Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter       3/29/2013 11:16:30 PM

The P-38 wasn't nearly agile enough This is simply not true. Agility is the one thing the P-38 has in spades. Because "Agility" is most closely related to rate of roll and the ability to change the direction it is turning. Note that I have said nothing about the rate of turn, which many consider to be part of agility, but is in fact not at all. to perform well as a fighter (as I have said, there are minimum requirements for most situations beyond which improvements become increasingly detrimental to other performance metrics) and in any case unit cost was more than twice as much as a P-51. This is true and it was more like two and a half times as expencive as the P-51!

I'm not going to debate the above, it doesn't matter to me which you prefer to be honest, I dread the onset of an endless inline red text with yellow highlights : ) R 
Before a plane can reverse it's turn to the right, it must roll from a right bank into a left bank. During the time it is rolling it is NOT TURNING, it is going very straight!


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 11:17:07 PM
In reply to this cut and paste wiki nonsense...
 



The Mk-XIV was a terrible plane when it first came out. It was directionally unstable, exibiting "Snaking" and "poor lateral stability" that took a long time to work out.


No, they cured it with the second prototype - maybe your thinking F21 here that had such problems


No, those negitive traits were never entirely "curred"! Acording the the Book "Spitfire, the History" by  Morgan and Shacklady there were three different tries, IE sizes of rudder and vertical fin to fix it and it was not until the very last Spitful/Seafire variants that it finnally worked! Start on page 410 and read through all the various fixes and different rudders and verticle stabilisers in a vain attempt to fix it. Then read the bits on the later spits/seafires that had even larger rudders/vertstabs! They would not have done that IF the problem had been fixed with the production Mk-XIV!

Over one year between first flight and first Victory, IIRC.


depends what you class as victory, the
first "kill" by a MXIV was in Feb 44
against a V1, as the MKXIV was used exclusively in diver patrols until after D Day it was very difficult for it to score, even after D Day their was virtually no opposition for the MKXIV to engage with

The first batch of aircraft to fly with the Griffon 60 series engines were six converted Mk VIIIs JF316 to JF321 which were designated Mk VIIIG. The first one of these was flown by Jeffrey Quill on 20 January 1943: This is the prototype for the Mk-XIV and the date of first flight was well before this date. So yes, it was at least a year between the first flight and the first Victory! and that was Vs a doodle bug, not even a real airplane! But as you can see from the quotes below they had lots of problems with directional stability! It took them a very long time to make it safe enough to put into squadron service!
"The MK VIIIG, with virtually the same tail surfaces both vertical and horizontal as the Merlin MK VIII, was very much over-powered and the handling in the air was unacceptable for an operational type...I soon realised that a new throttle box would be needed giving a much greater angular travel for the hand lever...The next essential...was an improvement in the directional stability and control and a new fin was drawn out with a substantial increase in area (7.42 sq. ft) and a much larger rudder and fitted to the second aircraft JF317. This, though not ideal, produced a very marked improvement in directional characteristics and we were able to introduce minor changes thereafter and by various degrees of trimmer tab and balance tab to reach an acceptable degree of directional stability and control. The enlarged fin of JF317 had a straight leading edge but for production a more elegant curved line was introduced."[24] Handling of the clipped wing models was considered to be better than previous Spitfire marks, and conferred excellent manoeuvrability through enhanced aileron response.

When the new fighter entered service with 610 Squadron in January 1944 it signified a new leap forward in the evolution of the Spitfire. Jeffrey Quill flew the first production aircraft, RB140 in October 1943:

"So the Mk XIV was in business, and a very fine fighter it was. It fully justified the faith of those who, from the early days in 1939, had been convinced that the Griffon engine would eventually see the Spitfire into a new lease of life ... It was a splendid aeroplane in every respect. We still had some work to do to improve its longitudinal and directional characteristics, but it was powerful and performed magnificently. The only respect in which the XIV fell short was in its range."[26]

So, I see from the many highlighted comments above that the Directional Stability was not quite right even after all of the fixes! Note the date of October 1943! So yes it was atleast a year from first service to first kill! Such a shame.

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 11:23:56 PM
 
A quick read shows that increased watts work and a heavier engine made the Griffon Spitfire nose heavy and yaw left a opposed to the Merlin Spitfire which yawed right.
 
You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane.
 
A year would not be long at all. The B-17 with its originally wrong designed vertical stabilizer never solved its nose wander at all despite numerous attempts.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 11:35:16 PM
Foolish statement in Italics.
This is simply not true. Agility is the one thing the P-38 has in spades. Because "Agility" is most closely related to rate of roll and the ability to change the direction it is turning. Note that I have said nothing about the rate of turn, which many consider to be part of agility, but is in fact not at all. to perform well as a fighter (as I have said, there are minimum requirements for most situations beyond which improvements become increasingly detrimental to other performance metrics) and in any case unit cost was more than twice as much as a P-51. This is true and it was more like two and a half times as expencive as the P-51!



I'm not going to debate the above, it doesn't matter to me which you prefer to be honest, I dread the onset of an endless inline red text with yellow highlights : ) R 



Before a plane can reverse it's turn to the right, it must roll from a right bank into a left bank. During the time it is rolling it is NOT TURNING, it is going very straight!







 
 
 
Where does it fly "straight", Shooter?
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/30/2013 11:35:47 AM
Do I take from the above that shooter still hasn't understood what a barrel roll is? 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/30/2013 11:58:36 AM
Yes.

 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       3/31/2013 6:25:33 PM
On the Spitfire vs the P-51 Mustang
 
Shooter said: There were several variants of each plane and by and large, model for model in wide spead service at the time, IE number made and in service, the Mustang was substantially faster than the Spitfire.The first, Allison engined Mustang was a 390 MPH flier comp'd to all of the slower Early Spits until the Mk-IX witch was good for 408 MPH, by then the Merlin Mustangs were out and they were 440 MPH planes, until the D Model which was a 437 MPH plane.
 
Shooter, some history for you, as you appear patently unaware of the relative service dates for the Mustang and Spitfire.
 
The first in-service P-51s, the Allison-powered Mustang I. In RAF trim, it was good for 370 mph when painted and loaded. It entered squadron service with the RAF in Febuary 1942 and combat service with the RAF on 10 May 1942. It scored its first victory on 19 August 1942.
 
It was significantly faster than the in-service Spitfire Mk V below 16,000 ft, but slower above 20,000 ft. The Mk V was good for around 310-320 mph at sea level and 365-375 at 20, 000 ft, compared to around 330-345 mph for the Mustang I at sea level and 370 mph at 15,000 ft.
 
The Spitfire IX entered service on 28 July 1942, about 80 days after the Mustang I entered service.  Unlike the Mustang I, it scored almost immediately, claiming its first kills, a total of five FW 190s, on 30 July 1942. It was still marginally slower than the Mustang I at low altitudes, but decisiely faster above 20,000 ft.
 
 
Shooter said:The Mk-XIV had a very long gestation between it's first flight and true squadron service as defined by it's first Victory. It was a 448 MPH plane as long as only two 20s were installed in the wings. But by then the P-51H was out and it was a 487 MPH plane, although it was too late in shipping to see service at all, it did not have any defects like the Mk-XIV Spitfire to delay it's entry into service. Furthermore, the speed I was using was the cruising speed as it is the factor that most reflects combat effectiveness.
 
Despite repeated attempts over the years, you're still confusing the Mk XIV with the Mk 21. Incredible.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/1/2013 4:02:02 PM
I really don't think its by accident, no one can be that thick, I think its deliberate.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/1/2013 4:58:14 PM
I really don't think its by accident, no one can be that thick, I think its deliberate.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/1/2013 6:55:46 PM

A quick read shows that increased watts work and a heavier engine made the Griffon Spitfire nose heavy and yaw left a opposed to the Merlin Spitfire which yawed right.
You confuse diffences in kind, swing on take off, Vs differances in directional stability caused by the larger propellor's surface area far forward that is not countered by the addition of sufficient area far aft!
 
You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane.
The only possible fix is pilot training for your fault. But the faults I mentioned can only be curred by the addition of more area aft. There is absolutely nothing the pilot can do to "Cure" inhearant instability! Nothing!
 
A year would not be long at all. The B-17 with its originally wrong designed vertical stabilizer never solved its nose wander at all despite numerous attempts.
Again, not true. The B-17's new and much loarger tail cured all horisontal instabilities and the concurrent larger horizontal stab made it the easiest and most stable of all of the Non-B-29 bomber types.
 
 

 

 



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics