Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

OK, I know this is a bit cheeky, a bit of a cheap laugh, but I discovered this description of the P-51 Mustang on an Italian website, and the "interesting" use of English made me laugh. It reads:

"The world famous P-51 Mustang was one of the best fighter aircraft of the WWII period. The prototype of this airplane, designed by corporation North American, has made the maiden flight at October 26,1940.
The modification P-51 B was built in May, 1943. She differed by the installation potent and high altitude Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, made under licence by Packard corporation. The airplane Mustang with this engine became one of the fastest fighters in the world. The airplane had huge range, was well armed and armoured. The airplanes put on Lend-Lease by the British Royal Air Force, have received a title Mustang Mk.III. On them the bubble canopy named Malcolm Hood was installed. It has allowed to improve the view from a cabin.
For the first time airplanes Mustang Mk.III have gone into service of 19th Squadron of Royal Air Force in February, 1944. They were widely used up to the end of war as fighters and fighters - bombers, including for intercepting German V1 flying bombs. On Mustangs also were flown the Polish pilots, including such aces, as S.Skalski (21 victories) and E.Horbaczewski (16,5).
All in 1944 944 airplanes Mustang Mk.III were delivered."

 

Some people train at airports that are uncontrolled and never learn to use the radio. They are intimidated by talking on it and as such avoid it. I fault the instructor for signing the guy off for his checkride when he doesn't know basic radio procedure. It is not required but what kind of pilot do you have if he is taking trips without knowing how to use his radio to interact and not at least have flight following. In the US, 100% of the airspace is now controlled at some altitude. Radar services extend to virtually the entire airspace above 1200 feet. I can't believe you can get within 4 miles of the Capital building and White House much less the George Washington Monument and not realize where you are. He is "personna non-gratis" amongst US pilots now. He is eligible to retake his test and checkride in 10 months. Sometimes you feel bad using the word "idiot" to descibe someone like him because you fell like it is insulting being so understated a word.

 

(jimbotosome @ Nov 21 2005, 09:37 PM) [post=41934]Some people train at airports that are uncontrolled and never learn to use the radio. They are intimidated by talking on it and as such avoid it. I fault the instructor for signing the guy off for his checkride when he doesn't know basic radio procedure. It is not required but what kind of pilot do you have if he is taking trips without knowing how to use his radio to interact and not at least have flight following. In the US, 100% of the airspace is now controlled at some altitude. Radar services extend to virtually the entire airspace above 1200 feet. I can't believe you can get within 4 miles of the Capital building and White House much less the George Washington Monument and not realize where you are. He is "personna non-gratis" amongst US pilots now. He is eligible to retake his test and checkride in 10 months. Sometimes you feel bad using the word "idiot" to descibe someone like him because you fell like it is insulting being so understated a word.
[/b]

We have a similar problem here in the UK. If anything, with the country being so much smaller, its even worse! The Southern half of the country - where I do most of my flying - is particularly infested with controlled airspace of one kind or another, extending outward from the TMA's around Gatwick and London. If I want to get above 5000 feet - which I do generally for aeros - I need to head west along the coast where the airspace is unregulated up to about 12,000 feet.

 

(adamcotton @ Nov 22 2005, 04:18 AM) [post=41959]We have a similar problem here in the UK. If anything, with the country being so much smaller, its even worse! The Southern half of the country - where I do most of my flying - is particularly infested with controlled airspace of one kind or another, extending outward from the TMA's around Gatwick and London. If I want to get above 5000 feet - which I do generally for aeros - I need to head west along the coast where the airspace is unregulated up to about 12,000 feet.
[/b]
Can you not get permission to fly through Heathrow's airspace? You can fly through Atlanta Hartsfield's airspace (busiest US airport) by contacting approach control and requesting it. They will typically route you through though it won't be a straight line. As a matter of fact, most class B airports have 20 to 30 smaller to medium airports within their airspace. Do you always have to be under the airspace in the UK?

 

No, you don't always have to go under the airspace. You can get routed through the Heathrow or Gatwick TMA/Control Zone and even land on the main runway if you so wish - although actually landing would require 24hrs prior notice and cost an arm and a leg! Generally speaking, most controllers will route you under "special VFR" clearance through their airspace if you don't have an Instrument Rating and are therefore unable to comply with the full IFR. And you can cross the base of an airway at right angles without permission, but sometimes its still just easier to stay under or fly around it....

 

(adamcotton @ Nov 22 2005, 12:18 PM) [post=41990]No, you don't always have to go under the airspace. You can get routed through the Heathrow or Gatwick TMA/Control Zone and even land on the main runway if you so wish - although actually landing would require 24hrs prior notice and cost an arm and a leg! Generally speaking, most controllers will route you under "special VFR" clearance through their airspace if you don't have an Instrument Rating and are therefore unable to comply with the full IFR. And you can cross the base of an airway at right angles without permission, but sometimes its still just easier to stay under or fly around it....
[/b]
They charge to land at airports in the UK and you have to give prior notice?

In the US, if want to go into any public airport, they cannot deny you access. They can charge fees for tie downs but if you are merely wanting to take a break, they don't charge you (heck you almost always need gas right...er...I mean petrol?). But if you go into a busy airport at their peak times, and can't give them at least 120 knots on a long final, they have a way of keeping you out. They can put you in a holding pattern until you get low on fuel and go away. Major airports hate "dinks".

 

[....
[/quote] They charge to land at airports in the UK and you have to give prior notice?

In the US, if want to go into any public airport, they cannot deny you access. They can charge fees for tie downs but if you are merely wanting to take a break, they don't charge you (heck you almost always need gas right...er...I mean petrol?). But if you go into a busy airport at their peak times, and can't give them at least 120 knots on a long final, they have a way of keeping you out. They can put you in a holding pattern until you get low on fuel and go away. Major airports hate "dinks".
[/quote]

Although all UK airports will charge you to land (except in an emergency), only a few require prior notice. The big ones like Gatwick and Heathrow - who also hate "dinks" - will typically demand 24hours notice, but with the rest who like to know you're coming its usually just a case of telephoning before you take-off or even just calling them on the radio while en-route - which you would do en-route to any airfield, anyway! The reason they list themselves as PNR is so they can brief you on any special landing procedures warranted by the local topography or any landing hazards such as sheep grazing by the threshold, etc. But as I said, they are few and far between, and I have never been denied permission.

Sadly, we UK pilots have always been charged to land. With the exception of freely available METARS and TAFS, we are even charged for en-route weather forecasts. Mind you, at some places the landing fee is fairly nominal. At some rural places with just a guy in a shack with a radio relaying airport information (what you'd call a unicom?) it's something like £2.00 ($1.20?), whilst at my home airport, with full ATC and tarmac runways, a visiting aircraft is typically charged £25.00...

I geuss with the US being so much larger flying a light aircraft is just like getting in your car, whereas over here a lot of people just view light aircraft as a noisy nuisance. Even so, we a have a thriving GA movement, which no amount of bitching by NIMBYs will eradicate...

Anyway, we are going to be shot down in flames soon for going so far off topic...!!

 

Hi Adam, I agree with most of what you are saying, but the Me109 could actually out turn both the Spitfire and Hurricane, the problem was that at a point not much tighter than the other two the wings of the 109 tended to fold, so pilots were very reluctant to try and out turn an opponenent when in the majority of times they could use their superior dive capabilities. As for my choice for the best fighter, although it isn't on the list is Mosquito MkVI.
Andy.

 

You have to factor in planes that have combat flaps as well. If you know how to use them then you can turn sharper by a quick slow down, especially if you can run right up on the enemy. Deploy the flaps before the start of the turn and you speed will drop quickly and you can turn sharper then. Jugs and Mustangs had them. This is quite an advantage in a dog fight.

 

Wow It's amazing I'm actually on topic. Vought F4U Corsair The US kept using them well into the 50s.

 

Messerschmitt ME-262 Schwalbe. I don't think its that great of a fighter, but i like the way it looks:

 

Messerschmitt ME-262 Schwalbe. I don't think its that great of a fighter, but i like the way it looks:



I thought you would have put nazi ufo for the best aircraft of wwii.

 

Messerschmitt ME-262 Schwalbe. I don't think its that great of a fighter, but i like the way it looks:


Eric Brown who test flew the ME262 for the British wrote,

“That, then, was the Me 262, variously known as the Schwalbe and the Strumvogel. But whatever the appellation, it was in my view unquestionably the foremost warplane of its day: a hard hitter which outperformed anything that we immediately available….”
Brown RN, Capt Eric., Wings of the Luftwaffe, Airflife, 1979, P68

 

Hi Adam, I agree with most of what you are saying, but the Me109 could actually out turn both the Spitfire and Hurricane, the problem was that at a point not much tighter than the other two the wings of the 109 tended to fold, so pilots were very reluctant to try and out turn an opponenent when in the majority of times they could use their superior dive capabilities. As for my choice for the best fighter, although it isn't on the list is Mosquito MkVI.
Andy.

Turning radius is dependent on wing loading. The 109 had the highest wing loading of the three types in question (Spitfire, Hurricane & Me109) and therefore the widest turning circle. The wing's propensity to fold was an issue only in the recovery from high speed dives, where the Gs increased significantly and made the wings weigh correspondingly more. This fact was used to good advantage by experienced RAF pilots when pursuing 109s downhill: they found that, if patient, the 109 pilot would often initiate an early recovery from his headlong dive and then they could "cut the corner" and nail their quarry! However, in asserting that the 109 could out turn the RAF fighters you are re-stating an argument put forward by Len Deighton in his controversial book, "Fighter - the true story of the Battle of Britain", a muck-and-brass re-telling of that seminal campaign.

 

However, in asserting that the 109 could out turn the RAF fighters you are re-stating an argument put forward by Len Deighton in his controversial book, "Fighter - the true story of the Battle of Britain", a muck-and-brass re-telling of that seminal campaign.

Len Deighton's book is the worst book on the Battle of Britain I've read. An awful book.

 

Adam can you explain why the 190 performance would drop off above 20 or 30k. Is it anything to do with aerodynamics or the type of engine. Also in your first post on this thread you mentioned that the Spit lost out to the 109 because it ran on 100 octane to Me's 87. Can you explain the in's and outs of it.

 

Adam can you explain why the 190 performance would drop off above 20 or 30k. Is it anything to do with aerodynamics or the type of engine. Also in your first post on this thread you mentioned that the Spit lost out to the 109 because it ran on 100 octane to Me's 87. Can you explain the in's and outs of it.

Hi Lance

The Fw 190's performance fell off above about 22,000 feet for a couple of reasons. First, the fighter's short wings - the source of its sparkling rate of roll - generated less lift in the thinner air at altitude. The Spitfire's eliptical wing, of greater span and chord, was much better in this respect (except on those variants where the wingtips were removed to improve performance and rate of roll below 12,000 feet).

Secondly, the German fighter's BMW engine was reliant on nitrous oxide (otherwise known as laughing gas!) injection for supercharging (as were all german fighters). This worked fine, but meant that, unlike the Merlin 60 series, with its two stage mechancial supercharging, the engine was unable to produce sea level power at different altitudes. And if you can produce sea level power at, say, 20,000 feet, where the air is thinner and causes less resistance to the movement of an aircraft through it (ie produces less drag), then you can obviously climb and fly faster than at sea level. Without mechanical supercharging, an engine produces its full power only on the deck, so the best the nitrous oxide system could do would be to provide a brief spurt of additional power when needed. (Interestingly, allied pilots often thought they had scored hits on Luftwaffe fighters when they hadn't, because of the thin, soot coloured trail of smoke that emanated from beneath the engine when their pilots applied nitrous oxide injection to escape a pursuer).

Despite being handicapped by the same system on its DB engine, the Me 109 largely retained high altitude climbing parity with allied fighters because of its relative small size and light weight - that is, it had a better power to weight ratio than the Fw190. These differences in high altitude performance led the Luftwaffe, during the daylight phases of the Battle of Germany, to employ its Fw190 units as bomber destroyers while the more nimble, higher flying me 109s took on the US escort fighters.

As regards octane ratings, what I actually said was that Spitfires and Hurricanes flew on 100 octane petrol from just after Dunkirk, whereas the Luftwaffe flew on 87 octane throughout 1940. The higher octane rating allowed the compression ratios in the cylinders to be upped significantly without the risk of detonation (ie, a sudden explosion of the fuel/air mixture, rather than an even burning leading to expansion of the gas in the cylinders). And this, of course, translated into additional power. In fact, so great was this translation that many Luftwaffe veterans of the Battle of France remarked upon it in the early skirmishes over the Channel convoys in July, totally mystified as to how it had been brought about. They couldn't know that the US government had recently started shipping supplies of the fuel to the UK from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. So, far from losing out to the Me 109 by operating on 100 octane, it scored heavily!!

Hope this answers your questions.

Adam

 

The increase of power of 100 octane in British front line fighters in the brief period between the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain came as an unpleasant suprise to the Luftwaffe pilots. It wasn't until late August that a force landed Spitfire was analysed in detail, and the fuel was discovered to be green and of much higher octane than the standard blue 87 octane.

 

Thanks for that Adam, much appreciated for the information. I have misread it,
I have read it as (the Luftwaffe used 87 octane throughout the battle which further improved climb performance -I locked on to that and not the Spit bit before the brackets.
Secondly, like the Hurricane and Defiant, by mid 1940 the Spitfire was using 100 octane fuel (the Luftwaffe used 87 octane throughout the battle) which further improved climb performance.

That's the trouble when you read it quick! Thanks again. ...

 

Thanks for that Adam, much appreciated for the information. I have misread it,
I have read it as (the Luftwaffe used 87 octane throughout the battle which further improved climb performance -I locked on to that and not the Spit bit before the brackets.
Secondly, like the Hurricane and Defiant, by mid 1940 the Spitfire was using 100 octane fuel (the Luftwaffe used 87 octane throughout the battle) which further improved climb performance.

That's the trouble when you read it quick! Thanks again. ...

No problem, Lance. Glad to be of service.