Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

The mustang.iconic fighter


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 30 December 2016 - 09:03 PM

Besides, code names for enemy equipment is usually deliberately derogatory - to avoid creating an awe of their equipment
  • TheArtOfFlight likes this

#22 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,570 posts
  • Joined 4 Years and 29 Days
  • 182 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 30 December 2016 - 09:22 PM

WHAT? Care to elaborate on that one Ricky?



#23 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,969 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 30 December 2016 - 09:25 PM

You wouldn't call enemy equipment 'thunderbolt' because it sounds like an effective piece of kit.

Look at the western names for Soviet cold war kit - fagot, fishbed, etc.
  • CORSNING and Armand like this

#24 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 28 Days
  • 12 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 30 December 2016 - 09:53 PM

That wasn't us Armand! The US code named it Zeke and Hamp. Nobody listened to us. All the jackwagons

 and goomers just kept calling it Zero. Can't blame that one on us. :lol:

 

They named it first "Hap" but General Arnold disapproved. B)


-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#25 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 670 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 7 Months
  • 5 topics

Posted 30 December 2016 - 09:57 PM

The Hap name was intended solely for the upgraded A6M3.


  • Heräkulman Ruhtinas likes this

#26 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined 2 Years and 28 Days
  • 12 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 30 December 2016 - 10:06 PM

Yep, after reports of "new version with square wingtips".


-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#27 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,570 posts
  • Joined 4 Years and 29 Days
  • 182 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 30 December 2016 - 10:10 PM

You wouldn't call enemy equipment 'thunderbolt' because it sounds like an effective piece of kit.

Look at the western names for Soviet cold war kit - fagot, fishbed, etc.

You win Ricky. Fishbed is bad enough, but calling the Ruskie aircraft a Fagot was just a little

lopsided. :wub:


  • Heräkulman Ruhtinas likes this

#28 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,234 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 17 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 30 December 2016 - 10:46 PM

Hi Corsning.

 

Your performance numbers are the highest I've ever seen for the P-51 and the lowerst for the Spitfire XIV I've ever seen, at least on speed. Not necessarily on climb.

 

The Spitfire was more than a ton lighter than a P-51 and essentially used the same engine. So, if nothing else, the P-51 may well be faster, but the Spitfire will alwayas climb better. And it's considerably lower wing loading with similar-performing airfoils SHOULD mean it will almost always turn better at the same altitude. From a pure performance standpoint, the Spitfire SHOULD take off quicker, climb better, and probably should have a slightly higher service ceiling when using the same engine, almost purely from weight.

 

That does not denigrate the P-51, which is an excellent aircraft by any measure. But the Spitfire had strengths that were better than the P-51's similar characteristics and vice-versa. Neither was optimized for the same job as the other one was. Sure, they could DO the same jobs, but their primary design goals accentuated different parts of the flight envelope.

 

Since it doesn't take long to fly over the English Channel in a WWII fighter, the British needed fast-climbing interrceptors that could make it up to altitude in the time allotted for the intercept. Or else, why take off?

 

North American made a better fighter than the P-40, and it could be changed so as to have long range. Once that was worked out, it seems to me that most of the P-51's development, aside from the bubble canopy, seems to have been concerned with range and pilot warning. By the end of the war the P-51 had tail warning radar installed. None of that was exactly light, but it made for a better escort fighter.

 

We all know what happens in the real world, and no two pilots are exactly equal, but the Spitfire will always be, for me, the best pure interceptor the Allies flew during the war, and has a pretty decent shot at best interceptor of the war period.

 

The P-51 has a pretty decent shot as best overall fighter of the war, but would not be chosen above the Spitifre for interceptor duty by most who have flown both. Of course, if you don't have a Spitfire, you'd not be too disappointed in a P-51 as an interceptor.

 

The same cannot normally be said for using a Spitfire for long-range escort. It just couldn't be done for most of the war.

 

Neither says anything bad about the other. It's just the way it is. It's like watching soccer or American football. One or the other might not be exactly my cup of tea, but I'd enjoy either if the opportunity arose.


  • Heräkulman Ruhtinas likes this

#29 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 30 December 2016 - 11:19 PM

Your performance numbers are the highest I've ever seen for the P-51 and the lowerst for the Spitfire XIV I've ever seen, at least on speed. Not necessarily on climb.


Those are low altitude performance numbers - 0ft and 2000ft.
 
He also hasn't specified boost/map or fuel type.
 
 

The Spitfire was more than a ton lighter than a P-51 and essentially used the same engine. So, if nothing else, the P-51 may well be faster, but the Spitfire will alwayas climb better. And it's considerably lower wing loading with similar-performing airfoils SHOULD mean it will almost always turn better at the same altitude. From a pure performance standpoint, the Spitfire SHOULD take off quicker, climb better, and probably should have a slightly higher service ceiling when using the same engine, almost purely from weight.


The XIV had the Griffon, so not the same engine.

 

The IX and VIII had the same basic engine, and were close or better than the P-51 on climb, but some way off on speed.



#30 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,234 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 17 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 31 December 2016 - 12:48 AM

Good point on the Griffon versus Merlin. I was, of course, thinking of two Merlin variants without keeping the XIV in mind. Regardles, virtually any Spitfire should outclimb virtually any P-51 at the same altitude, if both have a 2-stage Merlin in them, if only from power-to-weight difference, assuming similar boost and fuel ans state of engine tune.

 

Let's say a Spitfire IX versus a Merlin P-51.

 

For a Spitfire IX, loaded weight was about 7,400 lbs with a Merlin 66 that gave some 1,720 HP at about 11,000 feet. 4,745 fpm at 10,000 feet. Online spec.

 

For a P-51D, normal takeoff weight was 10,100 lbs with a  2-stage Merlin 1650-7 that gave 1,720 HP WER power at altitude unknown. 3,510 fpm at 7,500 feet. wwiiaircraftperformance NA-46-130 report.

 

Now I'm not gonna' play the "who has the better flight report" game, but 2 planes more than a ton apart with virtually the same engine sill see one out-performing the other in climb, and the winner is VERY predictable.

 

The Spitire is 2,700 pounds lighter at takeoff, and that is significant. 300 pounds is nothing, but 3,000 is a different story.

 

I am a huge fan of both airtcraft. Of course, I love most any WWII fighter aircaft, so that particular point is sort of moot.


  • [email protected] likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users