An Interesting Find

[gavagai]

Here is the text that goes with the discussion on WW2 fighter relative performance:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

That article is from 1946 and doesn't seem to be based on anything quantitative. Completely omitting the Fw 190 from discussion of best roll rates (among other things) is a big red flag. The author's first priority seems to be vindication of the RAF and its aircraft.

 

[Merlin-27]

Damn, you are right!:doh: I guess that compensates for the 190D-9 not having its MW50 boost.

 

haha I kind of set you up for that one, sorry.

 

With the interest in WW2 and the impending announcements, maybe we will get both of those items added? Wishful thinking?

[Echo38]

Flying with external tanks in a fight was a very bad idea as many found out, most notably with your P-38, Tom McGuire.

 

Yeah. Everyone knows that the extra weight's bad, but less well known was a bigger problem: the drop tanks altered the airflow under the wing. The Lightning had a very benign stall in the clean configuration; with tanks, however, there was a sharp wing-drop tendency. That's what killed MacGuire. Some P-38 pilots would intentionally stall the ship during turns, to quickly slow down for a tighter circle. Clean (and with flaps at maneuver, too), the '38 could perform even an accelerated stall without any wing drop. MacGuire apparently didn't know the aerodynamic effect of the drop tanks (my guess was that it was his first time turning with an Oscar with his drop tanks still on, though he'd done it plenty of times before without 'em), and so he entered the unexpected spin.

 

The Mustang pilots had the same challenges... just further from home.

 

P-38s were escorting the Fortresses all the way to Berlin and back, long before the P-51 was fielded. However, the P-51 was the better long-range escort because it had much greater internal range. They both had to deal with drop tanks, but the P-51 could much better afford to lose them than the '38. And since the Mustang had better overall range as well (except when the P-38 was carrying ferry tanks, which were unfit for combat missions), fighting at cruise settings wasn't something that P-51 pilots ever had to do, AFAIK.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Echo38

[Fishbreath]

BRB gotta fly the 'stang.

 

I know, right? I fired it up last night while my friend was breaking the sound barrier in a Su-25 vertical dive, and had a great time just zipping around the airfield. Forgot how much I like it.

[streakeagle]

That article is from 1946 and doesn't seem to be based on anything quantitative. Completely omitting the Fw 190 from discussion of best roll rates (among other things) is a big red flag. The author's first priority seems to be vindication of the RAF and its aircraft.

 

The article is focused on comparing the allied types and even explicitly states:

although their performance in relation to other types, including the two best known major German fighters will be found in the accompanying diagrams.

 

The point of the article was to speak to laymen, not quote technical data. He was a test pilot and thoroughly familiar with the ACTUAL performance of these planes versus anecdotes and factory brochure data. While we can pick and choose from various documents and quotes from the past, he was part of a team that actually flew the planes for the express purpose of measuring and comparing their performance. I would trust his "biased" RAF experience/opinion over so-called "objective" sources short of NACA/NASA measured performance and wind tunnel data, which generally doesn't exist for WW2 aircraft at the level needed to make objective and accurate performance comparisons.

[Double_D]

That article is from 1946 and doesn't seem to be based on anything quantitative. Completely omitting the Fw 190 from discussion of best roll rates (among other things) is a big red flag. The author's first priority seems to be vindication of the RAF and its aircraft.

 

 

I am sorry you are making an argument thru data, when this sort of data was not available or care for it was during the war era years, and these planes had to get out there to combat the enemy

 

At this time the real data came from the actual pilot's who flew them...and put their lives on the line...

 

You are bringing data for something that does not matter now..it was about getting the best available plane out to win the war...and from the most part .. most pilot's picked the P-51 Mustang..or one's of THEIR choice ..

 

So come on..now..see it for what it was during the times..not for the data of today..it didn't have any impact of the results in combat..

 

The only great plane...was the plane ... that had a great pilot in it...just that easy...:thumbup:

 

Or are you like the guy in the movie " New & Old " ... " Flight of the Phoenix " a german engineer who designed planes and helped design the crashed plane into a flyable one..but wait he design " Model " aircraft..thou the principles are the same..there still is a difference..between a " Model " aircraft and the real McCoy...

Edited August 17, 2013 by Double_D

[Merlin-27]

At this time the real data came from the actual pilot's who flew them...and put their lives on the line...

 

You are bringing data for something that does not matter now..it was about getting the best available plane out to win the war...and from the most part .. most pilot's picked the P-51 Mustang..or one's of THEIR choice ..

 

So come on..now..see it for what it was during the times..not for the data of today..it didn't have any impact of the results in combat..

 

The only great plane...was the plane ... that had a great pilot in it...just that easy...:thumbup:

 

Or are you like the guy in the movie " New & Old " ... " Flight of the Phoenix " a german engineer who designed planes and helped design the crashed plane into a flyable one..but wait he design " Model " aircraft..thou the principles are the same..there still is a difference..between a " Model " aircraft and the real McCoy...

 

And here I thought I was the king of the ellipsis... You, my friend, have me beat.

[Paganus]

There are dozens of variables to look at, but I think it's safe to say that the P-51D's stall characteristics would not improve at high altitude.

 

My point was not that the P-51's stall characteristics improve so much as the other aircraft in the original comparison get much worse. The F6F and FG-1 can barely make 35k.

 

...but I agree there are many variables in the mix.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Paganus

[Echo38]

he was part of a team that actually flew the planes for the express purpose of measuring and comparing their performance.

 

There were others, you know, who did that.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Echo38

[Double_D]

ellipsis

<<<< ?????

[Merlin-27]

<<<< ?????

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

[Double_D]

Well we all know the old saying " Build it they will, come "..well here is the opposite Search and you will find...this has to be the best find I have ever come across..vintage footage of the 332nd FG at Ramitelli..sorry no sound but its still great shots..of daily activitity..

 

 

 

[Merlin-27]

Well we all know the old saying " Build it they will, come "..well here is the opposite Search and you will find...this has to be the best find I have ever come across..vintage footage of the 332nd FG at Ramitelli..sorry no sound but its still great shots..of daily activitity..

 

 

 

That's pretty cool. It's a real shame about that watermark. I took a look at their website. It's a bit shocking they are trying to sell a 50 second video clip with no sound for $170. That should make any DCS pilot grateful to fly the bird for unlimited hours for a fraction of that price. I understand everyone would like to make a little profit but wow, that looks to be quite a rip-off. Am I missing something?

[Double_D]

That's pretty cool. It's a real shame about that watermark. I took a look at their website. It's a bit shocking they are trying to sell a 50 second video clip with no sound for $170. That should make any DCS pilot grateful to fly the bird for unlimited hours for a fraction of that price. I understand everyone would like to make a little profit but wow, that looks to be quite a rip-off. Am I missing something?

 

 

True...but takes money to do alot of money/time for doing research ...but yes this video was a great find..

[Merlin-27]

True...but takes money to do alot of money/time for doing research ...but yes this video was a great find..

 

To a point. The source material was funded by the US government with taxpayer dollars. I'm sure they obtained the footage for pennies on the dollar.... and it's hard to believe the operating costs to index and host these small snippet files could warrant such a price point. A lot of people will miss out on good glimpses into history because of greed. It's just sad to me.

[Double_D]

To a point. The source material was funded by the US government with taxpayer dollars. I'm sure they obtained the footage for pennies on the dollar.... and it's hard to believe the operating costs to index and host these small snippet files could warrant such a price point. A lot of people will miss out on good glimpses into history because of greed. It's just sad to me.

 

Good point

[Echo38]

The Roaring Glory warbird videos were quite expensive to make, and yet it only costs, what, $10 US to buy a copy? I'm with Merlin-27.

[Double_D]

The Roaring Glory warbird videos were quite expensive to make, and yet it only costs, what, $10 US to buy a copy? I'm with Merlin-27.

 

I agree:thumbup: