Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
Belisarius1234    Mechanical casualty   1/11/2013 1:10:41 PM
Having your engine conk out over the Timor Sea was not good. Doesn't matter if a Zeke chases you to shoot at you as you fall to your death. Sharks and other nasties await below.
 
So... The mechanicals were a free gift to the Japanese, that was inexcusable and easily preventable. I said that.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/11/2013 11:34:17 PM
In the BoB the RAF was always out numberd but ove France the LW was Rarely (if they were they usually avoided combat) How do you explain the >50% of intercepts that failed to happen? I would state that the Luftwaffe had the same problem, but we just thought they were waiting until they had superior numbers?

Rearly and just how do you figure that, on a Spit in the BoB it was a case of pushing the throttle open its not like you had to set the radiator, adjust the intake , change the fuel feed etc Shoving the throttle to the wall WO adjusting the mixture from "Lean" to "Rich" will cause an engine to burn holes in it's pistons in very few minutes! Then it is an automatic kill!
4. Because the defender is at larger throttle pos, he is going faster and has more energy to play with.
not when he is climbing to meet an openent, there he is bleeding energy in the climb, Have you ever actually read any of the flight logs? They do not climb for the entire mission. They climb for the first few minutes, but do not go any substantial distance, then when they reach the target hight, the stop climbing and speed up.
 
5. When bounced the attacker has to advance the throttle and dogfight. The Defender is already at full throttle.
 
but the attack would be against the bombers in the BoB at which point the top cover 109s would have all the advantages you name
But Spits rairly attacked the bombers, they went after the fighters? As a second point, you are dead wrong about that! You think it goes the way you like to imagine it, but it does not. The Germans are at part throttle and lean mix until the actually SEE the Defenders!

 
no the aircraft with the height advantage has the advantage
This is true, most of the time! But put your plane in long range cruise, in a Spit at 190-210 MPH depending on model, lean mix and prop course pitch and at about 10,000' THEN let me climb up to meet you.
PS. As a seperate factiod, most people here on this board do not believe that a fighter plane engine can destroy itself in such short order.
 Then they are out and out wrong! 
Think on this, a modern car engine is designed to run from zero to 100mph+ often in trafficYeh RIGHT! How many tickets did you get last year? always in stop start conditions The average American car uses less than 16 HP most of the time it is driving! That is about 60 MPH in a big car, not a small Vaxhaul, Mini, or something. and is only expected to run consistantly at a fraction of its power and it does this amazingly well, if you design a motor to run at peak power for long periods then they tend to do that, Lets see, my Dodge Intrepid SE has a 2.7 L engine that makes 200 HP the other has a 3.5 L engine with 252 HP. I drive them very hard. 182,000 miles on the smaller '03 Model and 122,000 miles on the larger '04 and by the way, I just this very afternoon sold the third Dodge Intrepid, a '98 with 165,000 miles on the clock. I would say those count as very hard miles and they are only three of the six cars I have, so you figure how many miles I drive per year! I do know something about this! a F1 engine is a Terrible better example of an engine, and these engines are designed to be far more flexable This is simply not true at all! They will not run much below 6-8,000 RPMs, will not even turn over if they are not pre-warmed to ~300 degrees and at 10,000 RPMs have so little tourque that my 2 TONNE Dodge intrepid with the small engine could out drag it, IF the rev limiter was set at that speed! than an aircraft engine yet rarely do they blow. You are kidding are you not?
 
No, the modern passenger car engine is a mirical of engineering that would make any plane designer of the 30-40s weep with joy, except for one thing it does not make enough power, for long enough hours. Where my Big Dodge runs on <16 of it's 252 HP, or 6.15% throttle most of the time, the small Merlin, or Big DB-603 must run at 75-85% for hours and for 5 minutes at 100-150%!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/11/2013 11:38:58 PM
         Not at all, I used the figures posted on Wiki, which are at Max Continous power, not WEP!
    
No they are comparable and you know it, you used initial climb for the spit ad max for the P38 and it clearly sates this on your source, a source that is linked on the above post states the climb rate for a MkXIV and is dated 1944 so it definitely you thats in error 

Exactly what is "Initial" climb and how does it differ from the two examples I linked to?
Exactly where on the Wiki article does it say thses things you post?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/13/2013 1:07:02 PM
Noware which i why I dont use wiki as a source its not always accurate and often compares apples and oranges.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/13/2013 1:37:45 PM
In the BoB the RAF was always out numberd but ove France the LW was Rarely (if they were they usually avoided combat) How do you explain the >50% of intercepts that failed to happen? I would state that the Luftwaffe had the same problem, but we just thought they were waiting until they had superior numbers?
 
maybe its because the BoB didnt have radar ,as soon as the raid passed the coast it was all guess work, as was all navigation, if you missed a raid by a few minutes there was no way of telling how it was missed, however by the fighter sweeps into france the german radar chains actual could and did track the RAF thoughout the raid
   
    
Rearly and just how do you figure that, on a Spit in the BoB it was a case of pushing the throttle open its not like you had to set the radiator, adjust the intake , change the fuel feed etc Shoving the throttle to the wall WO adjusting the mixture from "Lean" to "Rich" will cause an engine to burn holes in it's pistons in very few minutes! Then it is an automatic kill!
And exactly how was a spitfire pilot able to do this? as the spit had a automatic mixture control to do it manual would need the removal of the engine covers and the pilot to delve in with a screwdriver  
4. Because the defender is at larger throttle pos, he is going faster and has more energy to play with.
not when he is climbing to meet an openent, there he is bleeding energy in the climb, Have you ever actually read any of the flight logs? They do not climb for the entire mission. They climb for the first few minutes, but do not go any substantial distance, then when they reach the target hight, the stop climbing and speed up.
Have you? as a large majority of 11 group intercepts were with the planes either still climbing or marginly above the bombers (yet under the altitude of the 109s) 12 group used the big wing in which case you may be correct, but as these big wing had suffcient fuel to climb to altitude, group up, engage the bombers and to chase them back to the channel ( and beyond in some cases) I dont see how they were lacking in fuel capacity
5. When bounced the attacker has to advance the throttle and dogfight. The Defender is already at full throttle.but the attack would be against the bombers in the BoB at which point the top cover 109s would have all the advantages you name
But Spits rairly attacked the bombers, they went after the fighters? As a second point, you are dead wrong about that! You think it goes the way you like to imagine it, but it does not. The Germans are at part throttle and lean mix until the actually SEE the Defenders!
 
Oh you believe that do you? whilst that was an intention it often was a case of taking any target as they appeared , yes they were at lean(not sure the 109 had manual mixture control either) but certainly at part throttle but also had the height advantage and the potential energy that imparts


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/13/2013 2:15:40 PM

no the aircraft with the height advantage has the advantage
This is true, most of the time! But put your plane in long range cruise, in a Spit at 190-210 MPH depending on model, lean mix and prop course pitch and at about 10,000' THEN let me climb up to meet you 

as the bombers were usually at 15k+ abd the fighters above that and flying at approximatelty 240 mph (assuming they were at crusing speed and not running faster I think that your 210 and 10k is a bit off
PS. As a seperate factiod, most people here on this board do not believe that a fighter plane engine can destroy itself in such short order.
 Then they are out and out wrong! 
It is amazing how everyone but you is wrong, you even claim that the USAAF was wrong in its documentation becuase you think you know better yet have never provided any evidence

Think on this, a modern car engine is designed to run from zero to 100mph+ often in trafficYeh RIGHT! How many tickets did you get last year?  none you saying a modern car engine is not capable of 100mph+?
always in stop start conditions The average American car uses less than 16 HP most of the time it is driving! That is about 60 MPH in a big car, not a small Vaxhaul, Mini, or something
 So what? a big car uses more fuel to drag itself around, (and I think 16hp is very low) hp is used more as it accelerates which car does far more often then a aircraft
expected to run consistantly at a fraction of its power and it does this amazingly well, if you design a motor to run at peak power for long periods then they tend to do that, Lets see, my Dodge Intrepid SE has a 2.7 L engine that makes 200 HP the other has a 3.5 L engine with 252 HP. I drive them very hard. 182,000 miles on the smaller '03 Model and 122,000 miles on the larger '04 and by the way, I just this very afternoon sold the third Dodge Intrepid, a '98 with 165,000 miles on the clock. I would say those count as very hard miles and they are only three of the six cars I have, so you figure how many miles I drive per year! I do know something about this!
you seem to know very little actually, it would seem that you spend all your time driving, I have a friend who drives over 100,000 miles a year and what do you know he hasnt a clue about how a engine works.
 a F1 engine is a Terrible better example of an engine, and these engines are designed to be far more flexable This is simply not true at all! They will not run much below 6-8,000 RPMs, will not even turn over if they are not pre-warmed to ~300 degrees and at 10,000 RPMs have so little tourque that my 2 TONNE Dodge intrepid with the small engine could out drag it, IF the rev limiter was set at that speed!
and that means what? an engine designed to run at 18000rpm may not run very well at 6-8000 (although a f1 engine will slaughter a 2 tonne truck at 8000rpm) have you watched a f1 race (try watching a f1 car onboard coming out of a hairpin and watch the graphics of the revs you will be supprised how low it pulls from
 than an aircraft engine yet rarely do they blow. You are kidding are you not?  that coming from a master!
 
No, the modern passenger car engine is a mirical of engineering that would make any plane designer of the 30-40s weep with joy, except for one thing it does not make enough power, for long enough hours. Where my Big Dodge runs on <16 of it's 252 HP, or 6.15% throttle most of the time, the small Merlin, or Big DB-603 must run at 75-85% for hours and for 5 minutes at 100-150%!
 
what! how the hell can it run at 150% throttle? or is that power? just how do you get to 150% of something?
16hp will propel a 125cc motorcycle to about 80mph so exactly how fast will 16hp propel a 2 tonne truck with the aero properties of a house? you as usual talking trash (or showing your ignorance)
I do know it takes about 60hp to propel a f250 at 65mph
try this tool and see if it gets 16hp


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/13/2013 5:08:11 PM
maybe its because the BoB didnt have radar ,as soon as the raid passed the coast it was all guess work, as was all navigation, if you missed a raid by a few minutes there was no way of telling how it was missed, however by the fighter sweeps into france the german radar chains actual could and did track the RAF thoughout the raid
Then why did they not intecept sweeps all the time, since they had more planes to do it with?   
Shoving the throttle to the wall WO adjusting the mixture from "Lean" to "Rich" will cause an engine to burn holes in it's pistons in very few minutes! Then it is an automatic kill!
And exactly how was a spitfire pilot able to do this? as the spit had a automatic mixture control to do it manual would need the removal of the engine covers and the pilot to delve in with a screwdriver   You are just mistaken on this! The Spit did not have autmatic mixture control, see this artcle to learn the facts. Quote; "This engine introduced a pioneering example of an engine management system... called the Kommandogerät (command-device): in effect, an electro-mechanical computer which set mixture, propeller pitch (for the constant speed propeller...), boost, and magneto... timing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_control_unit ;
Have you? as a large majority of 11 group What about ALL the other groups? intercepts were with the planes either still climbing or marginly above the bombers (yet under the altitude of the 109s) 12 group used the big wing in which case you may be correct, but as these big wing had suffcient fuel to climb to altitude, group up, engage the bombers and to chase them back to the channel ( and beyond in some cases) I dont see how they were lacking in fuel capacityAnd why did not 11 Group NOT have enough fuel on board?
5. When bounced the attacker has to advance the throttle and dogfight. The Defender is already at full throttle.but the attack would be against the bombers in the BoB at which point the top cover 109s would have all the advantages you name
But Spits rairly attacked the bombers, they went after the fighters? As a second point, you are dead wrong about that! You think it goes the way you like to imagine it, but it does not. The Germans are at part throttle and lean mix until the actually SEE the Defenders!
 
Oh you believe that do you? whilst that was an intention it often was a case of taking any target as they appeared , yes they were at lean(not sure the 109 had manual mixture control either) but certainly at part throttle but also had the height advantage and the potential energy that imparts
Never mind, you clearly do not get any of this.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/14/2013 3:04:02 AM
 maybe its because the BoB didnt have radar ,as soon as the raid passed the coast it was all guess work, as was all navigation, if you missed a raid by a few minutes there was no way of telling how it was missed, however by the fighter sweeps into france the german radar chains actual could and did track the RAF thoughout the raid
Then why did they not intecept sweeps all the time, since they had more planes to do it with?
 
  May be because its a very ineeficent method of airdefense, you wear out pilots and planes for no advatnage and you need 3x the number of planes (1 on patrol, 1 returning, 1 reafuelin, moving to the patrol area) and even then the chances are that yoy planes are in the wrong spot for intercept or if they are in a position they arre either heaavy wit fuel or light of fuel - exactly why do you think that the BoB is used as the blueprint of air defense?

Shoving the throttle to the wall WO adjusting the mixture from "Lean" to "Rich" will cause an engine to burn holes in it's pistons in very few minutes! Then it is an automatic kill!
And exactly how was a spitfire pilot able to do this? as the spit had a automatic mixture control to do it manual would need the removal of the engine covers and the pilot to delve in with a screwdriver   You are just mistaken on this! The Spit did not have autmatic mixture control, see this artcle to learn the facts. Quote; "This engine introduced a pioneering example of an engine management system...... called the Kommandogerät (command-device): in effect, an electro-mechanical computer which set mixture, propeller pitch (for the constant speed propeller......), boost, and magneto...... timing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
ok then clever clogs you show me the mixture control on a MKII spitfire, you claim it must have one yet all the cockpit photos I have seen fail to show it, the pilot manual fail to show it or mention its operation You provide the evidence its your claim

    Have you? as a large majority of 11 group What about ALL the other groups?
 
What about them? what 13 did in scotland is relavaent how?
 
 intercepts were with the planes either still climbing or marginly above the bombers (yet under the altitude of the 109s) 12 group used the big wing in which case you may be correct, but as these big wing had suffcient fuel to climb to altitude, group up, engage the bombers and to chase them back to the channel ( and beyond in some cases) I dont see how they were lacking in fuel capacityAnd why did not 11 Group NOT have enough fuel on board?
 they did have enough but not TOO much Because fuel is weight and weight is bad for performance so they only filled up with what was required you have been told this many times but you have a bee in your bonnet about filling the planes with enough fuel for a week

 
Never mind, you clearly do not get any thing at all.
you are so closed minded you cannot dream of a situation in which you are wrong, this is one of most glaring faults and has resulted in you banning on may sites.
If the majority think you are wrong it is up to you to prove them wrong, stating a thing and expecting everone else to do the proving shows a complete lack of methology and a huge unsupportable ego.
Every time you put forward an idea it is comprehensively destroyed and the ONLY one that cant see it is you, this lead to the conclusion that either you do it for fun or have issues


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/14/2013 3:13:29 AM
And exactly how was a spitfire pilot able to do this? as the spit had a automatic mixture control to do it manual would need the removal of the engine covers and the pilot to delve in with a screwdriver   You are just mistaken on this! The Spit did not have autmatic mixture control, see this artcle to learn the facts. Quote; "This engine introduced a pioneering example of an engine management system......... called the Kommandogerät (command-device): in effect, an electro-mechanical computer which set mixture, propeller pitch (for the constant speed propeller.........), boost, and magneto......... timing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
ok then clever clogs you show me the mixture control on a MKII spitfire, you claim it must have one yet all the cockpit photos I have seen fail to show it, the pilot manual fail to show it or mention its operation You provide the evidence its your claim
My mistake I was looking at a MkV, the Mk I and MKII had mixture controls mounted with the throttle, these were interlinked so that a unsuitable mixture could not be set for any throttle setting so whilst not techincally automatic it is not a sperate operation as you stated
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/14/2013 11:38:16 PM
  PS. As a seperate factiod, most people here on this board do not believe that a fighter plane engine can destroy itself in such short order.
 Then they are out and out wrong! It is amazing how everyone but you is wrong, you even claim that the USAAF was wrong in its documentation becuase you think you know better yet have never provided any evidenceThis is a silly argument. I never claimed the USAAF was wrong, only that they changed their minds later after more tests. Go online and find a current maker of highly supercharged engines and ask each one of them how long it will take the engine to burn holes in the piston crowns if the mixture is to lean! The fact is that back then all aircraft engines and many still today have manual mixture controls to alow for variations in altitude much to great for any mechanical mechanism to compensate until the advent of the Kommandogerrat (SP) in the Fw-190!
 
Think on this, a modern car engine is designed to run from zero to 100mph+ often in trafficYeh RIGHT! How many tickets did you get last year?  none you saying a modern car engine is not capable of 100mph+?Not at all, I'm saying it can not do it "Often in traffic"! My slowest car will do well over 140 MPH, but it has seen those speeds only on the track and 100 MPH only out west on largely deserted super highways!
always in stop start conditions The average American car uses less than 16 HP most of the time it is driving! That is about 60 MPH in a big car, not a small Vaxhaul, Mini, or something.
 So what? a big car uses more fuelThan a small car under most but not all conditions! to drag itself around, (and I think 16hp is very lowThen you are wrong! The average here in America, with our larger cars and SUVs is 15.5 HP at 55 MPH) hp is used more as it accelerates  This is true! which car does far more often then a aircraft This is true!  
 
and that means what? That ALL recip engines have very little power at idle speed RPMs. an engine designed to run at 18000rpm may not run very well at 6-8000 (although a f1 engine will slaughter a 2 tonne truck at 8000rpm One more time, If the F-1 engine is redlined at idel speed, IE about 6-8000 RPMs depending on model, it is not cappable of starting the car at all, it will simply die and quit running! Havent you ever mistakenly tried to start your car in third gear instead of first and killed the engine?
what! how the hell can it run at 150% throttle? or is that power? just how do you get to 150% of something? Because the throttle has a wire across the gate at 100%. When you select WEP, or War Emergency Power, you break the wire and open the throttle more than 100%. The amount of over travle used and throttling used varis between aircraft and engine types with the same engine in different planes possibly having different throttle settings! I am truely ammaised that you were not awair of this.
  16hp will propel a 125cc motorcycle to about 80mph so exactly how fast will 16hp propel a 2 tonne truck with the aero properties of a house?I do not have a clue. But the OBD-II port on my Camaro states that it is using about 16 HP at 63 MPH! My "Two short ton truck, IE Dodge Intrepid will go about 58 MPH on 16 HP, again acording to the readouts at the OBD-II port! you as usual talking trash (or showing your ignorance)
I do know it takes about 60hp to propel a f250 at 65mph
try this tool and see if it gets 16hp Ford states the Eco-boost F-150 will get 22, or 24 MPG at "Highway Cruising Speeds", at least according to the EPA plackard on the required by law Monrony sticker! That works out to 2.73-2.5 Gallons per hour at 60 MPH. So unless that truck is the worlds worst gas guzzler, it is actually using between 19.47 and 21.26 HP at that speed. 






More to come.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics