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
oldbutnotwise       3/29/2013 2:14:37 PM
Based on RAF testing, the Mk XIV had a speed range of 436 to 446 mph at 28,000 ft. The P-51, based on US testing, had a speed range of 420 to 438 mph, giving the Mk XIV a narrow advantage.  
     Why not Comp it against the P-38 at WEP, giving 447MPH?     
 Ok then lets as the P38 with this figure was using 150 octane then lets use the MkXIV tests with 150 octane giving a speed of 458mph
  At 35,000 ft, the case is similar. The Spitfire has a speed range of 432 to 440 mph, based of five tests, while the P-51 has a speed range of 410 to 435 mph, again, giving a minor advantage to the Spitfire XIV.
Why not post the speeds at which the two planes could fly 400 miles with enough fuel in reserve for 15 minutes of combat? This is a much truer measure of speed than the "Top" speed which was almost never seen in service, if dives were precluded before hand!
   but the P51 on internal fuel had just over 105 miles more range than a MkXIV the difference was in the 2x110 gallon drop tanks  
The P-51 was faster than the Mk VIII/IX by 20-30 mph at all heights,
As the MkIX was pretty much the same airframe as the MkI then I am only supprised that it was so little,  it was afterall a fighter designed 8 years later in the period of greatest development, and it needed a different engine to do it, when the Spit got a different power plant it surpassed the P51
with broadly the same power.
How much faster was the P-47N than the Mk-XIV Spitfire?
it wasn't, unless you used water injection then you got to the speed of the MkXIV
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/29/2013 3:41:21 PM

Hellcat then Mustang and after those it's hard to choose between Spitfires, FW-190's and 109's - as has already been pointed out it wasn't necessarily dogfighting agility that was of primary importance given that most kills came rapidly and unseen from behind, rather it was persistence (range), airspeed, ruggedness and rate of dive that enabled less-agile airframes to decimate their Japanese and German opponents. Being able to evade an opponent through diving was a reliable tactic that was more straightforward to achieve for an average pilot than the equivalent hard-turning maneuvers employed by the more agile platforms. The F6F and P-51 were, in the round, superior design choices and really the statistics and results demonstrate this better than any other arguments.


It then comes down to two arguments; 1. Size makes sneaking up un-seen a distinct advantage, IE why the Me-109 was such a great killer in spite of all the things that other planes could do better, or... 2. We must judge the plane on it's performance in spite of it's size, and thus the P-38 has better all around scores for it's aerodynamic performance than the rest and it must therefore be the best all around fighter plane?

No these are both chicanerous statements - you (as usual) make a statement and then use it to test your own hypothesis in a form of circular reasoning that seems to duly infuriate others.
 
a) Your assertion that size was a distinct advantage in that regard is an assertion that seems to me to omit more important factors.
 
b) No, it doesn't at all - or at least, not to anyone else.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 5:02:30 PM
1. Sighting a plane depends on lighting conditions, reflectivity, aspect seen and so forth. only a simple-minded man thinks that these factors do not exist.  
 
2. Why resort to war emergency power (American term), as a comparison of performance which is a piston engine equivalent in aircraft to reheat in a jet engined aircraft. The overboost beyond the normal rate workload on the engine would destroy it rather quickly.
 
The failure of the one called Shooter to realize these obvious case restrictions shows that he cannot discuss real parameters in this argument.   
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 6:59:44 PM

This is a much truer measure of speed than the "Top" speed which was almost never seen in service, if dives were precluded before hand!
   but the P51 on internal fuel had just over 105 miles more range than a MkXIV the difference was in the 2x110 gallon drop tanks  
Not quite true! All "Plackard" performance numbers published about all British aircraft for range are at cruising speeds that are not realistic in any way. Try 245 MPH for the Mk-XIV IN ORDER TO GO 460 Miles! 850 Miles with three drop tanks, but only at 225 MPH! (Page 157!) That is not round trip, it is one way WO Combat alowance! When using the same criteria as American combat aircraft the radius of action is less than 130 miles! ( Cruise speed at 75% throttle, IE 358 MPH, 45 minutes of reserve fuel and 15 minutes combat power!) The B model Mustang has a range with two tanks of 1,600 miles at 265 MPH! WO Drop tanks, and a cruise speed of 360 MPH, the B Mustang has a range of 850 Miles, which converts to a "Radius of Action" of 425 Miles! So you see the differance in specifications makes HUGE differances in the performance the planes are capable of!
The P-51 was faster than the Mk VIII/IX by 20-30 mph at all heights,
As the MkIX was pretty much the same airframe as the MkI then I am only supprised that it was so little,  it was afterall a fighter designed 8 years later in the period of greatest development, and it needed a different engine to do it, when the Spit got a different power plant it surpassed the P51 with broadly the same power. Not really! If you take even a cussory look at the book "Spitfire, the History", you see that the Mk-I Spit has very little in relation to the original design and that to the first prototype. So the detail design of the Mk-I was about five years after the original design and two years after the prototype.
How much faster was the P-47N than the Mk-XIV Spitfire?
it wasn't, unless you used water injection then you got to the speed of the MkXIV


Well, you seem to be slightly wrong about this. At 33,000', the P-47N was faster than the Mk-XIV Spitfire at any altitude, WO using water injection. Water-or more exactly MW-50, ADI, injection was not needed at those hights because the air was so thin the engine could only make normal power! From page 149; 467 MPH, Range 800 Miles, but 2,350 Miles with Drop Tanks! Cruise speed at that altitude 397 MPH! (WO Drop Tanks!) Boy does that Turbocharger make a huge differance! You do not want to know the comps for the P-38!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 8:09:16 PM

Based on RAF testing, the Mk XIV had a speed range of 436 to 446 mph at 28,000 ft.
Why not Comp it against the P-38 at WEP, giving 447MPH?     
Ok then lets as the P38 with this figure was using 150 octane then lets use the MkXIV tests with 150 octane giving a speed of 458mph
No, not quite. The test in question was using 150 Octain gas! So it is 446 MPH Vs 447 MPH, but at 5,000' lower altitude! So you tell me which is better! 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 8:31:24 PM

Hellcat then Mustang and after those it's hard to choose between Spitfires, FW-190's and 109's - as has already been pointed out it wasn't necessarily dogfighting agility that was of primary importance given that most kills came rapidly and unseen from behind, rather it was persistence (range), airspeed, ruggedness and rate of dive that enabled less-agile airframes to decimate their Japanese and German opponents. Being able to evade an opponent through diving was a reliable tactic that was more straightforward to achieve for an average pilot than the equivalent hard-turning maneuvers employed by the more agile platforms. The F6F and P-51 were, in the round, superior design choices and really the statistics and results demonstrate this better than any other arguments.

It then comes down to two arguments; 1. Size makes sneaking up un-seen a distinct advantage, IE why the Me-109 was such a great killer in spite of all the things that other planes could do better, or... 2. We must judge the plane on it's performance in spite of it's size, and thus the P-38 has better all around scores for it's aerodynamic performance than the rest and it must therefore be the best all around fighter plane?
No these are both chicanerous statements - you (as usual) make a statement and then use it to test your own hypothesis in a form of circular reasoning that seems to duly infuriate others.????
a) Your assertion that size was a distinct advantage in that regard is an assertion that seems to me to omit more important factors. Size is not a distinct advantage in it's own right? Did I state any other factor but size? Or did I mitigate by name any other factor? b) No, it doesn't at all - or at least, not to anyone else. R Well lets see what catagories the P-38 excells in; Cruise speed! No other plane from WW-II could cruise as fast as far. Fire power. The Planes enemies all feared it's awsom fire power. No other Allied aircraft created such fear in it's enemies! The Germans were willing, if not eager to trade Head On Passes with all other Allied planes BUT the P-38! Counter rotating props. As the only real fighter aircraft in front line service with CR Props it was unique in it's ability to point the nose accurately WO the P Factor! Range, while not the best, it was more than adiquate for any mission asked of it. Durability of two engines. Loose one and still have at least a chanse to get home, instead of rotting away in a prison camp. Late models rate of roll gave it unpressidented maneuverability in that it could change the direction it was pointing faster than all others!
While it has other traits that are better than MOST of their piers, such as low speed turning ability that is superior to all others, but totally irrealivant as a combat factor more than 99.99% of the time. So why not address each of these points!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 8:39:52 PM

1. Sighting a plane depends on lighting conditions, reflectivity, aspect seen and so forth. only a simple-minded man thinks that these factors do not exist.
Absolutely true! Great points! 
2. Why resort to war emergency power (American term), as a comparison of performance which is a piston engine equivalent in aircraft to reheat in a jet engined aircraft. The overboost beyond the normal rate workload on the engine would destroy it rather quickly.
Thank you for comming over to my side! I have been pushing real speeds as oppossed to "Plackard" speeds that grace every page of all books on the subject of performance. Note the prior post in this very thread, written before I read this post!
 
The failure of the one called Shooter to realize these obvious case restrictions shows that he cannot discuss real parameters in this argument.   
This is very unfortunate, as I have been championing these very facits of performance forever and taken more flak over it than you would ever know! Sincerely! Go read my very first post on "How to determine the best fighter plane" thread! Not kidding! I am forced to devolove into this argument by those here who have totally ignored my previous ideas!
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/29/2013 9:43:03 PM
The P-38 wasn't nearly agile enough 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. 
 
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 : ) 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/29/2013 10:58:11 PM
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 10:59:30 PM
When caught in your foolishness you always try to agree with the man who called you a fool? This is most curious.
 
I did not come to your point of view. I pointed out that you compare values that are not congruent or equivalent and call those values equal. It never occurs to you that no two technologies measure the same thing the same way? Besides when you cite Wiki over and over again you do push maximum ideals as opposed to the real world performances of the planes.
 
Did you not read what Levett quotes I provided about Mustang, Spitfire and Avia S199 aircraft in Israeli service? All flown by a common air force against a common set of enemies mostly equipped with British RAF equipment?  
 
It is hard to argue either the findings that the three planes were used in the 485-570 km/h range at 3000-9000 meters altitude, and that the pilots thought the planes were fairly close enough so that it came down to the pilot. The pilots, especially the American ones, --> preferred the Spitfire because it had the best overall fighter qualities they desired if they got into trouble. They could count on it to out-turn the Arab flown Spitfires because the Arabs did not have the skill to exploit the Spitfires virtues. (angle fighter.)     
 
"Absolutely true! Great points!"
 
Because you never thought of them or wrote them before I did
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics