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
Heorot    Lanc guns   2/24/2013 8:51:36 AM
On the subject of the necessity for gun turrets on a Lanc. 40 years ago I worked with a guy who had flown 2 tours over Germany in the rear turret.
From his stories, two things stood out. 
Firstly, the accuracy of the turret. He showed me the results of his qualifying shoot in a 4 gun turret loaded with four 50 round belts. The target was a 6ft board, 100 yards from the turret. The turret was mounted on the ground. He fired all 200 rounds and scored just 5 hits. That was a pass.
Secondly, I asked him how many times he fired his guns in anger. His answer: never. He said that even if he had spotted a night fighter, he would not have fired unless his aircraft came under fire from it. The tracer from his guns would have given away the aircraft’s location. Hoping that he hadn’t been spotted was a better option
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/24/2013 2:07:24 PM
that is true but not sure how he would have felt without the guns, having them and not choosing to use them is one thing not having them and being unable to hit back is a whole different issue
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/24/2013 10:07:53 PM


one problem would be that the "experts" were saying that the guns were required and that they played an important defensive role and just which experts do you listen too(being without the advantage of  hindsight) you would tend to listen to those that had a history of being right, at this time that would be those that had said day bombing was too dangerous and night bombing was the way to go, unfortunately they were the ones saying that guns were necessary

You listen to the crews that exercised?  

not so sure about walking a bomb pattern, as from the bombing altitude they were using  the last bomb would have left the bomber ages before the first had landed

Do you remember those bomb coverage pictures I posted a while back? Airfields, factories and rail yards? Since they did it, why not? 

whilst deleting the nose turret could be done - see Halifax,  the dorsal must have been regarded as important as not only did the same Halifax get an upgrade from a 2x 303 dorsal to a 4x303 dorsal but the Lincoln was intended (and received post war) to have 2x30mm in the dorsal location

And again OR showed in 43/44 that it was useless in the same Mosquito exercises. 

the big problem is that hindsight only works backwards

Only if you have the slows. There was a lot done that was rather quick and practical; bomb design, EW  and radio nav-aids for example. 

as for the Radial the merlin seemed to do a good job in the Lanc and Lincoln and the Griffin worked in the Shackleton until the 70s
Bullet in the LC ICE engine- DOWN you go. Radial is more robust, except if its a Wright, then you are toast.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/24/2013 10:50:56 PM

and for your info shooter the Lancaster flew 4500 daylight missions with a < 1% lossrate, that is from a book you claimed to have read

  When did they fly those missions? So, 4,500 Daylight missions, less than the 6,000 I guestimated, out of 156,000+ sorties. When and where did they fly those missions to? So they flew >2.9% of their missions in daylight and you think that qualifies it as a daylight capible bomber? Then what do you rate the B-17 with almost 240,000 missions in broad daylight? That is 1.875% as many daylight missions in Lancs as in B-17s.
Nobody with at least half a brain thinks that night bombing missions are as easy for the enemy to intercept and shoot down as daylight missions.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/24/2013 10:58:34 PM
as for the Radial the merlin seemed to do a good job in the Lanc and Lincoln and the Griffin worked in the Shackleton until the 70s
Bullet in the LC ICE engine- DOWN you go. Radial is more robust, except if its a Wright, then you are toast.
 
B.
The Wright radial was a very durable engine, see page 57 of "The B-17 Flying Fortress Story" by Roger A Freeman.
That it often leaked oil, as many radial engines designed before the War, is not either a problem or in dispute!
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Bull.   2/25/2013 12:20:00 AM
Read the title, Stuart. The Wright R-1820 was a piece of CRAP. Not opinion, FACT. 
 
 
There were reasons why the PRATTs were superior.  
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/25/2013 10:05:44 PM

Read the title, Stuart. The Wright R-1820 was a piece of CRAP. Not opinion, FACT. 
There were reasons why the PRATTs were superior.  
I did read that web site ant it is quoted below! Just to set the record straight! You are wrong, you were wrong and you always will be wrong!

About that Wright Cyclone engine . . .

Charles Lindbergh chose a Wright
Whirlwind to power his Atlantic passage in 1927--a double compliment, since
Spirit of St. Louis was a single-engined plane, with no backup if the
Whirlwind faltered in mid-ocean.

The Wright Cyclone was a straightforward development of that engine--nine
large cylinders around the propeller shaft, like the spokes of a wheel. As a
piston moved toward the hub, the cylinder filled with 201 cubic inches of air
mixed with gasoline, to be fired by two sparkplugs; the heat was carried away by
cooling fins like those on a lawnmower. The Cyclone was designated R- 1820, for
radial engine, displacing 1820 ci. The early models developed 575 horsepower at
takeoff, less at higher altitudes.

The Cyclone powered most U.S. Army bombers of the 1930s, including the
immortal B-17 Flying Fortress. Donald Douglas picked it for a new passenger
plane that the airlines thought would be a trimotor. Douglas gave it two, and
when the prototype took off and crossed the Continental Divide on only one
engine, the airlines never again questioned the reliability of the Cyclone or
the plane that became the DC-3, arguably the greatest aircraft of all time.

Other Cyclone-powered planes included the Douglas SBD dive bomber and the
Lockheed Hudson light bomber--but not one important fighter. The engine wasn't
suited to the high-g stress of fighter combat, probably because of the way
lubricating oil reached the cylinders in the early models. Oil leaks and oil
starvation are a constant of the Brewster Buffalo story, even in the B-239 that
did so well in Finnish service.

There was one exception to the general rule. When the Navy wanted a
fast-climbing fighter for convoy duty, it chose a Wildcat variant built by
General Motors and powered by an R-1820- 56 Cyclone. The valves, cylinder heads,
transmission gears, lubricating system, and supercharger had all been improved.
The FM-2 still couldn't match the high-altitude performance of its Grumman
cousins with their Pratt & Whitney engines--but then it was designed for
low-level work, finding and strafing submarines.

In the end, the Wright Cyclone had a production run of 25 years, and it flew
more miles than any other piston-driven aircraft engine ever built. - Dan Ford
(with help from Ben Schapiro)

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    selectiver aren't we?   2/25/2013 10:30:08 PM
But read what the war users said from the same source, WOFTAM, especially the Spaniards and the Finns.
 
(My source, by the way, since the the  'expert' can never do his own original research.)
 
The engines leaked oil and over heated.
 
 
B.
 
P.s. More signs of Stuart's dishonesty.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/25/2013 10:35:12 PM
Just to get back on track, I will list the reasons why I think the late model P-39L Lightning was the best all around fighter plane of WW-II.

1. It was fast and quick climbing, both in top speed at WEP, 447 MPH and in cruising speed at altitude, where it was faster and higher than any other plane with Recip engines!

2. It was more pointable than any/all other Recip/Prop planes of WW-II by dint of it's Counter-Rotating Propellers and the absence of P effect because of them.

3. It had CL mounted guns. See this quote with foot note at end! "Clustering all the armament in the nose was unlike most other U.S. aircraft which used wing-mounted guns with trajectories set up to crisscross at one or more points in a "convergence zone." Guns mounted in the nose did not suffer from having their useful ranges limited by pattern convergence, meaning good pilots could shoot much farther. A Lightning could reliably hit targets at any range up to 1,000 yd (910 m), whereas other fighters had to pick a single convergence range between 100 and 250 yd (230 m). The clustered weapons had a "buzz saw" effect on any target at the receiving end, making the aircraft effective for strafing as well. The rate of fire on the guns was about 650 rounds per minute for the 20×110 mm cannon round (130 gram shell) at a muzzle velocity of about 2,756 ft/s (840 m/s) and for the .50 inch machine guns (43–48 gram rounds), about 850 rpm at 2,910 ft/s (887 m/s), velocity. Combined rate of fire was over 4,000 rpm with roughly every sixth projectile a 20 mm. The duration of sustained firing for the 20 mm cannon and .50 caliber machine guns was approximately 14 seconds and 35 seconds respectively.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning#cite_note-18">[18]"

4. It had hydraulically powered ailerons which gave it an exceptional rate of roll at high speeds.

5. It had extraordinary pitch authority at the time, as long as the speed was under 505 Knots at high altitude. But the plane was so fast it could exceed that limit speed very early in a dive which limited it to shallow dives in the attack. It's one great weakness.

6. It had very long range at the time on internal fuel if required, or that extra fuel could yield extraordinary persistence at Maximum Continuous Combat power!

7. It had a huge war Load at the time. over 2,000 pounds on the first models and over 4000 pounds on the late models and over 5,400 pounds on the last models!

8. It was a very tough aircraft and hard to shoot down!

9. Lastly, it had all of these virtues in one plane. While some other planes had some of these virtues, no other plane had more than two or three of them and when you include the pointability factor that it alone had among ALL mass produced planes of WW-II, it is easy to see why it deserves to be the "Best Fighter Plane of WW-II"!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/25/2013 10:43:29 PM

But read what the war users said from the same source, WOFTAM, especially the Spaniards and the Finns.
(My source, by the way, since the the  'expert' can never do his own original research.)
The engines leaked oil and over heated.
B.
See the original source material quoted in the prior post! See the part about early examples not being well suited to fighter planes, except for the Grumman F-4, IIRC.
I especially like the part about the Cyclone R-1820 flying more miles than any other Recip in history!
An engine can not rack up that kind of record if it is not reliable, durable, ( Which is not the same thing!) and affordable! All monikers earned by the R-1820 and very few LC In-lines!

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics