but I'm sure it wasn't many.

Regards,
Lightning

I'd again recommend the Foreman book, or there are others now (like Smith and Creek's latest series which I haven't read yet), or Hess "German Jets v. the USAAF". That's a semi myth, not alot of the kills were literally of taking off/landing (as in wheels down) 262's.

What's a legitimate combat? where you win I think. I think the most accurate way to describe it is the USAAF props could take advantage of their numbers and fuel persistance to engage 262's when conditions were favorable, often diving on ones often headed back to base and needed to get there low on fuel, not necessarily literally in landing pattern. And they took advantage of their own a/c's maneuverability and again persistence (they could dodge attacks for as long as it took for the 262 to have to break off) plus focus of 262's on bomber destruction, plus the quality of the mass prodcution 262 pilots of 1945 (again not to be confused with the first few units with hand picked pilots), to avoid many losses to the jets themselves. The 262's claimed around 55-60 Mustangs (counting in Foreman again) but the German claim system had broken down by then and that's clearly a major exaggeration, only around 10 or so Mustangs seem likely to have been lost to jets, though with a larger uncertainty than counting the jet losses, because some of the large number of P-51's were lost almost every day to one combat or non-combat cause or another, and the fact a loss isn't id'ed as to jets doesn't prove it wasn't.

Anyway if you set up controlled conditions of equal numbers, pilots, filled the Mustang's tanks til it had equal combat endurance...sure the 262 would do much better than it did, it should generally be able to avoid many losses even if killing P-51's still wouldn't be that easy for it. This sort of comparison seems to be more the mindset of this forum, pure planes in a vacuum, what can we correct for in history to predict what would happend then. It's perfectly OK, a matter of what one is interested in. I'm just saying in the actual situation P-51's had a high real kill ratio against 262's (so did most Allied prop fighters, just P-51's again were by far the most prolific scorers again jets). I don't personally believe there's much reality to anything beyond trying to figure out what actually happened, which as we see people (even book authors at times) are often under misimpressions about even many decades later, so it's still very interesting to me.

Joe

Lightning

19th January 2005, 00:49

Hi JoeB,

Of course, you may be right about the Me-262s' losses during the landing phase being a myth, but if so, that is a very wide-spread myth. I do know, however, that the tactic of ambushing returning '262s as they prepared to land was often employed, so much, in fact, that significant numbers of Fw-190s were used over the airfields to defend the returning jets in this critical moment when they were most vulnerable.

At low speed, even in the "clean" configuration, the early jet engines were very sluggish and agonizingly slow to "spool-up". Add to this the inertia that had to be overcome in order to accelerate the aircraft to combat speed, and you can see why the '262 was so helpless at this stage.

I call a combat "legitimate" when both planes are at their reasonable best, with enough fuel to allow both to engage without either having to break-off the fight prematurely. I won't even specify that both pilots have to be equal and greatly experienced--just competent.

If the Me-262 fights the Mustang's fight i.e. "dogfighting", then the Mustang has the advantage. The Mustang pilot cannot dictate this condition, however.

The jet, on the other hand, can dictate the terms. His speed allows him to stay at arm's length and make gunnery passes when it is to his advantage. He can press home the attack or withdraw from the combat at his discretion. He has the advantages of "boom 'n zoom" without the need for greater altitude.

Regards,
Lightning

JoeB

21st January 2005, 01:42

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Of course, you may be right about the Me-262s' losses during the landing phase being a myth, but if so, that is a very wide-spread myth. I do know, however, that the tactic of ambushing returning '262s as they prepared to land was often employed,

Well there's no shortage of those, widespread myths, in air combat history. OTOH I acknowledge your point about focusing on 262's near their bases.

On the third hand if you look at lots of one sided outcomes in WWII air combat it was one side putting a lot of pressure on the other right around its airfields. The Japanese did it alot to the Allies in Malaya/Philippines/Dutch EI in 41-42 and getting very lopsided results in their favor, in the air as well as inflicting lots of losses literally on the ground (which wasn't that common in P-51 v. Me 262). It's a good example because superior radius of their planes was a factor in this, allowing them to magnify a relatively modest overall numerical superiority by concentrating anywhere over a wide area, area over which the Allies had to parcel out shorter legged defensive fighters. Then of course the US carrier groups did that often to Japanese airfields in 43-45, and the Germans to almost everybody in 1939-42, BoB being an exception for the most part, and inadequate radius of German fighters to put consistent heavy pressure on the RAF fields was the reason.

Joe

Lightning

21st January 2005, 02:01

Hi JoeB,

But the efforts over the German airfields, in this case, were directed at one type specifically--the Me262. It was the only way the propeller-driven fighters could reasonably expect to have the upper hand. Otherwise, why not intercept them before they got back to those fields?

Regards,
Lightning

tripehound

2nd February 2005, 12:21

The Spit is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever but lets face it, during the BoB the Spit was a lot of hype. The 109 and the Hurricane were BOTH BETTER aircraft. The Spit was not that manueverable. Its roll rate was terrible. Its elevator was weak. The Hurricane could turn tighter and had a higher instantaneous and sustained turn rate due to its thicker wing and the Spits lousy longitudinal power. Accelleration was roughly equal because of the same engine and nearly identical weight. Now for the 109. The 109 had a rudder that just wouldnt quit (and like the Spit lacked elevator power). In the hands of a pilot that knew how to use it, the 109 could do some very un-natural manuevers that no other aircraft of the war could do. Kick the rudder right, kick the rudder left, and you've just bled off 150 knots and filled your windscreen with that beautiful Spitfire planform. Then, rudder centered, nose down and you accellerate away and no Spit or Hurricane could catch you. The power to weight ratio of the 109 assured that. And as for the 109 being outdated by 1943, hardly. The last version (K) had a top speed greater than the P-51 and it still had that great rudder and low speed handling. Give me the 109 anytime from 1937 to 1945. What a great plane.

ickysdad

2nd February 2005, 13:14

It had a greater speed than the P-51 if the P-51 was stock but if the P-51 was pulling 77"-81" and running 120+ octane fuel no the 109K wasn't faster.

GregP

3rd February 2005, 13:35

Gotta' jump in here tripehound ... the Spitfire not maneuverable ... and with a weak elevator?

C'mon, tripehound, everyone in the world disagrees with you, even the Germans. There were many fewer Spirfires than Hurricanes, to be sure, but the Hurricane was a 300 mph airplane in the BOB. The Spitfire was a 370 mph airplane with lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and was universally observed to be VERY maneurverable.

Yes, it's roll rate was slower than the Bf 109, but it could EASILY out turn a Bf 109 in a horizontal turn or a loop ... just by virtue of wing loading, and despite the automatic slats the Bf 109 had.

The Bf 109 had fuel injection and so could still accelerate during negative-g maneuvers (being able to INITIALLY pull away), and the Bf 109 was a formidable opponent, but was it head and shoulders better than the Spitfire? No way. They were more or less equal, with the Bf 109 being better at an attack mission and the Spitfire being better at a defensive mission.

Coincidentally, those were exactly the missions they were tasked to perform, and they were very equal ... until you remember that the Germans gave up the operation. So the Hurricanes and Spitfires repelled the Nazi Luftwaffe during the BOB ... and you pick the BOB loser's fighter as the best fighter?

There were more Bf 109s than Spitfires and more Bf 109s than Hurricanes. In general, the Germans were more ready for the BOB than the British were, and the British won, or at least repelled the German Luftwaffe.

The rest of the world disagrees with you. You are, of course,welcome to your opinion and I support your right to have it and state it, but you really should consider the facts before you make up your mind.

Give the Spitfire its due. At best, the Bf 19 was more or less equal to the Spitfire. At worst, the Spitfire was quite a bit better. Neither one had particularly good range. But ... unmaneuverable?

Please!

Kris

5th February 2005, 23:15

Hello

I have certainly never heard that the Bf109 had a better roll rate than the Spitfire ! only quite the opposite !.

In terms of Turning capabillity the Bf109 and Spitfire are renowned to be equal !

Regards, Kris

Mark J

11th February 2005, 10:18

Take's awhile to read 43 pages. Some really good stuff!

The BoB Spitfire II had a top speed at altitude, of around 350 to 355 mph, while the Me 109E could top 345mph. The Me 109 had a slightly higher ceiling. It's auto leading edge slats were brilliant in concept but didn't feature to much as the Luftwaffe pilots although well trained, were not all that confident with them, something I read a few years back. German pilots didn't have the bulged canopy so couldn't look down without dropping a wing. The Spitfire would out turn the average 109 pilot although a more confident LW pilot could work the 109 better giving the Spitfire a harder time. The 109's 4 mg's were very good but there were only four. It's MG FF cannon had a slow rate of fire and a low velocity so deflection shooting would often mean a hit with the mg's and the canon shells following in their wake. In saying that, the 109 had a combination of armament. 4 or 2 mg's, 1 or 2 canon. The Spitfire stuck with the 8 mg's although both the Spitfire and Hurricane tried canon, only the Spitfire went operational with them, although with initial shell feed problems.
I believe the Spitfire and Me 109 (bf 109) both had traits that needed pilot attention but in the hands of well trained men, were almost an equal match. The Hurricane could generally out turn both planes but was slower although still very useful.

I feel the "best fighter" of WWII should come from a selection that had their operational origins at the START of the war and remained operational at least until '43 or '44. That way we are sure the fighter had a wartime development phase and were involved in a war period when the enemy were flying with well trained or at least experianced aircrew. To me, training is one of the keys to success concerning fighter v fighter warfare, often regardless of the aircrafts performance. Remember, a high tech, high speed and manouverable fighter is useless if the pilot cannot locate his enemy, bringing me to state that fighter tactics were more important to pilot survivability that aircraft ability.
That said, aircraft ability is still important and the whole idea of this post. So..... I would draw up my list of contenders for "best fighter" from those aircraft that were operational from September 1939 up until about 1944. Thats when all the hard work was done. After that, it became a forgone conclusion based on the deteriation of pilot training and fuel supplies among the axis forces. Sure some exceptional aircraft were developed around the end of the war but they had a reduced enemy to contend with, or an overwhelming enemy, at least in the air.

I'll draw up a list of contenders, soon.

Lightning

12th February 2005, 00:54

Hi Mark J,

You said in your last posting,"...I would draw up my list of contenders for "best fighter" from those aircraft that were operational from September 1939 up until about 1944."

I think you'll be leaving out a lot of first-rate, first-line fighters, among them the P-38, the P-47, the P-51, the F4U, the F6F, and the Fw-190 (I'm not sure when it became operational, but I'm pretty sure it was after 1939).

Although the P-38 first flew in January 1939, it was not operational until the spring of 1941. The next of the above-mentioned fighters to fly was the F4U in 1940, and it did not become operational until June 1942. None of the others (Fw-190?) even made their first flight before the early 1940s, much less being operational. Different references may vary slightly on these dates, but the main idea will not change.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning here. Could you have meant "aircraft that became operational between 1939 and 1944"? If so, that would leave out the Hurricane, the Spitfire, and the Bf-109.

Regards,
Lightning

Mark J

12th February 2005, 09:25

Hi Lightning
Thanks for the imput! I wrote my little speach just before heading off to work and during the drive, went over what I wrote and decided what I had said was flawed.

My intention had been to show the best fighter that served as a frontline fighter from the start of the war ( operational AT the start ) and finished the war, still as a frontline fighter. Of course that limited the whole thing down to two, the Spitfire and ME 109. To me, that is wrong. Perhaps these two could qualify as "greatest fighters" because of the quantity built, longivity, public awareness and their sentimental value but this is about "best" fighter.

I'll revise my outlines for the best fighter catagory.

The best fighter list should be drawn up from those fighters that had become operational by the start of the war and those that came into operational service up to and including the turning point in the second world war. To me that means 1943. By 1944, the axis airforces were on the decline through pilot experiance attrition, although could still be very deadly!
For the sake of this debate, I propose that new or developed fighters that came into operational squadrons/groups, AFTER 01/01/44, be excluded from this debate.
I do this to include those fighters that were involved in conflict where both sides were "PROBABLY" close to being equal in pilot training and experiance. This makes it fair as far as aircraft selection is concerned.

1935 to end of 1943

I feel that high "kill ratio's" against aircraft flown by inexperianced pilots is a false statistic. The "Mariana's Turkey Shoot" would have had a totally differant result had the Japanese pilots being as well trained and experianced as the USN pilots, regardless of aircraft quality. So, comparing the Zero to the Hellcat after early 1944, is not aplicable unless pilot quality was about the same.
Comparing "fly-off's" of differant fighters during sterile testing situations is difficult to evaluate as both pilots in the opposing aircraft are both of (ussually) equal experiance/training and neither pilot wants to kill the other and the need to survive isn't influencing "on the spot" decisions.
Aerial combat is the only true comparison other than the paper specifications of individual aircraft. AS none of us flew these fine aircraft in combat, we only have puplished pilot reports and aircraft specifications to work with.

Lets keep the debate to aircraft that were in combat up to the above date ( or close to it, it's not cast in stone) and ignore those kill ratio's. Just my opinion.
My list in a few days......

cheers

JoeB

13th February 2005, 01:53

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

1935 to end of 1943

I feel that high "kill ratio's" against aircraft flown by inexperianced pilots is a false statistic. The "Mariana's Turkey Shoot" would have had a totally differant result had the Japanese pilots being as well trained and experianced as the USN pilots, regardless of aircraft quality. So, comparing the Zero to the Hellcat after early 1944, is not aplicable unless pilot quality was about the same.
Comparing "fly-off's" of differant fighters during sterile testing situations is difficult to evaluate as both pilots in the opposing aircraft are both of (ussually) equal experiance/training and neither pilot wants to kill the other and the need to survive isn't influencing "on the spot" decisions.

I kind of agree with part of your idea but I think you are applying it arbitrarily.

Warbird flyoffs (actual or theoretical based on paper numbers or those same numbers programmed into computer games) are an interesting topic but have relatively little to do with air combat history. That I agree with 100%. But if we accept that, it's then hard to say what portion of success is due to planes and what to pilots, and therefore draw clear lines: this case is due to a large pilot skill gap (anyway non-plane factors are much more complicated than "pilot skill", I think we all realize).

But when it comes to evaluating real combat results it seems arbitrary to me to throw out certain cases because one side was highly successful. The Germans were highly successful against the Soviets until at least 1943. The Germans were almost as successful in 1942 against the Desert Air Force in fighter combat as against the Soviets in the same period. The Japanese were as successful or more against Commonwealth AF's in the Far East in 1942, and even 1943 in some cases, as the USN fighter units were against the Japanese later (judging real results not claims in Western cases, assuming German claims were pretty accurate in the East since they were in the West in the same timeframe). So do we throw out the results against "poorly trained" Soviet and Commonwealth pilots pre 1943 as not counting? And why shouldn't the Germans be downgraded for some of their early successes in 1943 v. the USAAF: they had combat experience, the US units didn't; later on the results were very different.

If you are mainly interested in WWII air combat until 1943 and not after, that's fine, but there's nothing profound about that cutoff point, IMO. Air combat results are what they are, I don't see a point to say some count and some don't count.

Joe

Mark J

13th February 2005, 10:19

Hi JoeB
On reflection, I will agree with your very valid point. I will maintain that fighter v fighter combat can only be judged when the tangibles, ie; pilot, weather etc are as close as possible to being equal.
The year 1943 was perhaps the year that fighter aircraft of both allied and axis origine, were approaching equal performance. That aside, an earlier suggestion was fighters be grouped into different periods of the war, like;
1939 to Dec 41...Dec 41 to say the end of 43 and then to the end.
I prefere the start until the end of 43 and then to the end, just two periods of fighter development.
Does this sound better?

Tony Williams

13th February 2005, 17:26

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

The 109's 4 mg's were very good but there were only four. It's MG FF cannon had a slow rate of fire and a low velocity so deflection shooting would often mean a hit with the mg's and the canon shells following in their wake. In saying that, the 109 had a combination of armament. 4 or 2 mg's, 1 or 2 canon. The Spitfire stuck with the 8 mg's although both the Spitfire and Hurricane tried canon, only the Spitfire went operational with them, although with initial shell feed problems.

I put together a detailed analysis of the performance of the armament of the BoB fighters - including guns and ammunition used - in 'The Battle of Britain: armament of the competing fighters' on my website (scroll down the front page until you reach it). My conclusion was that the RAF planes might have done better if they been armed with four of the Bf 109's cannon instead of eight MGs (total weight would have been similar).

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Johnny G

14th February 2005, 21:30

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Hi JoeB
On reflection, I will agree with your very valid point. I will maintain that fighter v fighter combat can only be judged when the tangibles, ie; pilot, weather etc are as close as possible to being equal.
The year 1943 was perhaps the year that fighter aircraft of both allied and axis origine, were approaching equal performance. That aside, an earlier suggestion was fighters be grouped into different periods of the war, like;
1939 to Dec 41...Dec 41 to say the end of 43 and then to the end.
I prefere the start until the end of 43 and then to the end, just two periods of fighter development.
Does this sound better?

Hi,

I've just found this site and reading all your arguments has been very interesting.
I was thinking that having the 'Greatest Fighter of WW2' is a bit of a vague arguement, given the technological advances made in the five years of war. Try comparing a Mk1 Spitfire to a MkXIV! Wouldn't it be much easier and fairer to find the best fighter for each year of the war. What do you think?

Lightning

15th February 2005, 01:49

Hi Johnny G,

First of all, welcome to the forums. Looks like you're all fueled-up, fully armed, and ready for takeoff!

My personal oppinion is that the best fighter of any war should be just that: the best of the whole war; that includes any and all times between the start/finish dates inclusive

In your example (i.e. the Spitfire I compared to the Spitfire XIV) it is obvious that, based on this comparison, you could not say merly that the Spitfire was the best; you'd have to pick the better variant--in this case, the Mk XIV. The point here is that, if you think the Spitfire was the best, you'd have to state which variant. All other variants would then be, in your judgement, ranked lower.

If we go on a year-by-year basis, things will get so complicated as to become completely confusing (see the preceding 43 pages).

Regards,
Lightning

Johnny G

15th February 2005, 19:37

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Johnny G,

...based on this comparison, you could not say merly that the Spitfire was the best; you'd have to pick the better variant--in this case, the Mk XIV. The point here is that, if you think the Spitfire was the best, you'd have to state which variant. All other variants would then be, in your judgement, ranked lower.

Hi Lightning,

Thanks for the reply, but I really don't see your point.
Sticking with the Spitfire as an example, by the end of the war the Spitfire had developed into such a different aircraft from the original Mk1 that some people and pilots thought it should be given a different name! So the varient of a plane makes a great difference, which means you can't just say the Spit or Me109 etc was best, you have to include the varient of the plane. I don't have a problem with someone saying they prefer the MkIX Spit or P51-D, as its more specific.
On your last point, if you find the best varient of a plane all the other varients WILL be ranked lower in comparison.

Regarding the best fighter of each year of the war, here's a list I've quickly thought up: (...So you guys will probably pick it apart very quickly!:D)

1939: Me109E
1940: Spitfire Mk2
1941: Spitfire MkV
1942: FW-190
1943: Spitfire MkIX
1944: P51-D
1945: Me262

Ricky

15th February 2005, 19:58

Welcome aboard Johnny G!:)

The list looks ok, but I really would quibble the Me262.
A good interceptor, yes, but a good fighter?
1945 gets interesting, as you have the better Japanese designs (Ki-84, Ki-100 etc), the Ta-152, the Do-335, the later Spitfire marks, the Tempest, the P-38L, the P-51D, etc etc. Basically, this is why we are at page 44!:D
How about the Macchi 205 in there somewhere?

Mark J

15th February 2005, 20:40

Just spent the last few days thinking about this issue, decided to drop the time period idea and go with the overall best fighter idea. I still believe that different time periods of the war should be acknowledged with their various aircraft introductions but as this is a discussion, I'll stick with it's spirit.

I have a list of 6 aircraft that I feel deserve the "BEST FIGHTER" title. All 6 are very manouevarable, climb well, are not lightly built (ie; have armour) and can all top 400mph with clean airframes. Thats no droptanks, bombs, rockets or gun pods.

From top of the list,

first Spitfire XIV

second P-51 D

third Spitfire IX

third equal FW 190 A series

fifth LA-7FN

sixth Yak-3

The A6M Zero was to slow and to weak, The KI-61 Tony was almost there but not quite, the ME 109 lost manoueverability as it's weight increased, the Tempest didn't have the altitude, the Corsair was another that almost made it, the P-47 had speed, altitude and ruggedness on it's side but not manouverability, the Hellcat didn't have the speed and the Lightning, although very good at most things, wasn't quite good enough.
Other planes that I considered were, The P-39, P-40, P-36, Buffalo, F4F Wildcat, Hurricane, Typhoon, Whirlwind, Dewoitine D520, Morane MS 406, Fiat G-55, Macchi C-202, KI-43 Oscar, Polikarpov I-16

Just my opinion
cheers

Lightning

15th February 2005, 22:56

Hi Johnny G,

Quoting your reply:
"Thanks for the reply, but I really don't see your point.
Sticking with the Spitfire as an example, by the end of the war the Spitfire had developed into such a different aircraft from the original Mk1 that some people and pilots thought it should be given a different name! So the varient of a plane makes a great difference, which means you can't just say the Spit or Me109 etc was best, you have to include the varient of the plane. I don't have a problem with someone saying they prefer the MkIX Spit or P51-D, as its more specific..."

If you read my posting of Feb. 14 (yesterday) again, you'll see that my point was exactly what you state above i.e. that you have to pick a specific variant as your choice for the best. You can't just say "the Spitfire".

There were so many radical changes to the Spitfire over the course of the war that it cannot logically be considered the same design. I am convinced that the Spitfire name was retained because of its charisma (if this adjective can be applied to a machine) and its connection to the Battle of Britain and England's standing alone at the beginning of the war. It was, therefore, retained for propaganda and morale-building purposes.

If you are going to pick a given variant of a fighter, then you have to accept the trade-offs that were made to produce that variant. By this I mean that you can't quote the speed of one version, the ceiling of another, the armament of another, the manueverability of yet another, etc. etc.

If you coose the Spitfire XIV, for example, then you have to accept the performance, in all categories, of only that variant. Some models are faster, some have more range, still others can fly higher, etc. No one variant can do all of these things equally well. It's up to you which one you think is the best, but, having chosen, you relegate all other variants of the Spitfire to a lesser ranking than that of your choice (in this case the MK XIV). To repeat myself, that is exactly the point that I made earlier.

Regards,
Lightning

Tony Williams

15th February 2005, 23:04

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

I have a list of 6 aircraft that I feel deserve the "BEST FIGHTER" title. All 6 are very manouevarable, climb well, are not lightly built (ie; have armour) and can all top 400mph with clean airframes. Thats no droptanks, bombs, rockets or gun pods.

You missed an important one: Fw 190D. Eric Brown, who flew most things, rated this as about equal with his favourite Spit XIV, and also rated the P-51D as very close behind.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Johnny G

15th February 2005, 23:28

Hi Lightning,

Thanks for the feedback! I think we are basically agruing the same point so I'm going to drop the varients thread for a bit.
I think you make an interesting point about the Spitfire name being an icon of hope for us in 1940 and the rest of the war. This brings me on to my next point:
I know that having good technical stats is a vital factor of an aircrafts "greatness", but what about the image/reputation that aircraft had with friend and foe. That must contribute to how "great" a plane was? What was each countries most iconic fighter of WWII?

Lightning

16th February 2005, 00:18

Hi Johnny G,

Your comments regarding "iconic" aircraft of the warring
powers of WWII makes for a great dicussion. Keeping in mind that the best is not always the greatest, and the greatest is not always the best, here are my choices of the "icons":

Great Britain-- Spitfire

USA-------------Mustang

Germany---------Bf-109

Japan-----------Zero

Soviet Union----Stormovic

Italy-----------(?) Maybe Macci 202

Did I miss anybody? If so, I'm sure I'll be made aware of it. Anyway, that's my list: what's yours?

Regards,
Lightning

Mark J

16th February 2005, 19:45

Hi Tony

Yes, the FW 190-D ( Dora-9 ) was a very good fighter, especially at altitude. I ommited it because I am lead to believe, it was not made in large numbers, something like less than 1000 examples, including the TA 152 and probably didn't have much impact on the war. ( feel free to correct me on that :) )

I would have placed it second or third

cheers

azrael

16th February 2005, 20:05

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

here are my choices of the "icons":

Great Britain-- Spitfire

USA-------------Mustang

Germany---------Bf-109

Japan-----------Zero

Soviet Union----Stormovic

Italy-----------(?) Maybe Macci 202

I agree with you that those were the icons of their respective airforces, their most famous birds of the war. Well arguably you could replace the Mustang with the B-17 or even the P-40 (yes, it sucked, no, it still was famous), the Spitfire with the Hurricane (a bird that the Brits have always had a soft spot for after the BoB) or the Bf-109 with the Ju87, but they are definitely all in the top two of their country in fame. I would suggest replacing the Sturmovic with a fighter plane though to keep in the spirit of the thread. Yak 9 maybe? Or La7? Possibly even the I-16? Not sure what the Russians would consider to be their most famous fighter of WWII, we would have to ask one of them. Same applies to the Italians where I, personally, would suggest the Fiat G-55 although your choice is excellent as well. I just happen to like the G-55 if for no other reason than the Luftwaffe considering it as a replacement for the Bf109. What a blow it must have been to the pride of the German engineers that the Italians managed what they had failed to do themselves and using a German-made engine to boot! :)

Mark J

16th February 2005, 20:38

Votes are still coming in :) but it seems that the Spitfire XIV is topping the list at the moment.........or is it?

azrael

16th February 2005, 20:45

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Votes are still coming in :) but it seems that the Spitfire XIV is topping the list at the moment.........or is it?

Well I do like it best, although I find it hard to discard Lightning's argument for the P-38L. As a pure air-to-air fighter, no other factors considered, give me the Spit XIV. If range and versatility become an issue, the P-38L sounds like a winner to me.

Kutscha

16th February 2005, 22:17

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Hi Tony

Yes, the FW 190-D ( Dora-9 ) was a very good fighter, especially at altitude. I ommited it because I am lead to believe, it was not made in large numbers, something like less than 1000 examples, including the TA 152 and probably didn't have much impact on the war. ( feel free to correct me on that :) )

I would have placed it second or third

cheers

There was less than 800 Spit XIV's made during WW2 while there was 1800 Dora's made. The Fw190A-9 even had more produced than the Spit XIV.

If the Dora is disqualified on numbers produced then so should the Spit XIV.

Lightning

17th February 2005, 01:28

Hi azrael,

You're right about keeping within the constraints of the thread. Allow me, therefore, to change my choice from the Stormovic to the Yak-9. (I think the La-7 was a better fighter, but we're talking "icons" here.)

Also, I was not sure about the Italian iconic entry (as you could see by the "?" in my posting). I certainly can't find fault with your leaning toward the G-55. I'll just flip a coin and keep the results to myself. [}:)]

Regards,
Lightning

azrael

17th February 2005, 02:17

Hi Lightning!
quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Also, I was not sure about the Italian iconic entry (as you could see by the "?" in my posting). I certainly can't find fault with your leaning toward the G-55. I'll just flip a coin and keep the results to myself.

Having done a quick search across the net, I lean towards your selection, the Macchi MC-202. At least as far as I have been able to determine it is considered to be the most famous of the Italian fighters of World War II.

Do we not have any Russian or Italian fans reading this forum?

Mark J

17th February 2005, 20:20

Thanks Kutscha, I stand corrected :)

Revised list

Spitfire XIV
FW 190-D
P.51-D
Spitfire IV
FW 190-A
LA-7FN
Yak-3

The P-38L is certainly interesting!

cheers

tripehound

19th March 2005, 12:38

All of this still does not make me a Spit fan. Everyone seems to have two preoccupations in elevating the Spitfire to the "greatest" level. Top speed and turn radius and neither of these were all that important. Accelleration was far more important than top speed as it allowed the pilot to regain his energy and to put distance between his opponent quickly. If a plane could out-accellerate his foe significantly, it could take the faster aircraft more time than it was worth the even pursue. As for turn radius, the turn rate, and particularly the instantaneous turn rate was far more important. Sustained turnrate being less important only because it was a fool who sustained a turn for very long and thereby allowed everyone in the fight a chance to calculate a solution on them. So again I come back to the 109. The slats gave the 109 a CLmax of around 1.8. The spitfire had a CLmax of around .8 (based on other sources on the web). People can argue the Spit was more manueverable based on lower wing loading, but this argument is oversimplified as it does not account for the much higher LIFT generated by the 109 wing and the greater thrust to weight ratio of the 109 to offset the higher drag and thereby, perhaps a higher sustained turn rate, but definitely a higher instantaneous turn rate. The above refers only to the Emil vs Mk1. So - still give me the 109, and if you wont give me a 109, give me P-38. Thats my #1 and #2 and not necessarily in that order.

ickysdad

19th March 2005, 17:33

triple hound,
The problem with an aircraft having a superior asset is that sometimes there is a way around it. Take acceleration for example even if say the P-47 had poorer acceleration compared to say a Spitfire a smart P-47 pilot would simply put that aircraft's nose down a little and use the "Jug's" supreme diving attributes to make up for the lack of acceleration. P-40's used that technique alot against Zero's.

GregP

20th March 2005, 07:30

Gotta' argue with Ickysdad here.

It was very GOOD to have a superior characteristic, assuming you knew how to use it. Yes, some characteristics can be countered, but NOT having a superior characteristic is the alternative, and aircraft with those qualities were not popular as fighter mounts and probably didn't live long in combat.

All the planes mentioned in this thread as candidates had some type of characteristic that was superior, even the P-40 which, when flown by a good pilot familiar with it, was a potent adversary right up to the end of the war.

By the end of the war, the F4U-4 and F4U-5 Corsairs were out, and they were far superior to most WWII aircraft. The F4U-5 was a 470 mph aircraft with a climb rate of over 4500 fpm, a rapid roll rate, rapid acceleration, and many other superior characteristics. The only place it was perhaps deficient was in sustained turn rate and, as mentioned above, that is an overrated characteristic in combat unless the combat is one-on-one and you start from a head-on pass.

curmudgeon

20th March 2005, 09:30

This thread seems to have a lot of heat and some light - which makes it fun to argue. But it is weaving a lot and the goalposts seem to jerk around the field.

On the Spitfire vs P38, Rawnsley ('Night Fighter') recounts a 'dogfight' between a Spitfire flown by a pilot from the FIU (good squadron pilots spending a rest period developing equipment and tactics) and a test pilot (US) demonstrating the P38 (and doing a very impressive job too). After some loose talk in the mess the contest was set up for the next morning. The pair circled and did a head on approach (keeping things equal). Within seconds the Spitfire was on the Lightning's tail - where it stayed despite everything the Lightning's pilot did. Time: spring 1944 after FIU transferred from Ford to make way for D-day buildup.

Spitfire vs Tempest - Closterman, who flew both and had high scores in each, much preferred the Tempest (comparison argued in his book 'The Big Show').

Ricky

21st March 2005, 18:35

I kind of agree with GregP & ickysdad...

A superior quality is a big bonus to have in combat, providing you knbow how to use it, and providing your enemy lets you...

Example - the Zero had fantastic manouverability at lower speeds. So you try and maintain a highspeed encounter.

azrael

21st March 2005, 21:13

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

triple hound,
The problem with an aircraft having a superior asset is that sometimes there is a way around it. Take acceleration for example even if say the P-47 had poorer acceleration compared to say a Spitfire a smart P-47 pilot would simply put that aircraft's nose down a little and use the "Jug's" supreme diving attributes to make up for the lack of acceleration. P-40's used that technique alot against Zero's.

I have to agree with GregP on this one, having a superior characteristic is preferrable to having none and maneuvrability is a great one. Superior diving for example is nice, but does not help all that much once the aircraft is down on the deck. Superior climbing is far preferrable as it lets you choose when to engengage or when to break off.

Lightning

21st March 2005, 22:53

Hi curmudgeon,

I read that account of the Lightning vs Spitfire dogfight too, and I don't doubt it. But, as has been brought out in this thread by Ricky, if a fighter has a superior quality and is allowed by an opponent to exploit that quality, it has an advantage.

The dogfight in question was contested completely on the Spitfire's terms. It was begun with both planes level at the same altitude making a head-on pass. This negated two of the P-38's strong points right off the bat.

First, as many German and Japanese pilots learned to their sorrow, a head-on firing pass against the Lightning's concentrated firepower was suicide. Such an encounter would never have progressed to the dogfight stage. In the subject dogfight, the Spitfire was lucky that guns were not used.

Second, a Lightning would have engaged such an agile fighter as the Spitfire By diving from above, making a firing pass, and then zoom-climbing away to make another pass. It did this many times against the more-agile Zero, and while doing it, shot down more Zeros than the Spitfire did.

On the other hand, the encounter was stacked in the Spitfire's favor from the start. It was to be a Dogfight! This was the one superior quality that the Spitfire had over the Lightning, and the whole demonstration was structured around it.

All that the outcome of this contest proved was that the P-38 pilot should have had more sense.

Regards,
Lightning

azrael

21st March 2005, 23:58

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi curmudgeon,

I read that account of the Lightning vs Spitfire dogfight too, and I don't doubt it. But, as has been brought out in this thread by Ricky, if a fighter has a superior quality and is allowed by an opponent to exploit that quality, it has an advantage.

The dogfight in question was contested completely on the Spitfire's terms. It was begun with both planes level at the same altitude making a head-on pass. This negated two of the P-38's strong points right off the bat.

True, but not exactly unrealistical. The Spitfire was a great climber and a very fast plane, so how would the Lightning be in a better position, energywise in a standard engagement?

quote:
First, as many German and Japanese pilots learned to their sorrow, a head-on firing pass against the Lightning's concentrated firepower was suicide. Such an encounter would never have progressed to the dogfight stage. In the subject dogfight, the Spitfire was lucky that guns were not used.

I agree completely with you on that point, head-on the lightning, or any fighter with its fire-power concentrated in the nose, was deadly.

quote:
Second, a Lightning would have engaged such an agile fighter as the Spitfire By diving from above, making a firing pass, and then zoom-climbing away to make another pass. It did this many times against the more-agile Zero, and while doing it, shot down more Zeros than the Spitfire did.

If it started out in the superior position to begin with. Given the excellent rate of climb for the Spits and their high-speed I would not consider that to be too likely a scenario.

This is such a popular argument against agility and it did work against the Zero so well. However, if faced with a good climber and fast airplane, possibly faster and better climbing than your own, you are out of luck in energy fighting as well as dog-fighting. Prime example of how flawed this logic is would be the P-47. Not a spectacular climber and not an agile fighter either. Yes, if it started from the advantageous position, high above the opponent it could keep its own. If it did not, good nite.

quote:
On the other hand, the encounter was stacked in the Spitfire's favor from the start. It was to be a Dogfight! This was the one superior quality that the Spitfire had over the Lightning, and the whole demonstration was structured around it.

No, the test was fair, neither plane was placed in a superior position, they just had to slug it out on even terms (except for the head-on shooting part, but that could be avoided anyways by passing parallel to the approaching opponent, not aiming head-on). If you had given the Lightning a higher altitude start it might have performed better, but as the term advantageous position suggest, that would not be a fair and even fight to begin with.

quote:
All that the outcome of this contest proved was that the P-38 pilot should have had more sense.

Or that he was unable to maneuvre into an advantageous position before taking on the Spit, not that unlikely given the climb and speed of the Spit.

Johnny G

22nd March 2005, 00:22

I agree totally with you azreal.
This P-38 vs Spitfire encounter had an interesting ending:
After the engagement was over the P-38 pilot feathered one of his engines as if to say to the Spitfire pilot, "At least thats something you can't do". However, the Spitfire pilot responded by rolling his aircraft inverted, lowering the undercarriage, and at the last moment rolling the right way up just before making a perfect 3-point landing. Pretty cool!

ickysdad

22nd March 2005, 05:38

azrael,greg...
What I'm saying is that a plane with a weakness in say accelration but having a great dive capability can make up for it by putting thew nose down just even so slightly. Also I'm saying some planes aren't good sustained climbers but maybe excellent zoom climbers. Some planes weren't that great a low speed manuvering but couldn't be beat at rolling. Some planes maynot have that great a dive speed but are great at being controlled in a dive. The P-47 for example wasn't very tight turning but could roll like nothing else and while not being great in sustained climbing ability surely had great zoon climb ability. The P-38(at least the L version) could turn extremely tight using manuver flaps and were nearly unbeatable rollers above 350 MPH. In Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" comments were made that nothing could outturn a Zero at slow speed but the P-38L came awful close.As I've pointed out before in comparing speeds we have to be careful because of differing boosts and fuel grades. On the climbing ability of P-38's German pilots stated that they were used to diving on Spitfires then zooming back up to get away however they stated that the P-38 was excellent at making the transition from level flight to climbing and at once were on thier tails in the climb.
Which version of P-38 was used in the test against the Spitifre? A P-38-L-5 was probably as fast as the XIV ,faster than the IX,probably out-rolled both ( at least at higher speeds) and with manuver flaps there wasn't probably much difference in turning circles. The L-5 didn't have the diving problems of the earlier versions . I'm thiking the L-5 could climb at like 4200-4500 FPS maybe a tad more and was an excellent zoom climber.
Frankly we are all splitting hairs here the P-51,P-47,P-38,F4U,F6F,Tempest,Me.109, FW 190, Spitfire,LA-5,LA-7, Yak III, Ki-84,Ki-100 and on and on are close enough to each other to be for all accounts considered equal. You can't put the best diving speed,best climb rate,fastest speed,best rolling ability,best turn radius, longest range, most rugged airframe,heaviest armament,and biggest bombload, and aircraft carrier capability into one package.

GregP

22nd March 2005, 12:53

Every aircraft is a compromise, and whether or not it best at anything depends on the compromises the designer used. You can make the fastest plane, but it probably won't turn very well. You can arm the crap out it, but the weight may mean it is unmaneuverable and doesn't climb well.

I think Ickysdad said it all!

Bravo, Ickysdad!

ickysdad

22nd March 2005, 13:20

greg,
Let's not forget the all important asset of all ,who see's who first. The P-47 was the epitome of dive speed but if a Me. 109 is above the "Jug" and gets the jump on it ,i.e. diving from above whench it's dive speed is already built up then even the "Jugs" dive speed maynot be enough to get away from an inferior diving plane that is at it's fullest dive speed. The same way can apply to say a Spitfire coming out of a turn at low speed starting a climb maybe overtaken in a climb by a far inferior climber who just happens to have his speed built up therefore can "zoom climb" to overtake the Spitfire.
IMHO a Spitifre XIV is a superior fighter verse fighter to the Hellcat being faster,tighter turning ,faster climbing but the Spitfire in turn isn't going to be the long range aircraft,the fighter-bomber/dive bomber or carrier capable aircraft the F6F is .

azrael

22nd March 2005, 19:53

Ickysdad and GregP.
I agree with you on some points but disagree on others. "But it could dive faster" or "it might have been less maneuvrable but in an energy fight it could hold its onw" seems to be fix-it-all answers to the problem of less maneuvrable fighters. A answer that I find highly unsatisfactory to be honest for reasons given below.
First of all, energy fighting requires one plane to be in an advantageous position over the other, either faster or at an higher altitude. That is all fine and well if your plane could accelerate better, had a higher top speed and a superior sustained climb rate compared to its opponent. This was the case in the later US fighters in the PTO compared to the Zero and was used to great advantage. But what happens if your opponent has you beat on those accounts as well? Consider a P-47D or a Lightning P38L compared to a Spitfire MkXIV. The Spit can outturn and outclimb the Thunderbolt with ease and is even a bit faster. Given the better specific power the Spit should also be able to accelerate better. Same thing with the Lightning although the Lightning was possibly a slightly better sustained climber than the Spit. As a result, starting from the same position, the Spit would be able to get into a more advantageous energywise every time against the Thunderbolt and about break-even against the Lightning.
Zoom-climb was ok to get your opponent of your tail in a pinch but not to really pull away for good. Diving was good too until you hit the deck. But overall, superior position determined energy fighting and neither the Thunderbolt nor the Lightning would be able to consistently achieve it over a Spit. They could not outturn the Spit either so all they were left with was going into a dive. Not all that many options compared to the handful given to the Spit-Pilot, is it?

Mark J

22nd March 2005, 20:19

"Beware the Hun in the sun"

Catchy phrase but VERY important to air combat, even now and I don't really care what WWII fighter your flying, ickysdad got it right, who sees who first. Tactics were possibly THE most important factor in fighter v fighter combat.
Hundreds, possibly thousands of pilots lost their lives without even knowing who shot them or from where.
cheers

azrael

22nd March 2005, 20:26

Ickysdad,
I am unable to find any source that gives rates of climb of 4000 fpm for the P-38L. Neither was the plane nowhere near as fast as the Spit XIV. Most figures I have seen place the initial rate of climb at about 3000 fpm with a time to 20k foot of 7 mins. Top speed is usually given around 670kph, a solid 50 kph below the Spit XIV.
Where did you find your numbers? Are you sure that you are not mixing up the P-38K and the P-38L? (if the words "manifold pressure" or "150 octane fuel" are going to feature predominantly in your reply I am going to hit you, hard, I swear!:D j/k, mate).

azrael

22nd March 2005, 20:32

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

"Beware the Hun in the sun"

Catchy phrase but VERY important to air combat, even now and I don't really care what WWII fighter your flying, ickysdad got it right, who sees who first. Tactics were possibly THE most important factor in fighter v fighter combat.
Hundreds, possibly thousands of pilots lost their lives without even knowing who shot them or from where.
cheers

True but that makes one fighter better than the other how? Well, unless you consider visibility of the pilot to be the decisive and all-important criterium.

Mark J

22nd March 2005, 20:58

Well........yes. First you need to see the enemy.

Visability

Then you had to manouver to attack

Tactics

Then engage

This is where the quality of your training and the ability of your aircraft come in, if your opponent has seen you. Of course the quality of your training and tactics should, in theroy, allow an un-observed approach and eventual victory. Of course the real world is different but I shall maintain that VISABILITY then TACTICS should come before aircraft quality in an enviroment where fighters are reasonably close in their flying ability.
Of course, I'm a bit off course as this discussion is after all, about the aircraft, so forgive me. :)

azrael

22nd March 2005, 22:38

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Well........yes. First you need to see the enemy.

Visability

Then you had to manouver to attack

Tactics

Then engage

This is where the quality of your training and the ability of your aircraft come in, if your opponent has seen you. Of course the quality of your training and tactics should, in theroy, allow an un-observed approach and eventual victory. Of course the real world is different but I shall maintain that VISABILITY then TACTICS should come before aircraft quality in an enviroment where fighters are reasonably close in their flying ability.
Of course, I'm a bit off course as this discussion is after all, about the aircraft, so forgive me. :)

Not at all, you are raising a valid point here, visibility is an important factor in the design of an aircraft. So, how do our contender compare in that respect? All late war fighters had bubble canopies, so that should not be much of a factor. How about the view downwards? Or, in the Lightning with the twin-booms to the side?

ickysdad

22nd March 2005, 23:38

quote:Originally posted by azrael

Ickysdad,
I am unable to find any source that gives rates of climb of 4000 fpm for the P-38L. Neither was the plane nowhere near as fast as the Spit XIV. Most figures I have seen place the initial rate of climb at about 3000 fpm with a time to 20k foot of 7 mins. Top speed is usually given around 670kph, a solid 50 kph below the Spit XIV.
Where did you find your numbers? Are you sure that you are not mixing up the P-38K and the P-38L? (if the words "manifold pressure" or "150 octane fuel" are going to feature predominantly in your reply I am going to hit you, hard, I swear!:D j/k, mate).

Well hit me hard for in every comparison involving the XIV the XIV's 446 MPH highest speed at altitude is with increased manifold pressure and running on 150 octane fuel.When compared to the usual high speed for say the P-51D which is around 435-440 MPH at altitude you might say the XIV is faster but sources quoting the Mustang's figures are quoting it with stock manifold pressure & running on 100 octane fuel. Somehow it seems the XIV's high speed figures have gone down in the books with it using over-boost & 150 octane fuel but I have no problem with that for the Allies had the higher grade fuel. My problem is that 446 MPH figure with said advantages for the XIV always gets compared to other aircraft running on lower grade fuel/no over boost when those aircraft also had access to said advantages.
As far as the P-38L ,yes it was capable of hitting around 440 MPH at altitude on according to Francis Dean ,Martin CarDin. Now the P-38J topped out at around 425-430 MPH according to my sources while the earlier F,G,and H models would only have top speeds of around 410-415 MPH and climb rates of just a little over 3000' per minute.There are other sources but the website mustangmustang.com has also provided me with some valuable info on USAAF fighters.
Energy fighters also seem to have made sure they could use that energy ...let's compare the XIV to the P-47D well if the Jug is above the XIV and the Jug dives at it the XIV probably isn't going to get away. If the XIV is above the Jug at high to medium altitude the Jug probably can get away in a dive at least till it's gets down to the deck and in WW2 if the enemy got away from you ever so slightly the engagement was usually over. Now if the Jug is caught on the deck it has problems but many Luftwaffe pilots testified to damn near emptying thier magazines into a jug and it kept flying so heavy type energy fighters have other attributes also. I've read that upwards(some as high as 90%) of 75% or more of pilots shot down testified they never saw the plane that shot them down and were out of it before they ever knew what hit them.
One final item ALL Mustangs were capable of 435-440 MPH whereas only the XIV was capable of that speed in the Spitfire line. There were only like 1000 XIV's produced.Furthermore the P-38L was by far the most produced version of that aircraft.
Here is a link to some info on the P-38L verses a P-51B & a FW-190 and it's just as fast or faster than the P-51B.The 7 minutes to 20,000' figure you quoted is at Military power & 100 octane fuel however on WEP power & 100 octane fuel the P-38 gets there in about a little over 5 minutes. You'll also notice that WEP/Military Power speed & climb figures in these comparisons is witn normal boost and 100 octane fuel(1700+ HP). Now add 150 octane fuel and just imagine.
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/

azrael

23rd March 2005, 00:12

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

As far as the P-38L ,yes it was capable of hitting around 440 MPH at altitude on according to Francis Dean ,Martin CarDin. Now the P-38J topped out at around 425-430 MPH according to my sources while the earlier F,G,and H models would only have top speeds of around 410-415 MPH and climb rates of just a little over 3000' per minute.There are other sources but the website mustangmustang.com has also provided me with some valuable info on USAAF fighters.

Everywhere I look I find a topspeed of about 420 mph for the P-38L and a rate of climb of about 3000 fps, both way below the Spit. I saw numbers as you claimed but for the P-38K model, which never went into production.
quote:
Energy fighters also seem to have made sure they could use that energy ...let's compare the XIV to the P-47D well if the Jug is above the XIV and the Jug dives at it the XIV probably isn't going to get away.

Unlikely scenario though, given the Jugs mediocre rate of climb. People always pretend that the less maneuvrable fighters would magically appear at a given higher altitude than their more nimble opponents. My point is that the Spit is far more likely to be high above the Jug as it would be able to climb there during the approach while the Jug would not be able to keep up.

quote:
If the XIV is above the Jug at high to medium altitude the Jug probably can get away in a dive at least till it's gets down to the deck and in WW2 if the enemy got away from you ever so slightly the engagement was usually over.

The imperative word being "get away". Yes, the engagement is over and the Jug is running with its tail between its legs. I would not call that a winning performance and the Spit is still flying up there, watching the Jug run. In short, the Spit won, the best the Jug could do is flee the scene.
quote:
One final item ALL Mustangs were capable of 435-440 MPH whereas only the XIV was capable of that speed in the Spitfire line. There were only like 1000 XIV's produced.Furthermore the P-38L was by far the most produced version of that aircraft.

So? The pre C model Mustangs might have been as fast but had a whimpy armament of only 4 .5s in addition to poor visibility (C also, otherwise a plane supposedly preferred over the D model by the pilots), so those are lacking in other respects. I do not see how the fact that the Brits could not produce as many airplanes as the US makes those they did build less worthy aircrafts? If it is numbers we are looking for the BF-109 has all allied fighters beaten hands down.

Either way, the whole discussion was in response to the test between the Spit and the Lightning, not a discussion about the merits of the Mustang compared to the Spit. And I stand by my point that you need to be able to climb better and fly faster to win an energy fight. Airplanes of one side, the Lightning in this case, do not appear magically above their opponents as the starting position in a fight, they have to get there first. If your opponent is faster and can outclimb you he will usually be above you at the point of engagement and you are lost if you depend on energy fighting.

ickysdad

23rd March 2005, 00:25

Here is another link referring to Spitfire XIV's speed ,notice that unboosted it hit 359 MPH at SL, boosted/higher grade fuel it hit 389 MPH. The P-51 meanwhile from my sources could hit 380 MPH at SL unboosted but could hit 410-420 MPH with full boost and higher grade fuel. This link also tends to verify that the XIV's high end figures of 446 MPH at altitude is with over-boost and 150 octane fuel.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedns.jpg
azrael,
Did you go to my link comapring the P-51B speed to the P-38L? If you go to the right part of that website it'll show comparison's of the P-38 verse P-51 in speed and show it's climb rates and no it's not the P-38K.
My point on production numbers is to show that Most P-38's were as fast or faster than most Spitfires.What I'm trying to establish is that the P-38L was as fast as the P-51 which is just as fast as the XIV so in essence the P-38 is just as fast as the XIV and if you look at the XIV's figures compared to the P-38's/P-51's/P-47's figures it seems that the XIV's are 446 MPH figures is with additional boost and 150 octane fuel while the USAAF aircraft are quoted at stock manifold preessure and burn 100 octane fuel. Clearly when the Mustang has the same boost and fuel as the XIV it's faster by a decent margin. The P-38L using the same fuel is as fast as the Mustang. The P-47D is quoted as hittind around 425-430 MPH on normal boost & 100 octane fuel now give it the same fuel as the XIV is quoted as having and then compare them.
here is the link to a comparison to the P-51 by a P-38L
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html

ickysdad

23rd March 2005, 01:03

My sources for the P-38L is Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" it states the P-38L as getting to 20,000' in just under 7 minutes BUT on MIlitary Power not WEP and on 100 octane fuel. At max climb it could get to 15,000' in around 4:15 and 20,000' in about 5 minutes.

CAPILATUS

23rd March 2005, 09:49

Hello, fellas!
That's me again! Still fighting for the "best"? ;)[8D]

I read few articles regarding to the topic could be interesting for you. Here they are:
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html

Both aircraft might be the best as hight altitude operating.

GregP

23rd March 2005, 13:01

Hi azrael,

Good points! I can agree in theory with most, but not in actual combat.

The Spitfire had eight .303 MG while the P-47 had eight .50 MG; advantage P-47 in a brief burst. The P-38 had both .50 MG and a cannon; advantage P-38.

So, if they started in equal positions, the P-47 or the P-38 would have the advantage in a first-pass burst ... assuming a decent pilot who was a decent shot.

With EQUAL pilots, I agree with you completely.

But, the fight will almost always go to the more experienced pilot, regardless of the mount, assuming anything near equality in planes, and not necessarily even near equal.

Yes, the Spitfire was better in many respects. But, if the Spitfire were flown by an average pilot and either of the others were flown by an excellent pilot, I'd choose the American fighter to win.

Exactly the same is the case for the Spitfire in reverse.

My bet goes with the better pilot; even if he is flying a P-40.

However, the Spitfire DOES offer a very good ride, and I agree it is generally a better performer than the P-47. Against the P-38, it depends on the variant and the pilot. generally, I prefer the Spitfire to the P-38 in Europe. Defintely the P-38 in the Pacific.

Surely the Spitfire had a better cockpit heater than the P-38! Everything did!

ickysdad

23rd March 2005, 13:58

greg,
All out performance isn't always the best indicator of a war winning weapon verse the best fighter. I've always thought the F6F was underrated in this area(war winning weapon). It was a jack of all trades. It could hold it's own against just about any fighter,had good range ,very rugged,very capable fighter bomber, very easy to learn to fly,very carrier based capable, and very easy to produce. Not's saying it's the best choice though.
There's another attribute of the P-51 & P-47 nobody ever brings up and that's the fact that the Mustang closely resmbled the Me. 109 and the Jug resembled the FW-190 ,this resemblance can cause hesitation and in fact did on quite a few occasions. I've heard that RAF Spitfires occasionally joined Me.109's that happened to be flying the same direction thinking they were Mustangs! Also wasn't there quite a performance difference between say IX version of the Spitfire and the XIV?
As I've said before basically contemporary planes brought out around the same time would more or less be equal to one another. We are also totally ignoring each of the respective airforces doctrines & tatics ,i.e. the Thach Weave. I'm also sure if the average RAF pilot had a choice between the P-47 or the Spitfire for ground attack the "Jug" would definately be thier choice or for that matter ,the P-40. If your in the air against your enemy's most recent aircraft don't give them the Rodney Dangerfield treatment show them some respect.

simon

23rd March 2005, 17:56

Ignoring issues of manifold pressures and fuel (mainly because I don't really understand them!) I think the main reason the MkXIV is used in comparison to the Mustang is that they both appeared in combat around the same time, so it makes sense to compare contemporaries.

The Spitfire had eight .303 MG while the P-47 had eight .50 MG; advantage P-47 in a brief burst. The P-38 had both .50 MG and a cannon; advantage P-38.

No Spitfire built after Autumn 1941 carried the eight .303 armament Greg, the most common wartime armament fit for the Spitfire was the "B" Wing (2 .303s and 1 20mm cannon in each wing), the MkXIV introduced the "E" Wing (1 .50 and 1 20mm cannon in each wing), and by war's end the F.22 and F.24 were being introduced with 2 20mm cannon in each wing.

You can't compare the Spitfire's eight .303s to the Thunderbolt's armament since any such comparison inevitably invites the comment that the Spitfire was actually carrying and using those guns in combat when the Thunderbolt was a mere glint in the designer's eye!

But, if the Spitfire were flown by an average pilot and either of the others were flown by an excellent pilot, I'd choose the American fighter to win.

And A6M-2 Zeroes flown by expert pilots could and did shoot down much better aircraft, Finnish pilots in their Brewster Buffalos did very well against Red Army Air Force aircraft, anyone want to nominate them for best fighter?

That's the point, this is about the best fighter not the best pilots. We all know pilot quality is a big factor, and an excellent pilot in an average plane is of course a very dangerous opponent, but at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, an excellent pilot in an excellent plane is even more dangerous.

I'm also sure if the average RAF pilot had a choice between the P-47 or the Spitfire for ground attack the "Jug" would definately be thier choice or for that matter ,the P-40.

I wouldn't be so sure. I can remember reading in one book about the Desert Air Force RAF pilots bemoaning losing their Hurricanes to be replaced by P-40s, the only and the only squadron in the Battle of Britain to change types tried to actually stop the crews taking away their beloved Hurricanes and replacing them with Spitfires. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that from what I've read pilots seem to prefer the types their used to, the Spitfire wasn't too bad in ground attack, true it couldn't carry a very impressive bombload, but the 20mm cannon were pretty effective against light armour and soft skinned vehicles, and there was also the tactic (Apparently against locomotives) of "Bombing" them with drop tanks on the first pass then using the cannon/Mgs to set it alight on the second.

All in all though, I'd like to bet that any given Spitfire squadron given the choice would rather the P-40 or P-47 was given to another squadron to do ground attack, whilst they kept flying their Spitfires on fighter sweeps! :D

Mark J

23rd March 2005, 18:24

Azrael

Fighter pilot visability was not only about the aircraft design but about how the pilot flew his aircraft. Yes, a teardrop canopy improved rearwards visability, especially when there's someone on your "6" but behind you is only a fraction of the sky out there.
NEVER EVER did an experianced fighter pilot fly straight and level for more than a few seconds.
There's plenty of newsreel footage of fighters flying in nice formation, in level flight but in the real world, those pilots were constantly banking, skidding, sometimes doing slow barrel rolls for downwards views, looking down, up, sideways, behind, perhaps a squadron would have a "weaver" flying just behind to check the blind spot below and behind.
Of course this used up fuel and was a real strain on pilots but thats what kept the good pilots alive.
If you got shot down and never saw it coming.......bad luck, you wern't looking! Dosn't matter if it's a Zero, ME 109, P-51, Yak, P-38L or whatever, if you're not looking, you get shot!
It dosn't take much to gently fishtail, bank and LOOK LOOK LOOK, while still maintaining a reasonable formation and by the way, those close in, neat photos of fighters in squadron formation, are just for the cameras. In reality, the planes are spaced out to allow the pilots to stick together and look around. ( especially over enemy airspace )
A P-38L can bank and slow roll just like anything else. A Corsair Pilot can look straight down, other aircraft had a clear view down as well but if you didn't, just turn a little to see, thats how the P-38 pilots looked down.
By early 1941, nobody flew tight pretty formations into combat and it was the Luftwaffe that first used the spread out formation flying technich while in Spain.
Look at Japanese fighter formations. Always looking haphazard and out of place to the allied airman, they were in fact all LOOKING by banking, skidding and still keeping roughly together. A bit crude but highly effective!

Hope this helps :)
cheers

Now, back to the aircraft :)

Johnny G

23rd March 2005, 18:28

quote:Originally posted by simon

....the MkXIV introduced the "E" Wing (1 .50 and 1 20mm cannon in each wing), ....

Not true, the Spitfire MkIX introduced the "E" wing consisting of 1x .50 cal mg and 1x 20mm cannon in each wing.

azrael

23rd March 2005, 19:59

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

greg,
All out performance isn't always the best indicator of a war winning weapon verse the best fighter. I've always thought the F6F was underrated in this area(war winning weapon). It was a jack of all trades. It could hold it's own against just about any fighter,had good range ,very rugged,very capable fighter bomber, very easy to learn to fly,very carrier based capable, and very easy to produce. Not's saying it's the best choice though.

Underrated? The Hellcat? Underrated where or by whom? If anything, that aircraft is the most overrated one in WWII, well right after the Me262. People take the impressive kill ratio and forget that it was other planes, namely the Wildcats, P-40s, P-39s, later on the early Lightnings and even the Corsair, flown in 42 and the first half of 43, that decimated the Japanese airforces so badly that all the Hellcat had to face was green pilots barely able to take off and land, much less fight. War-winning weapon indeed.

azrael

23rd March 2005, 20:06

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Azrael

Fighter pilot visability was not only about the aircraft design but about how the pilot flew his aircraft. Yes, a teardrop canopy improved rearwards visability, especially when there's someone on your "6" but behind you is only a fraction of the sky out there.
NEVER EVER did an experianced fighter pilot fly straight and level for more than a few seconds.
There's plenty of newsreel footage of fighters flying in nice formation, in level flight but in the real world, those pilots were constantly banking, skidding, sometimes doing slow barrel rolls for downwards views, looking down, up, sideways, behind, perhaps a squadron would have a "weaver" flying just behind to check the blind spot below and behind.
Of course this used up fuel and was a real strain on pilots but thats what kept the good pilots alive.
If you got shot down and never saw it coming.......bad luck, you wern't looking! Dosn't matter if it's a Zero, ME 109, P-51, Yak, P-38L or whatever, if you're not looking, you get shot!
It dosn't take much to gently fishtail, bank and LOOK LOOK LOOK, while still maintaining a reasonable formation and by the way, those close in, neat photos of fighters in squadron formation, are just for the cameras. In reality, the planes are spaced out to allow the pilots to stick together and look around. ( especially over enemy airspace )
A P-38L can bank and slow roll just like anything else. A Corsair Pilot can look straight down, other aircraft had a clear view down as well but if you didn't, just turn a little to see, thats how the P-38 pilots looked down.
By early 1941, nobody flew tight pretty formations into combat and it was the Luftwaffe that first used the spread out formation flying technich while in Spain.
Look at Japanese fighter formations. Always looking haphazard and out of place to the allied airman, they were in fact all LOOKING by banking, skidding and still keeping roughly together. A bit crude but highly effective!

Hope this helps :)
cheers

Now, back to the aircraft :)

Of course tactics and training are vital, probably more so than the quality of the ride. There was, however, some big differences between aircraft in terms of visibility, the BF109 for example had a bad view to the front and down because of the position of the wing. The pilot had to roll a few degrees to either side to get a look downward. Fixes the problem but is of course a disadvantage.

azrael

23rd March 2005, 20:09

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

My sources for the P-38L is Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" it states the P-38L as getting to 20,000' in just under 7 minutes BUT on MIlitary Power not WEP and on 100 octane fuel. At max climb it could get to 15,000' in around 4:15 and 20,000' in about 5 minutes.

Ok, I can see that from the charts you posted as well, even though I find them suspicious in themselves (note that in the climb chart the P-51 is not allowed emergency power, while the lightning is. On the other hand, in the speed chart, the mustang does use emergeny power).

Anyways, how are the other numbers achieved? Is time to altitude usually given using everything you've got? And how long could the Lightning sustain emergeny power?

simon

23rd March 2005, 20:12

Not true, the Spitfire MkIX introduced the "E" wing consisting of 1x .50 cal mg and 1x 20mm cannon in each wing.

Always thought it was the MkXIV, oh well, I stand corrected...

Anyway the point I was making is still valid. The 8x.303 armament was in terms of overall typical wartime weapons fit for the Spitfire far from the standard, and was not used after the MkV (Bader apparently prefered the "A" to the "B", but then it was a MkVA that he was shot down in!). If you wanted to take a "Typical" armament the 4x.303 and 2x20mm of the "B"s was far more common, I just brought up the "E" as a lot of people forget this one...

As for the Hellcat, didn't we only recently do this one to death on the issue of Kill-Ratios? I agree with Azrael, overall I'd say it tends to get over-rated as the plane that wiped out the Japanese Navy Air Force rather than under-rated.

azrael

23rd March 2005, 20:16

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi azrael,

Good points! I can agree in theory with most, but not in actual combat.

The Spitfire had eight .303 MG while the P-47 had eight .50 MG; advantage P-47 in a brief burst. The P-38 had both .50 MG and a cannon; advantage P-38.

No, the Spit XIV had either 2 HS404 and 4 .303 or 2 HS404 and 2 .5 machine guns. By your own statement, that point goes to the Spit against either American bird.

As for the part about pilots and their qualities, I agree of course. Problem is that we are talking aircraft, not pilots here. I would probably prefer a Hartmann in any plane over a Japanese or even American rookie in a Spitfire. Hell, I would probably put my money on Hartmann in any plane against any other plane flown by any other pilot (slightly overexaggerating here, but not too much). Well, unless Hartmann was given a Roc or a Ba.88, there is just limits to what even the best can do. Hard to win a fight if you cannot get into the air. Although, he might climb into the back-cockpit of the Roc and shoot down his opponent from the ground.

Kutscha

23rd March 2005, 21:48

quote:Originally posted by azrael

There was, however, some big differences between aircraft in terms of visibility, the BF109 for example had a bad view to the front and down because of the position of the wing. The pilot had to roll a few degrees to either side to get a look downward. Fixes the problem but is of course a disadvantage.

The inverted V engine gave the 109 pilot a very good view over the nose compared to the Spitfire and P-51. Even the down part is questionable.

azrael

23rd March 2005, 21:57

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:Originally posted by azrael

There was, however, some big differences between aircraft in terms of visibility, the BF109 for example had a bad view to the front and down because of the position of the wing. The pilot had to roll a few degrees to either side to get a look downward. Fixes the problem but is of course a disadvantage.

The inverted V engine gave the 109 pilot a very good view over the nose compared to the Spitfire and P-51. Even the down part is questionable.

Look at the quote in the BF109 thread:
quote:
Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

The second sentence in particular. It took a shallow turn during landing to have a good clear view of your landing point. Yes, I would call that limited vision forward and downward. Maybe not the worst, but still limited.

Kutscha

23rd March 2005, 22:48

All ww2 fighters had a limited view over the nose. A curving approach was sop, for all.

azrael

23rd March 2005, 22:50

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

All ww2 fighters had a limited view over the nose. A curving approach was sop, for all.

The problem would be considerably less pronounced in a plane with no engine in front of the cockpit, though, so might be a point for the Lightning

ickysdad

24th March 2005, 00:34

azrael,simon...
On the F6F when I state war-winning I don't mean as per historical achievemenats in the war for in that case the XIV and P-51 are well overrated. I mean if I had to choose an aircraft that was easy to manufactor,easy to train new pilots on, use on carriers, act as a fighter, be capable of long range missions, funcion as a fighter bomber, and I had to choose just one aircraft to equip my forces the Hellcat would be way up there on my list.

azrael,
On the P-38L & P-51D climb rates well my point about the chart is that it showed the P-38L was far better at climbing than the 3000 FPM figure you posted. The P-51D is typicallly listed at an initial climb rate of around 3475 FPM but could hit upwards of 4000 FPM+ depending on engine settings and such.
My whole point about all this is that when we compare performance figures we have to be careful since planes have different engine settings,fuel grades,manifold pressures,ect.,ect.,and ect.. Like I said the high speed of the XIV(446 MPH) that is bandied about on various websites & in books seems to be it using 150 octane fuel & pulling extra boost while the planes it's being compared against typically are using stock boost and burn 100 octane fuel .Totally unfair since those planes also had access to higher grade fuels. You bring up about how long the P-38L can use max power but when the XIV's figures(446 MPH & what??? 5000 FPM climb rate???) are used don't you think they are max power to? Also on that link I posted the P-38L's figures were on 100 octane fuel so it's performance in the climb is actually much better once better fuels are used..

Lightning

24th March 2005, 01:01

Hi azrael,
You keep giving the "initial" climb rate of the P-38 as 3000 fpm while at the same time saying that it took 7 min to reach 20'000 ft. The 7 min to 20,000 feet would be pretty close to 3000 fpm SUSTAINED climbing speed. The "initial" climbing speed is always significantly higher than the "sustained" rate. The 4000 fpm "initial" rate quoted by ickysdad is very believable.

Also, you mentioned acceleration as being superior in the Spitfire to that of the Lightning. The P-38J/L was probably the fastest-accelerating fighter of WWII. It was also able to reach altitude from a standing start faster than the P-51 and, also most probably, the MK XIV Spitfire.

As far as bringing "energy" into the discussion goes, when you consider the great mass of the Lightning moving at great speed, that's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that can be quickly converted to potential energy in the form of altitude. Add to this the spectacular innate climbing ability of the Lightning, and the Spitfire would find itself at a disadvantage in following the P-38's zoom-climb.

Is the Spitfire a better dogfighter than the P-38? Yes. beyond that, is the Spitfire a better fighter? No.

And I definitely disagree with your statement that the demonstration in question was set up fairly to both aircraft. Suppose the ground rules would have called for the contest to be carried out with a 2000 lb external load on each plane? Ridiculous? Surely! But this shows that, just because they apply evenly to both contestants, the rules are not always fair to both. In the subject dogfight, this was certainly the case.

Regards,
Lightning

Johnny G

24th March 2005, 02:06

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi azrael,
You keep giving the "initial" climb rate of the P-38 as 3000 fpm while at the same time saying that it took 7 min to reach 20'000 ft. The 7 min to 20,000 feet would be pretty close to 3000 fpm SUSTAINED climbing speed. The "initial" climbing speed is always significantly higher than the "sustained" rate. The 4000 fpm "initial" rate quoted by ickysdad is very believable.

Also, you mentioned acceleration as being superior in the Spitfire to that of the Lightning. The P-38J/L was probably the fastest-accelerating fighter of WWII. It was also able to reach altitude from a standing start faster than the P-51 and, also most probably, the MK XIV Spitfire.

As far as bringing "energy" into the discussion goes, when you consider the great mass of the Lightning moving at great speed, that's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that can be quickly converted to potential energy in the form of altitude. Add to this the spectacular innate climbing ability of the Lightning, and the Spitfire would find itself at a disadvantage in following the P-38's zoom-climb.

Is the Spitfire a better dogfighter than the P-38? Yes. beyond that, is the Spitfire a better fighter? No.

And I definitely disagree with your statement that the demonstration in question was set up fairly to both aircraft. Suppose the ground rules would have called for the contest to be carried out with a 2000 lb external load on each plane? Ridiculous? Surely! But this shows that, just because they apply evenly to both contestants, the rules are not always fair to both. In the subject dogfight, this was certainly the case.

Regards,
Lightning

I don't understand all these posts from people who claim the lightening was a "super-fighter".
I've always belived the lightening was good fighter in the pacific, but it had less success in Europe due to the better planes flown by the Luftwaffe compared to the IJA or IJN. If it was so good, why did the Mustang replace it in the long range escort role? The Lightening, a big 2-engined plane, was always more suited to a ground attack role. It was never in the same class as air-superiority fighters like the late war spitfires and mustangs.

curmudgeon

24th March 2005, 08:49

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

As far as bringing "energy" into the discussion goes, when you consider the great mass of the Lightning moving at great speed, that's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that can be quickly converted to potential energy in the form of altitude. Add to this the spectacular innate climbing ability of the Lightning, and the Spitfire would find itself at a disadvantage in following the P-38's zoom-climb.

1/2 m v^2 ... mgh, m cancels out.

This site is running a great argument, but the question keeps changing and the goalposts jump all over the field.

By late in the war current designs were technically much of a muchness with different swings offseting different roundabouts. Even the Russian aircraft that have made but a brief appearance here were pretty damn good given the design constraint of being field servicable in the dust of the Russian summer or the ice of the Russian winter. (A non-flying aircraft is a noncombatant esp. in an area without radar warning and ground/carrier control.)

In one-on-one combat pilot skill and initial asymmetries (advantage) made all the difference. Anything, flown by anyone, was in trouble if bounced by an unseen opponent with 500' at 1000 yards ...

In larger combats tactical doctrine, tactics and teamwork coupled with numbers in the opposing units determined the outcome (and if your tactical doctrine was to put up green pilots in poorly maintained aircraft then expect to have them shot down).

THERE WAS NO [u]BEST</u> FIGHTER AIRCRAFT!

ickysdad

24th March 2005, 09:38

JohnnyG,
Which P-38 are we tlking about? The early F,G,and H models were one thing the later J's and especially the L were TOTALLY different.The reason the P-38 wasn't used as much as the Mustang in long range escort missions was the fact ,for one thing,a P-38 cost around $135,000.00 ,the Mustang about $85,000.00 .Now IMHO the P-38L was quite the equal of the P-51 at least up to the D models but even if it was slightly superior to the P-51 the P-51 would be the best buy plus the P-38 was far more complicated maintenance wise compared to the P-51. What hurt the the P-38 performance wise in the ETO was it's intercoolr problem because of much colder temparatures in the ETO verses the PTO HOEVER it now seems that improperly blended fuel may have been the culprit because P-38's were used in the much harsher climate of the Aleutians and no problems occured there.
Look at the P-38L's performance figures it seems it had a top speed of 440 MPH, had incredible acceleration, had very good sustained climb)if not excellent),an initial climb of probably 4000+ FPM if not more,was an excellent zoom climber,extremely good firepower,long range,excellent roll rate above 300 MPH,and excellent turn radius at low speeds. Furthermore when dive flaps were added it could dive with just about anything. The sad thing is that the USAAF could have had something very similar to the P-38L performance wise in '42 if they would have just fixed the plane's problems to begin with but they didn't want to interfere with production numbers.
Basically it's dog reputation comes more from mechanoical problems that could have been fixed very early on rather from it's performance figures.

ickysdad

24th March 2005, 09:53

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

[quote]Originally posted by Lightning

As far as bringing "energy" into the discussion goes, when you consider the great mass of the Lightning moving at great speed, that's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that can be quickly converted to potential energy in the form of altitude. Add to this the spectacular innate climbing ability of the Lightning, and the Spitfire would find itself at a disadvantage in following the P-38's zoom-climb.

1/2 m v^2 ... mgh, m cancels out.
Tell that to alot of Luftwaffe pilots that got caught by a P-38's or P-47's zoom climb capabilities. Your very right about no true best fighter now if you want to turn around and say something the best fighter for a certain airforces tatics/strategy you maybe right. Let's face it the RAF because it's homeislands were so close to it's enemy's had to have a sprint interceptor ,the Spitfire now the USAAF with it's homeland virtually immune from attack didn't need a sprint interceptor like the RAF but a long range escort whench the P-51,P-47N and P-38. Now if the RAF really wanted a long range escort and the USAAF a sprint interceptor both certainly could develop them. In fact the 2 premier planes for thier airforces the P-51 & Spitfire both ended up being modified to undertake each role to some degree,whench the P-51H which had interceptor performance(as far as increasing climb rate/manuverability goes) and I think some Spitfire variants being able to undertake long range missions. Then for the US you had the P-47J ,P-47M ,and P-51G that were developed and certainly were more interceptor like but not put into production because interceptors weren't needed long range aircraft were.

JoeB

24th March 2005, 10:48

quote:Originally posted by azrael
Underrated? The Hellcat? Underrated where or by whom? If anything, that aircraft is the most overrated one in WWII, well right after the Me262. People take the impressive kill ratio and forget that it was other planes, namely the Wildcats, P-40s, P-39s, later on the early Lightnings and even the Corsair, flown in 42 and the first half of 43, that decimated the Japanese airforces so badly that all the Hellcat had to face was green pilots barely able to take off and land, much less fight. War-winning weapon indeed.

Underrated by you if you distort the Pac air war like that. We can forget (or better yet keep in proper perspective) claimed kill ratio's, but the early 1943 JNAF was still able to kick the crap out of Spit V units out of Darwin (20+ :1 *real* ratio in favor of the A6M's), hardly a spent shell yet. This is a frequent error, exaggerated Allied claims in 1942 lead to a story line where the JNAF was finished by the end of that year. Not true, declining gradually maybe but still formidable until around late 1943-early 1944 when the second still pretty good general of JNAF carrier fighter units committed to the siege of Rabaul (on land) were done being ground down to dust. But this includes a measureable amount of the F6F's combat career.

Also like most of WWII the scale of combat in the PTO in 1944 dwarfed that in the 42 and even 43 on both sides. Just as a diproportionate share of actual Luftwaffe fighter losses occurred in 1944-5, even more so against the Japanese air arms. The qualitative balance had shifted toward the Allies in both places.

Also in the PTO, especially the key central Pacific theater where the US gained the B-29 bases in the Mariana's, the carrier was the key tool, and the Hellcat made the US carriers supreme against all opposition, other carriers and land based, in a way Wildcat carrying carriers could never have done, and the Hellcat was also a superior *practical carrier plane* to the F4U able to defeat the opposition at hand about equally, paper specs aside. So it was a war winning weapon in a way a plane like the Spit wasn't remotely in the same period. Spits in 1940 were important to the war, defending Britain. Spits in 1944, however superior technically to 1940 Spits or even 1944 Hellcats, were a footnote because they couldn't reach the key air combat zone over Germany, could only pile on in the tactical arena over France where Allied numerical superiority was overwhelming: had Spits disappeared in 1944 and the RAF been re-equipped with P-40's it would barely have affected the progress of the war. But it would have made a measureable difference in the Pac war if Hellcats disappeared and US carriers went back to Wildcats. This sort of aspect must also be considered in "best fighter".

Joe

Che_Guevara

24th March 2005, 18:33

hello , quite a nice forum:), what do u thing of the ME-109 "Friedrich"?
It´s probably not the the best fighter, however it seems to be the beautifulst fighter i´ve ever seen. To find the best fighter of WW2 is not particular easy, because u can´t compare a plane of 1940 and a plane of 1945, isn´t it.....if you look at Hans Joachim Marseille, who shot down 158 enemy fighter in a few months, most of them with a
??ME-109 F-4/trop??, he shot down 17 enemy aircraft on ONE DAY.
The "Friedrich" compares speed with good manoeuvrebility.
(sry 4 my english, if it isn´t so good..lol)

Mark J

24th March 2005, 19:11

Hi Che-Guevara, your English is fine :)

Welcome on board. The ME 109F was probably the nicest ME to fly and a very good fighter for it's time. It was very, very close to the Spitfire V in performance, making it possibly the best fighter anywhere during 1941, or until the FW 190 appeared.

The Hellcat was a very good allround navel fighter that would have done any nation proud. I don't believe it was the best but it was at the right time and the right place.

cheers

Johnny G

24th March 2005, 19:45

quote:Originally posted by JoeB
....had Spits disappeared in 1944 and the RAF been re-equipped with P-40's it would barely have affected the progress of the war.

I don't think you would have found many 1944 Spitfire pilots willing to give up their Spit for a crappy P-40!
Plus, if the Spitfire had never existed, the European war would probably not have lasted untill 1944.

azrael

24th March 2005, 20:00

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi azrael,
You keep giving the "initial" climb rate of the P-38 as 3000 fpm while at the same time saying that it took 7 min to reach 20'000 ft. The 7 min to 20,000 feet would be pretty close to 3000 fpm SUSTAINED climbing speed. The "initial" climbing speed is always significantly higher than the "sustained" rate. The 4000 fpm "initial" rate quoted by ickysdad is very believable.

I agree with you, Lightning as I was confused about the very same thing, the sustained climb rate being identical to the initial one. However, when you look at the charts ickysdad is posting that is true for both normal power and military power in those charts (pretty much a straight line for both settings).

quote:
Also, you mentioned acceleration as being superior in the Spitfire to that of the Lightning. The P-38J/L was probably the fastest-accelerating fighter of WWII. It was also able to reach altitude from a standing start faster than the P-51 and, also most probably, the MK XIV Spitfire.

Nope, I said, or meant to say, that the P-47 must have had lower acceleration. The Spit and Lightning had pretty much the same power to weight ratio and thus should have comparable acceleration.

quote:
As far as bringing "energy" into the discussion goes, when you consider the great mass of the Lightning moving at great speed, that's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that can be quickly converted to potential energy in the form of altitude. Add to this the spectacular innate climbing ability of the Lightning, and the Spitfire would find itself at a disadvantage in following the P-38's zoom-climb.

Are you sure you are standing by your statement about kinetic and potential energy, really sure I mean? When we are talking kinetic energy we are really referring to velocity, right? The formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2 m v^2, the one for potential energy E=-(GMm)/r where r is the distance to the central mass (M) and our plane (m), G is the gravitational constant. Notice that both Energies are linear in mass, thus it cancels out when calculating the resulting increase in speed. No, a heavier object does not accelerate faster in free fall.

quote:
And I definitely disagree with your statement that the demonstration in question was set up fairly to both aircraft. Suppose the ground rules would have called for the contest to be carried out with a 2000 lb external load on each plane? Ridiculous? Surely! But this shows that, just because they apply evenly to both contestants, the rules are not always fair to both. In the subject dogfight, this was certainly the case.

I disagree, it was a fair comparison when the object was determining which plane would triumph over the other in air-to-air combat from an equal starting-position. You wanted a fight where the Lightning magically appeared above the Spit in an advantageous position. I do not see how that is fairer.

Party on, mate.

azrael

24th March 2005, 20:04

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G

I don't understand all these posts from people who claim the lightening was a "super-fighter".
I've always belived the lightening was good fighter in the pacific, but it had less success in Europe due to the better planes flown by the Luftwaffe compared to the IJA or IJN. If it was so good, why did the Mustang replace it in the long range escort role? The Lightening, a big 2-engined plane, was always more suited to a ground attack role. It was never in the same class as air-superiority fighters like the late war spitfires and mustangs.

The P-38L was a great fighter and probably not much worse if not even to the Mustang as an escort. Why was it not used as a long-range escort? Because the earlier models had earned a bad rep with regard to high-altitude performance AND probably more importantly, the Mustang cost about half as much as the Lightning. Why use a plane in a role that you already have filled with an equal plane of half the cost.

azrael

24th March 2005, 20:34

quote:Originally posted by JoeB

Underrated by you if you distort the Pac air war like that. We can forget (or better yet keep in proper perspective) claimed kill ratio's, but the early 1943 JNAF was still able to kick the crap out of Spit V units out of Darwin (20+ :1 *real* ratio in favor of the A6M's), hardly a spent shell yet.

First of all, if you read the accounts, there was not a 20:1 kill ratio in favour of the Zeroes, not by a long shot. The Aussies actually claimed a positive ratio, far positive. They were overestimating the Japanese losses, sure, but not by that margin. Plus where did I mention the Spit compared to the Hellcat in the PTO?

quote:
This is a frequent error, exaggerated Allied claims in 1942 lead to a story line where the JNAF was finished by the end of that year. Not true, declining gradually maybe but still formidable until around late 1943-early 1944 when the second still pretty good general of JNAF carrier fighter units committed to the siege of Rabaul (on land) were done being ground down to dust. But this includes a measureable amount of the F6F's combat career.

Ah and loosing 4 carriers at Midway and most of the airgroups of Shokaku and Zuikaku about twice in the fighting around the Salomons was not wearing down the Japanese forces? You forget that it was not the number of available planes that mattered, but the quality of the pilots. The Japanese did not have a very effective training program in place to replace their pilots' losses. Not to mention that the Japanese were running out of carriers. Even in the Phillipines the Japanese could only muster three fleet carrier, the Zuikaku, the Shokaku and the Taiho. Sorry, when it came to carrier-based air, the Hellcat never had to face much of an opposition. If you do not believe this, why do you think the "Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot" was called a Turkey Shoot? Because the Japanese put up such sterling resistance? No, because they were so badly trained that they flew in a straight line without hardly any evasive maneuvers. Brewster Buffalos could have picked them off.

quote:
Also like most of WWII the scale of combat in the PTO in 1944 dwarfed that in the 42 and even 43 on both sides. Just as a diproportionate share of actual Luftwaffe fighter losses occurred in 1944-5, even more so against the Japanese air arms. The qualitative balance had shifted toward the Allies in both places.

Yes, the quality in pilots, not necessarily aircraft. The Ki-61 and Ki-84 were very capable aircraft, probaly not much inferior to the Hellcat or the Corsair. It was the degradation in pilot quality and the superior numbers the allies could muster that caused those horrific losses on the side of the Axis.

quote:
Also in the PTO, especially the key central Pacific theater where the US gained the B-29 bases in the Mariana's, the carrier was the key tool, and the Hellcat made the US carriers supreme against all opposition, other carriers and land based, in a way Wildcat carrying carriers could never have done, and the Hellcat was also a superior *practical carrier plane* to the F4U able to defeat the opposition at hand about equally, paper specs aside.

Yes, the carrier was the main tool of offense there, but then again, we are talking about literally a thousand of planes launched from the carriers against small island bases. Numerical superiority and pilot quality being as much a factor as quality of the aircraft. Concerning the Corsair, it was probably the better plane than the Hellcat, it just suffered from its bad characteristics when landing on an aircraft carrier. While in the air it was probably better than the Hellcat as the success of the Marine-Corsairs attests. At the very least the Corsair could have filled the role of the Hellcat without any problems.
quote:
So it was a war winning weapon in a way a plane like the Spit wasn't remotely in the same period.
Spits in 1940 were important to the war, defending Britain. Spits in 1944, however superior technically to 1940 Spits or even 1944 Hellcats, were a footnote because they couldn't reach the key air combat zone over Germany, could only pile on in the tactical arena over France where Allied numerical superiority was overwhelming

No doubt about it, air-superiority fighters and interceptors were becoming less important to the Allies towards the end of the war. They were still valuable against the V1 attacks, more of a nuisance than a real threat but something that the Brits had to deal with if only for psychological reason.

quote:
: had Spits disappeared in 1944 and the RAF been re-equipped with P-40's it would barely have affected the progress of the war. But it would have made a measureable difference in the Pac war if Hellcats disappeared and US carriers went back to Wildcats. This sort of aspect must also be considered in "best fighter".

Had the Hellcat never been built and all Naval fighter squads had been equipped with the FM-2 version of the Wildcat the war in the PTO would not have been changed much either. In that sense the Hellcat was not a war-winning weapon.

azrael

24th March 2005, 20:42

quote:Originally posted by Che_Guevara

hello , quite a nice forum:), what do u thing of the ME-109 "Friedrich"?
It´s probably not the the best fighter, however it seems to be the beautifulst fighter i´ve ever seen. To find the best fighter of WW2 is not particular easy, because u can´t compare a plane of 1940 and a plane of 1945, isn´t it.....if you look at Hans Joachim Marseille, who shot down 158 enemy fighter in a few months, most of them with a
??ME-109 F-4/trop??, he shot down 17 enemy aircraft on ONE DAY.
The "Friedrich" compares speed with good manoeuvrebility.
(sry 4 my english, if it isn´t so good..lol)

I like the Bf190-F as did most German aces who preferred it over the other models of the Bf109 series. It was light, fast, maneuvrable, the reason why aces loved the aircraft. It was, however, too lightly armed with the MG151 in the nose (first the 15mm, later the 20mm) version and the two MG17 machine guns. It was felt that this armament was not enough to deal with well protected planes like the IL2 and the heavy allied bombers, so the G was upgraded in terms of weaponry with MK108 cannons and MG131.

azrael

24th March 2005, 21:08

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

azrael,simon...
On the F6F when I state war-winning I don't mean as per historical achievemenats in the war for in that case the XIV and P-51 are well overrated. I mean if I had to choose an aircraft that was easy to manufactor,easy to train new pilots on, use on carriers, act as a fighter, be capable of long range missions, funcion as a fighter bomber, and I had to choose just one aircraft to equip my forces the Hellcat would be way up there on my list.

Ah. ok that makes sense, especially given the carrier-based as a criteria. Although, out of curiosity, why not the Corsair?

quote:
azrael,
On the P-38L & P-51D climb rates well my point about the chart is that it showed the P-38L was far better at climbing than the 3000 FPM figure you posted. The P-51D is typicallly listed at an initial climb rate of around 3475 FPM but could hit upwards of 4000 FPM+ depending on engine settings and such.
My whole point about all this is that when we compare performance figures we have to be careful since planes have different engine settings,fuel grades,manifold pressures,ect.,ect.,and ect.. Like I said the high speed of the XIV(446 MPH) that is bandied about on various websites & in books seems to be it using 150 octane fuel & pulling extra boost while the planes it's being compared against typically are using stock boost and burn 100 octane fuel .Totally unfair since those planes also had access to higher grade fuels. You bring up about how long the P-38L can use max power but when the XIV's figures(446 MPH & what??? 5000 FPM climb rate???) are used don't you think they are max power to?

Well. before we started this sub-debate about the climbrate I would have thought that the climb-rate was always given for max power. But most sources seem to give the climb-rate for the Lightning on normal power. Similarly, the charts you posted did not give the climb-rate for the Mustang at emergency power, but at normal military power (compare the one on speed). Now I am not sure anymore, seems like there is no agreement what settings should be used to determine rate of climb.

quote:
Also on that link I posted the P-38L's figures were on 100 octane fuel so it's performance in the climb is actually much better once better fuels are used..

Sorry, again, no, the rating of the fuel does not change anything if you do not increase compression (meaning manifold pressure) at the same time.

Kutscha

24th March 2005, 21:50

It was not until the G-6 that the weapons were of heavier calibre. The MK108 was not the original weapon in the G-6.

Johnny G

24th March 2005, 21:54

quote:Originally posted by azrael

No doubt about it, air-superiority fighters and interceptors were becoming less important to the Allies towards the end of the war. They were still valuable against the V1 attacks, more of a nuisance than a real threat but something that the Brits had to deal with if only for psychological reason.

A 'NUISANCE' weapon?! Come on! V1's and V2's killed thousands of innocent civilians and could have seriously disrupted D-Day if the V1 and V2 sites hadn't been attacked. Think how many more people would have died if Spits, Tempests etc had not been so effective in destroying V1's. Can you imagine large numbers of these weapons raining down on the packed troop concentrations in South East England, or on the invasion beaches? It would have had a serious effect on the war effort.

simon

24th March 2005, 22:08

I didn't think the numbers killed by V-1s and V-2s ran that high, does anyone know what it actually was? (Besides isn't that rather the point, I've never read a reference to a militarily worthwhile target being hit by a V-1 or V-2, mainly unfortunate Kentish farmers and Londoners?) Weren't more people killed making the V-2 than by it?

As for raining down on the invasion beaches, I don't think the V-1 was accurate enough to hit an invasion vessel by anything other than bad luck, it was pre-programmed so you would have to fire loads at the general area of the invasion in the hope that the impact of one coincided with the location of a ship! Not very effective. Same really with the V-2, impossible to intercept, but is your target going to stay still long enough for you to hit it? A better option would have been an (Escorted!) aerial counter-attack with the Henschel guided missiles or Fritx-X guided bombs.

simon

24th March 2005, 22:14

I like the Bf190-F as did most German aces who preferred it over the other models of the Bf109 series. It was light, fast, maneuvrable, the reason why aces loved the aircraft. It was, however, too lightly armed with the MG151 in the nose (first the 15mm, later the 20mm) version and the two MG17 machine guns. It was felt that this armament was not enough to deal with well protected planes like the IL2 and the heavy allied bombers, so the G was upgraded in terms of weaponry with MK108 cannons and MG131.

The main advantage the Bf109G had over the F in terms of firepower was with the addition of Rutzstatz (Apologees in advance RTF for lack of umlauts and spelling!) field conversion kits (Mainly under-wing, and these caused further deterioration to manouevrability and performance). If the F had remained in production these could have been added to them, howvever by the time the US heavies appeared over Germany in numbers the F had been firmly supplanted by the G, put simply the firepower of the F was up to the job at the time, it could have been improved but by the time heavier guns were needed there were relatively few Fs around.

azrael

24th March 2005, 22:44

quote:Originally posted by simon

I like the Bf190-F as did most German aces who preferred it over the other models of the Bf109 series. It was light, fast, maneuvrable, the reason why aces loved the aircraft. It was, however, too lightly armed with the MG151 in the nose (first the 15mm, later the 20mm) version and the two MG17 machine guns. It was felt that this armament was not enough to deal with well protected planes like the IL2 and the heavy allied bombers, so the G was upgraded in terms of weaponry with MK108 cannons and MG131.

The main advantage the Bf109G had over the F in terms of firepower was with the addition of Rutzstatz (Apologees in advance RTF for lack of umlauts and spelling!) field conversion kits (Mainly under-wing, and these caused further deterioration to manouevrability and performance). If the F had remained in production these could have been added to them, howvever by the time the US heavies appeared over Germany in numbers the F had been firmly supplanted by the G, put simply the firepower of the F was up to the job at the time, it could have been improved but by the time heavier guns were needed there were relatively few Fs around.

Also the G version was equipped with the DB-605 engine that gave some additional power over the F.

ickysdad

24th March 2005, 23:13

azrael,
The F6F would probably be better for carrier based operations than the F4U because it was far easier to handle in the carrier envoirment. On the climb rates again,at least the intitial rates, most figures for most aircraft are given at full or WEP settings . On the fuel issue well higher grade fuels sure improved the P-47's performance even though the engines weren't over boosted ,higher octane is bound to improve a plane's performance extra boost or not.
On the P-51 only showing military power while the P-38 had WEP....Well after consulting Dean's America's 100,000 it seems what was posted on the graph is the Mustang on WEP not on MILItary Power. I re-check the graph may have been mis-labeled but the figures for the P-38 on that site seem right on.

Nope the Mustang was at military Power at 1590 HP,WEP comes in at like 1720-1750 HP BUT the P-38 even on Military power at 1100 HP clearly beats the Mustang in climb while at WEP the P-38's engines pull 1725+ HP so looking at the figures the Mustang's climb at WEP (compared to MP) probably would still be inferior compared to the P-38 on MP. Notice the difference in the MP to WEP ratios for the two planes from 1590-1725 for the Mustang & from 1100 to 1725 for the P-38.

Johnny G

24th March 2005, 23:17

quote:Originally posted by simon

I didn't think the numbers killed by V-1s and V-2s ran that high, does anyone know what it actually was? (Besides isn't that rather the point, I've never read a reference to a militarily worthwhile target being hit by a V-1 or V-2, mainly unfortunate Kentish farmers and Londoners?) Weren't more people killed making the V-2 than by it?

As for raining down on the invasion beaches, I don't think the V-1 was accurate enough to hit an invasion vessel by anything other than bad luck, it was pre-programmed so you would have to fire loads at the general area of the invasion in the hope that the impact of one coincided with the location of a ship! Not very effective. Same really with the V-2, impossible to intercept, but is your target going to stay still long enough for you to hit it? A better option would have been an (Escorted!) aerial counter-attack with the Henschel guided missiles or Fritx-X guided bombs.

I've read that V2's alone killed at least 2000 people. You could not hear them coming, they hit at supersonic speeds, and there was no warning of an attack.
I never said a V weapon could hit a ship, that's silly. I said the invasion beaches, which they could hit. Large numbers of V1's and V2's fired into the areas of the beach-heads, and at English ports, would have played havoc with the supply operations for the push into France. Allied high command was very worried by this, hence the big effort to attack launching sites and places like Peenermunde (wrong spelling) where they built and developed these contraptions.

azrael

24th March 2005, 23:22

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G

I've read that V2's alone killed at least 2000 people. You could not hear them coming, they hit at supersonic speeds, and there was no warning of an attack.

2000 killed for thousands of V1 fired sounds like more of a nuisance than a real threat to me. Compare that to the Allied bombing campaign, 50,000 dead in Dresden alone.
quote:
I never said a V weapon could hit a ship, that's silly. I said the invasion beaches, which they could hit. Large numbers of V1's and V2's fired in the areas of the beach-heads, and at English ports, would have played havoc with the supply operations for the push into France. Allied high command was very worried by this, hence the big effort to attack launching sites and places like Peenermunde (wrong spelling) where they built and developed these contraptions.

The correct spelling would be Peenemünde, not that it matters really. I am not sure, but was the V-1 not a quite imprecise weapon, barely able to hit a city of the size of London reliably? I do not think that it would have been a very effective weapon against the landing beaches or the Germans would have tried to hit them.

Johnny G

24th March 2005, 23:37

quote:Originally posted by azrael

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G

I've read that V2's alone killed at least 2000 people. You could not hear them coming, they hit at supersonic speeds, and there was no warning of an attack.

2000 killed for thousands of V1 fired sounds like more of a nuisance than a real threat to me. Compare that to the Allied bombing campaign, 50,000 dead in Dresden alone.
quote:
I never said a V weapon could hit a ship, that's silly. I said the invasion beaches, which they could hit. Large numbers of V1's and V2's fired in the areas of the beach-heads, and at English ports, would have played havoc with the supply operations for the push into France. Allied high command was very worried by this, hence the big effort to attack launching sites and places like Peenermunde (wrong spelling) where they built and developed these contraptions.

The correct spelling would be Peenemünde, not that it matters really. I am not sure, but was the V-1 not a quite imprecise weapon, barely able to hit a city of the size of London reliably? I do not think that it would have been a very effective weapon against the landing beaches or the Germans would have tried to hit them.

Thats 2000 people (from V2's alone) plus the damage done by V1's (don't have any figures yet), dispite the best efforts of the Allies to stop these things coming over. The V1's had to fly over one of the most heavily defended airspaces in the world. Patrolled by hundreds of fighters and batteries of radar controlled AA. V1's were also activley hunted at their launch sites. If these efforts had not been in place to stop these bombs, and if the Germans had been left alone to develope these weapons in peace, the death toll could have been considerably higher. There was no defence against V2's.
BTW if you fired enough V1's and V2's at the beaches (or a port), a large proportion would fall in the area. Any delay caused to Allied supply operations might have allowed the German forces to push the invasion out before the beach-head could be properly established. It was of the greatest importance.
I think a clue to the main reason they weren't used in large numbers on D-Day is their name. V-weapons, the V stands for 'Vengance'. Hitler wanted these weapons to be fired at cities, to try and lower the moral of the British public. Also a large number of V-weapons and launching sites had been destroyed by Allied action.

Johnny G

25th March 2005, 00:33

Che_Guevara

25th March 2005, 02:16

hmmm,
u should open a new topic, about the V-Weapons:D

...another beautiful (not the best) is the Spit` with a Vokes-filter..it looks so powerful with this filter.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/Spitfire21.jpg

Lightning

25th March 2005, 02:27

Hi all,

AS an update to the P-38 comments, I'll copy/paste what I posted in another thread in these forums:

"stated that "most US fighters did not make for particularly good interceptors... as the rate of climb for most of them was not spectacular." Well, the P-38 was designed from the start as an interceptor; in fact, that is why it had two engines. The engines in existence at that time were not powerful enough to do the job singly.

You touted the Spitfire and Tempest as the main Allied interceptors. I did some digging and found the following: In testing, a P-38J-10 (not the latest "J" nor the "L") demonstrated a climb rate of 4000 ft/min at sea level. Another source gave a climb rate of 4050 ft/min at 4500 ft. Also, in the aforementioned test, the time-to-climb to 23,400 ft was 6.19 minutes.

When checking these specs for 27 different variants of the Spitfire, the fastest climb-to-altitude given was 6.2 min to only 20,000 ft, and that was for the photo/recce Mk XIX. The fastest-climbing interceptor variants were the Mk IX and the Mk XIV, both of which were specified as reaching only 20,000 ft in 6.7 minutes. The interceptors in the Battle-of-Britain, in which they gained their reputation as great performers in that role, took 7.0 minutes to reach 20,000 ft (the Mk II), and it only had eight .303 weapons (compared to the Lightning's four 50 cals and one 20 mm).

Lightning

25th March 2005, 02:44

Hi azrael,

I believe that I follow you in your questioning my "kinetic energy" statement. I know that you can't completely regain lost altitude by converting the kinetic energy of a falling body back into potential enegy; that would equate to perpetual motion. But a zoom-climbing airplane has its own power source to draw from. If mass always cancels out, then a zoom climb would be ineffectual, and a Zero could follow a P-38 back up to altitude. Or does it then only depend on the relative powers of the two aircraft?

I must admit that I have been out of the scientific arena for some time now, and my math and physics skills have eroded, so I will defer to your obvious expertise here. I'm always willing to learn.

Regards,
Lightning

JoeB

25th March 2005, 11:35

quote:Originally posted by azrael

1. First of all, if you read the accounts, there was not a 20:1 kill ratio in favour of the Zeroes, not by a long shot.
Plus where did I mention the Spit compared to the Hellcat in the PTO?

2. Ah and loosing 4 carriers at Midway and most of the airgroups of Shokaku and Zuikaku about twice in the fighting around the Salomons was not wearing down the Japanese forces? You forget that it was not the number of available planes that mattered, but the quality of the pilots. The Japanese did not have a very effective training program in place to replace their pilots' losses. Not to mention that the Japanese were running out of carriers.
If you do not believe this, why do you think the "Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot" was called a Turkey Shoot? Because the Japanese put up such sterling resistance?

3. Yes, the carrier was the main tool of offense there, but then again, we are talking about literally a thousand of planes launched from the carriers against small island bases.

Had the Hellcat never been built and all Naval fighter squads had been equipped with the FM-2 version of the Wildcat the war in the PTO would not have been changed much either. In that sense the Hellcat was not a war-winning weapon.

1. If you read the Japanese loss records, yes it was, the Spits actually downed only 1 A6M, so it was X:1 against as many of the 20+ Spits lost in combat (in addition to fuel losses) which we guess were downed by fighters rather than bomber return fire. The point is that even in mid 1943 the JNAF could be a very tough adversary, somewhat undercutting the idea it just flew straight level in 1944.

2. Again this seems the error of older works on this. The JNAF was worn down in 1942, but many Western sources have exaggerated the degree of personnel loss among the carrier fighter units in 1942, implying it was nearly complete, as you do, but it wasn't. Also the JNAF organization-wise had dedicated land based fighter units unlike the USN, also worn down in 1942 but hardly completely, quite formidable still throughout 1943. One of those flew against Darwin.

As for USN success in 1944 by what deductive process can we determine the degree to which it was high quality of USN fighter units v. low quality of JNAF ones? As I mentioned, in mid 1943 at least some Commonwealth air units could not deal with A6M's in Spits. In the first half of 1942 no Commonwealth fighter units (and many USAAF ones) could not deal with A6M's at all. But right from the start USN F4F units could, at about 1:1 ratio (real verified in loss records). USN units didn't engage Axis fighters in Europe much to get a direct comparison in that direction. So we can't say to what exact extent quality on each side figured in. But the indication is that USN fighter units were extremely capable by any standard. The Japanese thought the Hellcats superior to the USAAF (which did quite well against the LW from 1943). And as an objective fact USN pilots had more hours going into combat than other Allied air arms, besides much more than the Japanese by 1944.

3. The difference in Hellcat equipped carriers was the ability to engage large enemy fighter forces from large land masses: the Philippines, Taiwan, Okinawa, Indochina and eventually the Japanese mainland (the Mariana's also pitted the US carriers against a combination of IJN carriers and numerous land based planes). These were pretty furious air battles each and without overwhelming numerical advantage for the carrier fighters. Maybe you haven't actually read much about the Pacific war? FM equipped carriers could not have done this (short leggedness of the FM would have been a big problem too). When left to themselves (as at Lingayen Gulf in the invasion of Luzon) FM's had a tough time protecting shipping though capable enough as dogfighters, and that was not like the opposition in the intial strikes against the other big land masses.

Joe

ickysdad

25th March 2005, 13:21

Some P-40 units dealt with the Zero alright in early '42 on. The USAAF P-40 force in the Phillipines in early '42 was just basically outnumbered too badly. Chennault's Flying Tigers seemed to handle what few Zeros they encountered in an OK fashion chiefly because they didn't dogfight but used energy tatics. Some Australian /New Zealand units with P-40's handled the Zero well and Spitfire equipped units when they got over thier urge to dogfight did rather well.

Lightning

25th March 2005, 21:01

Hi Johnny G,

Referring to your posting of March 21 Re: contest between P-38 and Spitfire.

When the Lightning feathered one engine, he was demonstrating a very valuable asset of the plane i.e. the ability to keep on flying after losing an engine. What the Spitfire did was an ill-advised stunt. He purposely put himself in an emergency situation (a lost engine on a single-engine plane is always an emergency regardless of reason) just to show off.

On a sortie 100 miles out over open water or inside enemy territory, which of the two demonstrated attributes do think was the more important?

Did the dead-stick histrionics of the Spitfire pilot prove his mount to be the better fighter? On several occasions at airshows in the US, I saw Bob Hoover take a Shrike Commander light twin up to 3000 ft, feather both engines, and do a complete aerobatic routine dead stick. He then, without restarting the engines, executed a perfect landing and rolled to a stop directly in front of the grandstand. Does this make the Shrike Commander a better fighter than the Spitfire?

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

25th March 2005, 22:09

Hi azrael,

Except in the "back side of the power curve" situation (which I won't go into here), and as long as there is sufficient altitude available, altitude can always be traded for speed, and speed can always be traded for altitude.

Using the Earth's surface as the datum plane, The higher you are, the greater your potential energy wrt the surface. The higher your speed, the greater your kinetic energy. So, in a dive, you are trading potential energy for an increase in kinetic energy i.e. your altitude is decreasing while your speed is increasing. As you pull up into a zoom-climb, your speed drops off while your altitude is increasing i.e. you are trading kinetic energy for an increase in potential energy.

As to acceleration of a light vs heavy aircraft in a dive, the heavy aircraft will accelerate faster (barring vast differences in drag coefficients). This would be true even if neither were powered.
If the heavy aircraft has more power, which is usually the case, the difference in acceleration will be even greater.

Your comment that the greater mass will not accelerate faster is only true in a vacuum. Two objects of equal size, shape, and surface texture but of different weight (i.e. density) will not fall with equal acceleration in the atmosphere. The heavier one will accelerate faster and achieve a higher terminal velocity at which point drag equals weight.

There were several fighters that were aerodynamically cleaner than the Thunderbolt, but none of them could out-accelerate the P-47 in the initial phase of a dive because of its weight and power.

All this having been said, the zoom-climb tactic served the P-38 well against both German and Japanese fighters. All the pros and cons of the above energy dicussion cannot, and will not, change that reality.

Regards,
Lightning

simon

26th March 2005, 01:50

OK guys, I've got some figures for V-weapons from this link:
http://london.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/4/dday/pdfs/VWeaponsCampaign.pdf
It's from the Imperial War Museum and they know what they're talking about.
The V1's killed 6000 civilians between June 1944 and March 1945.
9251 were launched and half of these were destroyed on-route to their target.
The V2's killed 2754 civilians from a total of 1115 launched.
V weapons seriously injured 24504 civilians.
Add to this the 2917 British servicemen killed and 1939 injured.
The material damaged caused was huge.
Someone said V weapons could never hit a military target. The port of Antwerp was devestated by V weapon attacks.
Oh yes, and the reason they wern't used on D-Day was that the first V1 was launched on the 13th of June 1944, a week after the invasion took place, thanks to Allied attacks on Peenemunde and the launching sites.
Read the above link and tell me if you honestly think the V1's and V2's were just 'nusiance' weapons.

Yes, I still think that they were more nuisance weapons than effective ones, especially as the document in the link refes basically to the inconvenience and misery caused to civilians rather than the detrimental effect to the British war effort. As much as I would not want anyone I knew to have been among the nearly 12,000 killed, this is still hardly a devastating figure, especially when you consider that works out as around 1 person killed per weapon launched. Compare the damage caused by all the weapons used vs the typical damage of a single 1,000 bomber raid... Now consider that most of those 1,000 bombers could be used again...

Actually it was me that brought up the reference to the V weapons and militarily worthwhile targets, although what I actually said was that I hadn't read of any militarily worthwhile targets being hit, I stand corrected [:I]:D[:I]

Even if both had been available at D-Day, I still do not think they would have proved more effective than a conventional retaliation, either airpower with Hs293 (I think!), Fritz-X, artillery, or even slightly more unconventional means such as "Mistel".

The reason I brought up the inability of the V weapons to hit a target like a ship is because the best way to defeat an offensive is to cut the assault troops off from their sources of supplies. Without rations or ammunition any attack will quickly be repulsed.

In the case of a beachhead, this means striking the supply ships, which neither V-weapon is up to as both need pre-programming and any use as anti-shipping weapons will only succeed through blind luck. Against the actual troops as artillery, it is a hugely extravagent way to deliver a bombload of around 1,000Kg, and this could probably be more effectively delivered by either conventional artillery pieces (Which could fire and move, and could maintain a much more sustained bombardment), or aircraft.

V-1s were pretty vulnerable when you consider that the launch sites were fixed and any that escaped pre-invasion strikes would be quite quickly located and elimated. V-2s were less vulnerable, but even then the mobile launchers could be located and destroyed by fighter-bomber sweeps (As admittedly could conventional artillery).

In either case I doubt either would have proved particularly economical in terms of Reichsmarks-per-KG-of-explosives, when compared to to more conventional methods.

As this is the "Best fighter" thread and as I believe this merits further discussion can I suggest starting a new thread for this topic? :)

Johnny G

26th March 2005, 07:32

quote:Originally posted by simon

Yes, I still think that they were more nuisance weapons than effective ones, especially as the document in the link refes basically to the inconvenience and misery caused to civilians rather than the detrimental effect to the British war effort. As much as I would not want anyone I knew to have been among the nearly 12,000 killed, this is still hardly a devastating figure, especially when you consider that works out as around 1 person killed per weapon launched. Compare the damage caused by all the weapons used vs the typical damage of a single 1,000 bomber raid... Now consider that most of those 1,000 bombers could be used again...

Actually it was me that brought up the reference to the V weapons and militarily worthwhile targets, although what I actually said was that I hadn't read of any militarily worthwhile targets being hit, I stand corrected [:I]:D[:I]

Even if both had been available at D-Day, I still do not think they would have proved more effective than a conventional retaliation, either airpower with Hs293 (I think!), Fritz-X, artillery, or even slightly more unconventional means such as "Mistel".

The reason I brought up the inability of the V weapons to hit a target like a ship is because the best way to defeat an offensive is to cut the assault troops off from their sources of supplies. Without rations or ammunition any attack will quickly be repulsed.

In the case of a beachhead, this means striking the supply ships, which neither V-weapon is up to as both need pre-programming and any use as anti-shipping weapons will only succeed through blind luck. Against the actual troops as artillery, it is a hugely extravagent way to deliver a bombload of around 1,000Kg, and this could probably be more effectively delivered by either conventional artillery pieces (Which could fire and move, and could maintain a much more sustained bombardment), or aircraft.

V-1s were pretty vulnerable when you consider that the launch sites were fixed and any that escaped pre-invasion strikes would be quite quickly located and elimated. V-2s were less vulnerable, but even then the mobile launchers could be located and destroyed by fighter-bomber sweeps (As admittedly could conventional artillery).

In either case I doubt either would have proved particularly economical in terms of Reichsmarks-per-KG-of-explosives, when compared to to more conventional methods.

As this is the "Best fighter" thread and as I believe this merits further discussion can I suggest starting a new thread for this topic? :)

I'm not going to start a new thread, but I think your wrong.
I would call the loss of 12000 people more than a nuisance, and I think its offensive to their memory to think otherwise. Its not just the people who die, the effect is felt by their families and the community. They were effective weapons for what they were designed for, causing terror and misery.
Re: D-Day, you said a conventional attack by the Luftwaffe would be more effective. I would call it suicidal to the Luftwaffe, given the MASSIVE Allied air umbrella over the invasion fleets and the AA from the ships.
You don't have to hit the ships to cut off supplies. You can do that by bombarding where they load and unload the ships, i.e. the ports and the beaches.

curmudgeon

26th March 2005, 09:36

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
When the Lightning feathered one engine, he was demonstrating a very valuable asset of the plane i.e. the ability to keep on flying after losing an engine. What the Spitfire did was an ill-advised stunt. He purposely put himself in an emergency situation (a lost engine on a single-engine plane is always an emergency regardless of reason) just to show off.

Lighten up Lightning, they were both showing off!

GregP

26th March 2005, 10:03

I have to disagree with Lightning.

A heavier aircraft will NOT always accelerate faster than a lighter one in a dive. If, as suggested by Lightning, the aerodynamics are approximately equal, then the aircraft with the better power-to-weight ratio will accelerate and climb faster.

Also, heavier doesn't mean higher terminal velocity. Terminal velocity is determined by drag and weight. If the lighter plane has slightly better aerodynamics, then it is entirely possible for the lighter plane to have a higher terminal velocity.

As it happens, the P-47, though portly-looking, was a very clean machine and was, in fact, the fastest aircraft of WWII. An experimental version achieved 504 mph in level flight during WWII, but it was not put into production since the war was winding down anyway.

So, in the case of the P-47, it was quite clean ... and that is why it did so well in a dive.

As it happens, the Hawker Sea Fury was also quite clean, and I'd love to see a comparison between the two!

Anyway, once you are over the normal crusing pseed of a several thousand horespower piston fighter (say, 280 - 300 mph), aerodynamics takes over as the predominant factor in speed. Acceleration will always be tied to power-to-weight ratio, overall drag, propeller efficiency. Limiting speed in a dive for these type planes will almost always be contolled by the critical Mach number of either the wing or the horizontal tail, and sometimes the RPM and pitch capability of the constant speed propeller governor. Mostly, it is controlled by the wing since most WWII planes had thick wings. Some WWII planes had very clean wings and were limited by the tailplane shockwave that blanketed the elevator above the critical Mach number.

A classic example that was tailplane-limited was the P-38.

Late model Spitfires were quite clean, and were probably the fastest WWII planes in a dive, bar none including the Me-262, but you could easily get into serious trouble if you actually let it get too fast. Many flew into the ground at very high Mach numbers with the pilot pulling for all he was worth on the stick.

Speaking of the Me-262, the critical Mach number was lower than that of the late-model Spitfires. But, it had the cleanliness and power to cruise closer to its limiting speed than the Spitfire could. Therefore, it was clean, but with a low critical Mach number, and it cruised very close to that speed. The limiting unit on the Me-262 was the tailplane, If you got too fast, pitch authority simply "went away."

It also had the advantage of being able to cruise home if one engine failed, or at least cruise serenely toward home until it was intercepted and shot down by a late-model piston plane that happend along at just the right (or wrong, as the case may be) moment. To give the Germans their due, critical Mach number was not well understood in WWII (nor immediately after WWII ... ask Sir Geoffrey de Havilland), and the planes that were well-designed for speed were that way almost accidentally since supersonic wind tunnels were not exactly growing on trees at the time.

BuzzLightyear

26th March 2005, 13:00

quote:Originally posted by GregP
As it happens, the P-47, though portly-looking, was a very clean machine and was, in fact, the fastest aircraft of WWII. An experimental version achieved 504 mph in level flight during WWII, but it was not put into production since the war was winding down anyway.

Ahhh, but it did - indirectly. The 504mph Thunderbolt was the XP-47J. That plane was the test bed for the R-2800 "C" series engine. That engine ended up powering the P-47M and N Thunderbolts.

armadillo

26th March 2005, 13:52

Hi from Russia. I see your asked for our opinion.

the most famous WW2 plane in Russia is Il-2, then La-7 and closer behind Yak's.

We are use term "best fighter" from another point of view.
This plane must be "victory weapon".
That means plane must get a good change for success mission in proper place, in proper number and at proper time.
If plane too late for win (indastry need too much time for begin produce) - it is plane's disadvantage. Or else the best WW2 plane is F22 Raptor.
P51 waits while Spit's&Yak's dogfighting up to end43, than joined battle with only having advantages or 5-10 to 1 outnumber.
Spits & Yaks continue doing all dirty work.

Plane must be at proper place. So Wildcat/Hellcat is victory weapon for Pacific. No La's or even P51 can do same.
Plane must be a proper number. So partually wooden La's and Yaks are only choice for USSR.

Planes are not fighting. It's a job for pilots. Planes are only tools.
Napoleon Buonaparte said morale vs number factor is 3/1. In aviation traning and motivation of crew was greater than any other troops.
Shooting old biplane easier than B-17. Shooting rookie greater easier than shooting master. Digits only is not a reason for estimate.

About soviet planes.
It produced for shortly war life (about one-half year). the wooden structure can't keep a long live without loosing characteristics. However, soviet fighter pilots having 200-300 sorties per year. AFAIR US pilots 20-30. Is this rights?

The any CLAIMES can't be used as reason. Too many overclaims for any country. Only LOSSES can be used. May be this site useful?
http://www.ww2.dk/air.html

The BOOM&ZOOM tactics is not a victory tactics, and only small part of it. Yes, the most of plane was shot by first attack. But victory means something different. Your must keep control skies over battlefield. If you shoot two planes but enemy bombers hit your troops you lost the battle. If you shoot zero but prevent bombers you win.

in WW2 fighters (and Il's) are invisible if thay are 2km lower than you. Il's almost never going higher 1-2 km. So patroling at high alt you open a wide door for enemy bombers.
2nd half of war fighters patrols 2-3 groups up to 6km for highest plane. A few fights was higher.

I'll continue later.
Sorry for terrible english.

Ricky

26th March 2005, 21:20

On the PTO - one additional large reason for Japan's rapid rise in 1941, and rapid fall after '43, has hardly been touched here.
Tactics.
In 1941, everybody tried to dogfight the Japanese - especially the British (& Commonwealth), who had successfully won the BoB by dogfighting. Unfortunately the Japanese planes were far better dogfighters than anything else flying at the time. Care to bet what tactics those Spits defending Darwin used?

Then you get the idea of not meeting the Japanese on their own territory, but using the advantages of your machines (speed, power, allied guns will rip a Zero to shreds, etc), culminating in the 'Thatch Weave', which was really the aerial 'war-winner' of the PTO.
Combine that with lower overall pilot quality in the JAF/IJN (in 1941, [u]every</u> pilot was very highly trained indeed. By 1944, quite a few remained, but most were new pilots nowhere near the levels of the 1941 guys. Plus, of couse, the effect of the lack of raw materials (sinking of shipping) and the increasing bombing of factories, which ensured that Japanese pilots could not, by late 1944, say for certain that a given plane would definately perform as it should.

So, we have overwhelming numbers of American planes, with the average pilot quality being better, the tactics being superb, and the Japanese planes ocaisionally not performing properly.

Hmmm....

armadillo:
Good post - and do not apologise for your English! It is perfectly acceptable.:)

Corsarius

26th March 2005, 22:10

Armadillo: GREAT post! Welcome to the boards! I have really hooked onto your argument as it makes a lot of sense, and certainly gets us closer to 'best' fighter than our current carousel that we're all riding on... although didn't we tentatively agree (about 20 pages ago) on the FW190?

Ricky: you're right and you're wrong at the same time. The japanese were similar to the Italians, in that they liked to believe they were the best pilots in the world. Certainly among the flashiest. Now this was great and DID make them great in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. What we're overlooking is the introduction of radio and what it did to tactics. Something like the 'thach weave' would not be possible without instant plane-to-plane communication. The Japanese seemed to lack radio in their aircraft even to the end. Saburo Sakai talks about using hand signals to describe things to his wingmates a la WWI in 1944/45!!! He also describes an attack by A6M fighters on a B-17 flight, which fairly easily fought them off. If they were more able to co-ordinate their attacks instead of breaking off piecemeal as soon as combat was joined, then I'd say that the japanese would have had a better combat rate post 1943. Of course, this is only based on one man's evidence. Please feel free to catch me out if I am not correct.

GregP

27th March 2005, 04:21

Welcome armadillo! Your English is OK, and is definitely better than my Russian. I just might have to learn some Russian!

Anyway, I like your arguments, and can agree in large part. The Russian Front of WWII was the longest front of the war and tied up over half of Germany's resources for several years. The Soviet casualties were tremendous, and we all salute the Soviet determination and will to win.

It is correct that only the available planes were important. The Wildcat and Hellcat were, indeed, the vistors in the Pacific. The Yaks, Lavochkins, Il-2s, Tu-2s, and Pe-2/3s were the best planes on the Russian Front since they won. Of the fighters, I prefer the La-5FN, but I an American. Your opinion is much closer to the truth.

The British had a winner in the Spitfire, but I still have a place for the Tempest.

As for the American planes, the P-40 was all we had when we were attacked. It was less than wonderful, but was definitely a potent weapon when employed correctly with suitable tactics. P-38, P-47, and P-51 were very good aircraft by any definition.

Many Americans think the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII. They are looking at it through American-colored glasses. Many Brits think the Spitfire was the best fighter of WWII. They are also looking at it through British-colored glasses. Many Russian probably feel the Yak-3/9 or the La-5/7 were the best. Considering the numbers and the size of the Russian front, you may well be right.

A lightly-loaded Spitfire could take off, climb to a resonable height, attack incoming Germans, and get back down in 20 minutes. If the same plane were asked to escort bombers to Germany and back, it would be a non starter.

I think these pages emphasize that the best fighter of WWII depended on the mission, loadout, range, and, not in a small amount, the number, type and altitude of the opposition.

Oh yeah, I forgot something ... it also depended on the quality and amount of the avilable fuel. I doubt a Spitfire could even run on some of the Russian fuel, but the Lavochkins did, and did so quite well. So, my choice for the best fighter would depend on where I was, when I was (1938 versus 1945), the fuel available, etc.

If I were flying over the Pacific on a long range lission, give me a P-38. If I were flying on the Russian front in winter, give me a Lavochkin La-5FN.

I think you can see the progression here ...

armadillo

27th March 2005, 07:28

GregP Tu-2 was too late. I think Tempest too.
In the begin of war you have P-39 and I give it much more then P-40. P-40 was in large numbers but from my point of view total number of your planes really used at battle at that time is not much big for most using P-39.

Yes, La-5FN is considered best soviet fighter 43-44. But Yak's was in large numbers, espectually in 1st half of war.

Good fighter must give a pilot a good change to fight well.

In 40 Spit's &109e's both have almost all what needed. But both don't have a good view area and spit having troubles with wing durability and with engine on negative g.

A tactics at Russian front was began at 41, when 109f's was always able to enter fight or leave. hit&run can't be used. Only choice was dogfight and protect squadron from incoming attack. Gladfully all version of 109's having hard control at high speed giving it's prey a change to evade at last second. At 42 all survive russian pilot able to protect themselves from attack from high (if the enemy was seen)
Looking while 109s begin aiming (show belly when move aim point ahead) and evade at last moment is standart maneuver becouse no another way to survive.
At low level planes have much more power and wing airload to maneuver, so less change to escape when using hit&run tactic. Outdive 109's impossible. When 109 try to dive out Yak's follow him with low angle dive, keeping high alt advantage. because a few km to surface 109 can't be loose and hide.
Frontal attack giving 50/50 change and both side evade this hoping for dogfight domination.
because long run for enemy at low level is a good way to meet enemy AAA the MOST fights at russian front is dogfight.
at 2nd half common tactics was extra pair of four fighter from both side higher main group to make enemy evade harder.
USSR desined high-alt-level fighter during war, but reports declare that no need for them at front. Moreover, fighters and engines optimizing more and more for low level.
The most comparable west fighter for russian front is Spitfire-12.

Compared with high alt for low level dogfight vertical maneuverability is much important. Fighters can roll slide vertical loop one by one, get and release potencial energy to kinetic and kinetic to potencial. So plane for low-level fight is power/mass ratio plane. Time for time kilogramms and gramms of Yak's and La's was reviews for lighting. Was trys to remove second cannon on La. Fuel tanks getting smaller. "The long range is not always good. Sometimes better fly for 15 minutes only, but this 15 minutes having advantage" (c) Lavochkin.
Yak-3 is a good example.

in USSR not look for one digit max speed. We look for graph "speed by alt" (looks zigzaging by superchargers steps). Compare this graphs lower 4km. La have a serious advantages at low level and no advanrages at 6km.
http://badger.front.ru/102.jpg
In USSR also have another one characterictic for estimate vertical maneuverability. It is battle turn. (turn with climbing). If the slide loop or common turn doing for fast turn and estimate in second, battle turn doing for higher climbing and estimate in meters.
"Battle turn (for estimate) is turn for 180 degree at angle 45-60 with climbing and keeping speed for next maneuvers."

Here some characterictic:
Yak-1 m-105p 1050hp(41) 900m
Yak-9 m-105pf 1180hp(43) 1150m
Yak-3 m-105pf2 1240hp(44) 1250m
La-5FN 1100m
Bf.109g4 1150m
Fw.190a5 850-900m

Germans was fighting at 1km Yak's and La's and at 8-9km P51 with the same planes.

Give mark for fw-190 at Russain Front is difficult. It was a few used as fighter-to-fighter. Most of 190s was 190f versions or it's 190aX/u3/u8 analog.
190 is a pretty good interceptor, but russian pilot don't give it much comparing to 109g's. 109 have a better speed at all alt and a greatly higher power/mass ratio.

armadillo

27th March 2005, 08:20

GregP look at this site
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/

yx190

28th March 2005, 13:43

armadillo

The figure you cited definitely has problem. I think it is a Russia figure. The testing data from German side shows that the FW190A with C3 fuel boost is much faster than the speed list in your figure.

Please refer the
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm

The pilots from JG26 also mentioned that a full loaded 190D9 can hit 600km/h at sea level with MW50 boost. Only very late production of La-7 is slight faster than 600km/h

You post said '109 have a better speed at all alt'. No, I disgree. The great 109 ace Lipfert disgreed too.

The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert

page 163

"In the process I made the interesting discovery that the ground attack pilots in thier Fw 190s were faster at low level than we were. On the way home I waved over one of the Focke Wulfs and genstured to the pilot that I wanted to race.
We started out at the same speed, then opened the throttles simultaneously and slowly but surely the "190" pulled ahead. I couldn't keep up, even though the aircraft I was flying certainly wans't a poor one. But this was no fighter which left me behind, but a close-support aircraft for which we "faster" fighters were supposed to be flying escort. But it was not only in level speed that this bird was superior to us. Its main strength lay in its enourmous firepower and diving speed."

About the performance of FW190 on Russia front, yes, there were more ground attack FW190s than Bf019s. But the reason is the FW190 exceeds Bf109 as ground attack replacement of obsolete Ju87, not because the 190 is worse figher than 109.

The Russuia has low opinion to FW190 does make sense because they often meet the FW190F flied by the bomber pilots. But the FW190 fighter groups such as JG51 in 1943, and prominent JG54 were quite efficient againt Russuia planes.

armadillo

28th March 2005, 16:49

yx190 Thanks for your links. A figure I cited testing a trophy planes. I'll look for more data.
Yes, i have a mistake remembing 190a vs 109g2 low level speed. [:I]
But AFAIR g10-14 faster. We can't compare pilot's tales without appointing full model name and using MW-50 and fuel.

quote:The pilots from JG26 also mentioned that a full loaded 190D9 can hit 600km/h at sea level with MW50 boost. Only very late production of La-7 is slight faster than 600km/h La-7 late that D-9? [:p]

quote:But the reason is the FW190 exceeds Bf109 as ground attack replacement of obsolete Ju87, not because the 190 is worse figher than 109 all version of 190a has been easily outclimb and outfly on vertical maneuver by Yak's and La's at low level. It is a great importants in low level fights with pilots using right tactics. Most dangerous for russian was light a4/a8 version with only 2 cannons.
190's had the same left turn with Yak's but at right turn Yak's easily get it for shot (depending on props orientation).

quote:But the FW190 fighter groups such as JG51 in 1943, and prominent JG54 were quite efficient againt Russuia planes.
espectially against bimbers or when they opponents is LaGG's and early Yak's, although good pilot efficcient in any craft. They had score numbers using hit&run tactics but never try to keep sky's clear even for short time.

Max dive speed not beeing seem at low level. important is dive acceleration. At russian front leaders is 109 and Cobra. Yak's and 190's have the same. But soviet pilots following diving 109 to ground keeping alt advantage for run when 109 try outrun at very low level.

I mean AVERAGE soviet pilot has low opinion about really what 190's can, but who's can say if it almost not used in this role? Germans not stupid one's, if the 190's having advantages, they'll using it wide. 190 is a good fighter for middle level, but soviet fighting at low level, and allies fighting at high level.

ps. At west front allied fly rarely, but in huge numbers. Germans flying up to 2 sorties for allied raid, then have a time for repair and support. At russian front their had a less numbers of planes at one time (at secont half 43 and later), but fly 6 sorties per days was common, and no time for relax for them. So MW-50 importance at russian front is not much that west - engine's replacement life will be only about 2 days.

Mark J

28th March 2005, 19:17

Armadillo
Thanks for your realistic imput

spaseeba........is that right?

cheers

Lightning

29th March 2005, 00:59

Hi Greg P,

You did not read my posting carefully enough. Regarding acceleration of the P-47, please note the use of the term "initial phase" in the next-to-last paragraph.

Also, "terminal velocity" was never mentioned with regard to the P-47 vs lighter planes. That term was only used in the axample of why heavier objects accelerate and fall faster in air than lighter ones of identical size, shape, and surface texture.

Regarding critical mach number, the P-47 had a lower one than either the P-51 or the Spitfire. If all three aircraft "initiated" a maximum-performance dive at the same time from the same altitude, the Thunderbolt would quickly pull away from the others by a wide margin. If either of the other two were to ever catch up (which I firmly believe they wouldn't), it would require a very great amount of altitude loss--probably more than would ever be available.

Power-to-weight ratio is only relevant to the extent that the power can be transfered from the engine to the air mass. Different propellers are better at different things. Controllable-pitch can make up for some inequities but not all. Case-in-point: The use of the "paddle-blade" prop gave the P-47 a much greater climb rate than did its regular prop; both were controllable-pitch.

Regards,
Lightning

yx190

29th March 2005, 15:15

Thank you very much for your reply. It is a pleasure to discuss with you.

The most dangerous opponent to FW190, I think it is La-5/7. Its characteristic is very similar with that of FW190, and has better turning ability and higher climb rate below 3000m. I have read a German report of testing a capture La-5FN.
Although that captured La-5FN did not show its full potential, the Germany has to admit that it was a very tough rival for 190.
The most obvious weakness of 190A is its poor turning ability at low speed and moderate acceleration(no C3 boost). So the 190 pilot should keep speed high, mix up with Russian light fighter at slow speed and low altitude was equal to suicide. On the contrary, keeping 190 fast will make it one of the most dangerous fighters of WWII. On western front, the pilot of Spitfire and P-51 all felt that the 190 is more maneuverable than 109. The reason is that 190’s maneuverability at high speed is better than 109.

Although the 190 can not out-fly Yak and La-5 below 3000m, but the Germany pilot can fly at higher altitude and use hit and run tactics avoiding mix up with Soviet plane. In this kind of tactics, the 190 performed better than 109.

The Russia has low opinion for 190 can be reflected in some articles such as
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/Soviet%20Fighter%20Tactics/soviet_fighter_tactics.htm

But I doubt its creditability. The USAF and RAF have so different perspective with VVS. The German testing trial also shown that FW190A3 exceed Bf-109F in nearly every aspect except the low speed tight turn.
About 190’s climb rate,
According to the data shown in http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=30 1.topic

When in heavy load, its consistent climb rate is not good. But remove some devices or two outer guns, the lighter 190 is not bad at all (The 190A5 has no C3 injection, the La-7 climb faster with boost). Meanwhile, its zoom climb is excellent.

About dive performance, many Germany pilot think the 190 can out-dive 109, the USAF and RAF will agree too. Why Russia said the 190 is slow in dive and only equal to Yak? Maybe in very low altitude, it is true.

That page also state that ‘FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters.’ This confirm my opinion, the reason of Russia has low mark with 190 is because they meet more ground attack 190 . The ground attack 190 groups were often caught at low speed, low altitude. Therefore the soviet pilot felt that 190 is easy prey. In fact, fighter groups never deploy 190 like that. Fighting with 190 fighter units should be totally different.

>La-7 late that D-9?
Please look at this site.
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html . You know my claim has its proof.
You can not ensure a 1944 La-7 is faster than D-9 at sea level.

>espectially against bimbers or when they opponents is LaGG's and early Yak's, >although good pilot efficcient in any craft.
I think you conclusion is oversimplified. The JG51 and JG54 shot not only obsolete LaGG-3 and Yak-1 but also many La-5 and Ya-9 fighters.
Please check Luftwaffe’s claim list at this excellent site.
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

Of course, the Luftwaffe pilots did overclaim, but around 60% of their scores were reliable.

>They had score numbers using hit&run >tactics but never try to keep sky's clear >even for short time.
I agree and disagree. The Luftwaffe had significant numerical disadvantage at eastern front since late of 1943. It is impossible to dogfighting with opponents with numerical advantage regardless of what our plane is. Even Germany use La-7, Yak-3, they can not turn the tide. Using the hit&run can inflict maximum loss to enemy and minimize own losses. This is the only efficient and realistic tactics.

armadillo

30th March 2005, 00:26

yx190 thank you for your reply
keep speed high is good for all fighters, not for 190s only ;)
For example, La don't like loose speed too.

I disagree that La's is similar with 190s.
with the same power (and more time for La) La's weight 3290 and 190s weight 4300kg. Light version weight is 39xx kg.

Thank you for link about russian tactics. I read it before, but in russian, so was difficult to use it here.
But I disagree that it show low opinion about 190. It is a 43 year instruction (after Kursk), when no one 190f enter the duty on the front(or just enter but russian pilot not yet reports). Yes, captured 190s did not show its full potential too, but this article show clear its problem vs light fighters.

fighting at low level is much different. You can't do immelman or another figure at high level. You can only turning with significant radius and meet opponent in frontal attack. If enemy take your six, you can't evade sharply - wing's lift too poor.
At low level aware pilot ALWAYS be in time for evade or countershot attacker. boom&zoom not so efficient. Alt advantage is perfect, but you can release this advantage for the most part in dogfight. If you too high, you lost contact easily.

please read my previous posts about boom&zoom tactics. It is not a winning tactic. it may be wide used only with this reason available:
- you are protected by channel or sea and have much time to intercept and reinforce.
- you are greatly outnumber.
- no one count for ground troop losses.

if you're not having this reason, boom&zooming is only way to weak enemy for get advantage IN DOGFIGHT. If you don't enter dogfight, you loose the battle and defeat in war, regardless how many rookie you can kill. You can't kill expert using this tactic.
Yes, if they try to dogfighting wide, it may be result fast loss all planes and pilots. But while they not enter dogfight they loose immediatly.

Evading fights cause another one negative moment. If you are time and again run out from enemy looking for you, your motivation falls even you really have balls of steel. Next step MUST be evade the equal opponent. Please predict result if you are take off keeping in mind that dogfight is suicide. And what can do rookie if experts don't enter battle?

In 41 and 42 german pilots understand this principle perfectly. They fight hardly for ground troops cover and bomber's way cleaning. And German troops move deep into our territory.

at 44 our pilots often reports that the same numbers of enemy evade fight, including bomber's cover.

Stalin's order in 42 say: A fighter sortie may be accepted as battle sortie only if mission is successful (ground troops or bombers get no losses). From that time russian fighters taking off for dominate or die, even they have disadvantage. In 43 at Kuban and Kursk was largest battles on the east front. USSR have numerical advantages there and later, but large battles is uncommon at east.
Most of mission is close support, and most common flight is 8-9 Il's or Pawns [8D] and 6-8 fighters. Germans flights the same. It's no time for reinforce, and few % of fights was between tens planes. Soviet has a total outnumber, but german flying more sorties per plane and pilot, so they can send the same numbers to local fights. Of course with large raids like offensive support germans have a little change.

But let's return for planes we are discuss. As you're say, quote:mix up with Russian light fighter at slow speed and low altitude was equal to suicide But slow speed means bad tactic. At slow speed you're sitting duck whatever plane you have. truth is 190s at low altitude can't mix up with soviet fighter. One-two vertical figure - and soviets higher. But 109s was able to do that! Not superior vs La's, but it is enough for getting change. And 109s is mainstay for germans, only one that can get a mission succeed.
I repeat: killing rookie is not a succeeded mission.

Boom&zoom can do any fast plane, and no reason to have 190 for boomzoom only. If you're have both 109 and 190, it's a good idea using 190 where it faster - i.e. at low lewel. If 109's cover from height, 190's can escape, although it can't outclimb.

I can't get any claimes any realistic %. It's too much difference for reliability from claime to claime even the same pilot. many claimes report planes that never available at that place at that time. I don't want say any pilot is bad - may be russian pilot have more overclaimes. But all we can do - take one fight and compare officially losses.

ps. Yes, german pilot has been defeated by outnumber, but the way they are defeated is they own choice, and I did'n like that way.

yx190

30th March 2005, 15:04

armadillo, Thanks for your reply

>keep speed high is good for all fighters, not for 190s only
>For example, La don't like loose speed too.

My meaning is keeping speed high is more critical for 190. Every fighter has different characteristic in different speed. Could you prove that Yak and La has same advantage over 190 in high speed as in low speed? 190 is very weak when drop to slow speed and low altitude, but on high speed, it is more dangerous than 109.

>I disagree that La's is similar with 190s.
>with the same power (and more time for La) La's weight 3290 and 190s weight >4300kg. Light version weight is 39xx kg.
----------------------------------------------------------
I think Soviet’s plane is really light, partially in loaded weight. Please refer a thread about 190A’s weight http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=40 3.topic
. The 190A empty weigh ( without guns) range from 2900kg to 3100 kg depended on the subtype. You can see the empty 190 is heavier than La-5 (about 2800kg) but not so huge. The late 190s also has more power than La-5/7.

190A7/8 empty weight 3050kg power 2000hp
190A9 empty 3170kg, 2400hp
190D9 empty 3180kg, 2200hp
La-7 empty 2600kg power 1850hp
La-5FN empty 2800kg power 1850hp

The 190A loaded weight is about 1000 to 1300kg. The La-5/7, Yak’s has only half of that figure.
If 190A carry less fuel or weapon, it was quite competitive. Removing outer gun and bomber rack was quite common in Easter front. It still has enough firepower and range compared with Russia opponent.

>But I disagree that it show low opinion about 190. It is a 43 year instruction (after Kursk), when no one 190f enter the duty on the front
The 190 entered the ground attack ground at end of 1942, it is not a 190f but a 190A5 with small modification. Please refer this link,
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/pawel/index.html
you can see Luftflotte 4 , Sch.G1 equipped the 190A5. I did not find any proofs shown that the JG51 and JG54 need other Bf109 groups to escort except in ground attack mission. If the soviet document state like that, it is unlikely those 190 deployed in low altitude were fighters.

I have found a very interesting article about using Lavochkin and Yaks

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part4.htm

N.G : Absolutely. In addition it should be said that by the second half of the war, we were using our fighters in a specialized manner. For example, when they assigned fighters to escort bombers, the attack group was comprised of Airacobras or Lavochkins, and the direct cover group was comprised of Yaks. This was appropriate.
The ‘attack group’ engaged in and conducted battle with enemy fighters; therefore it was preferable for them to have engines that performed better at altitude. They needed to arrive at the place of battle with a reserve of altitude and more powerful armaments. The initial attack was a surprise and therefore more effective in terms of results. It was better to have heavier aircraft in this group in order to chase down Germans in a dive. The Lavochkin and Airacobra met this requirement better.
In the direct cover group it was better to have more dynamic and lighter aircraft with good vertical capabilities. They circled around the bombers and fended off German fighters who managed to break away from the ¡°attack group¡±. The Yaks were just this type of aircraft. It was another matter that in the direct cover group the chance to get a kill was significantly less than in the attack group. The Yak pilots were constantly unhappy about this specialization, but had to live with it.
------------------------------------------------------------
From above, the Russia use heavier but faster and more powerful Lavochkin as high cover. Why Germany used the 190 reversely? The only reason is that these 190 were not fighter but bombers. If the 190 fighter group mix with 109, 190 should fly higher than 109.

About boom&zoom tactics, it is not equal to hit&run. Boot&zoom means use superior altitude or speed to fight and regain altitude to go on next attack. It is fighting more on the vertical rather than horizontal. It is equal or even more efficient than Turn&Burn tatics. There are many experts can give much more detailed description than me. I just show some examples here. The JG26, the most successful escort fighter unit in Battle of British, use boom&zoom tactics to protect bombers. Their success comes from flexible exploiting Bf109’s strength to fight vertically with Spitfire and hurricane. Some other unsuccessful units strictly followed the close escort order, but found it is painful to fight with Spitfire in low speed and horizontal.
The P-47 was heavy and slow in climb. But USAF performed it quite successful to protect bombers in 1943-1945. The US Navy’s F-6F, F-4U can not dogfighting with very maneuverable Zero, but using boom&zoom to fight was quite efficient.

>If you don't enter dogfight, you loose the battle and defeat in war, regardless how >many rookie you can kill. You can't kill expert using this tactic.
>Yes, if they try to dogfighting wide, it may be result fast loss all planes and pilots. >But while they not enter dogfight they loose immediately.

No, boom&zoom can enter fight, but in different style. Zoom back or dive away does not mean evading, this is a process of regaining energy. It does not lose.

The reason why Luftwaffe love to use boo&zoom. This is quite nature, the 109/190 were better above 3000m. It is very reasonable to engage the Russia plane below 3000m at high speed bounce. On western front, the situation is totally different, the P51/47 often make bounce to 109/190.