quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Do some research.

The P-51H didn't use 67 inches of boost in any operational role.

Using 115/145 octane fuel, and at 90 inches MAP it had a climb over 5000 ft per minute and a top speed of 487mph, 424mph at Sea level. That sea level speed makes the rest of the WWII prop set (except the Tempest) look pathetic.

And thats with a full fuel load, which would take it to Berlin. In a combat load situation, it would have a climb closer to 6000 ft per min.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...1h-altperf-91444.jpg

And a properly modelled P-51H would have no problem dogfighting, it would be doing it at 400mph, flying circles around the opposition.

So why the majority of tests in 1944-1945 are done using normal grade fuel?
Maybe it wasn't available in sufficient amounts to feed a fleet of thousands of operational fighters during war-time? And the engine wasn't cleared for operational use at such boost back then? In fact P-51H wasn't used even in Korea...
which is.. strange....

Postwar tests look impressive, but are still inferior to contemporary jets by that time.

And... actually a SpitIX, using the same engine, boosted at that level would still perform better...

I think the case between the SPitfire or the P51 all depends on whether you need the range of the P51 or not.

If you dont, then take the Spit.

The israelis for example preffered the Spit IX to the P51D because they didnt need the extra range.

Heres what their thoughts were on the Spit LF IX, the P51D, P47 and the Avia S199..

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

quote:

Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
Whats the sense, if its not only about the planes in game? You could say Eurofighter then...

No, the most advanced plane in game is IMHO MiG-9 and YP-80... and if 'what if' planes also count, then its Me262HG and Ta-183, since their swept wing design and of course Heinkel 'Lerche'.

+1

What's the sense at all since this is empirical question it isn't a question that can be decided by any other criteria other than performance.

Therefore if we look cleanly at all planes in game it probably must be Me-163 arguably followed by TA-183.

Otherwise it can easily be a P-38.
Plane was fair in A2A and well above average for A2G. Count in 2 props for extra safety and mommoth range and we have a winner.

quote:

Originally posted by erco415:
I'm not giving short-shrift to the Soviets at all, PanzerAce. The MiG-9 is a good airplane, and good at it's mission (though consider that the MiG's service life was rather shorter than the Lockheed's, AFAIK), but the YP-80 has all of the features of modern jet fighters in a more refined package than the -9. As for what aircraft to compare the 80 to, I'm limiting myself to ingame aircraft.

The reason the Mig's service life was shorter was because it was developed later (chronologically, earlier generationally....if that makes any sense without studying jet development trends b/w the 30's and 1950), and the Mig-15 and it's ilk were already in the pipeline when the -9 first started flying.

Refined? Well, I'll give you that, but again, I'd argue that's a result of development times and experiences of the two nations (and the fact that soviet metallurgy was, well, soviet metallurgy )

quote:

The MiG-9 is also a solid design, but I am given to understand the placement of the center cannon led to large volumes of gun gasses being ingested by the engines whenever it was fired, leading to frequent flame-outs, and I believe that use of that cannon was prohibited from operational units, which limited it to an effective armament of only 2x23mm.

The problem with the 57mm/37mm main gun on the Mig-9 is that there is no western, and possibly no soviet source, that has really done an in depth analysis of the problems they had with it (atleast, none that I have been able to find). While flame outs would make sense given the fragile nature of the RD-20/BMW003 engines, it doesn't jive with the fix that the Russians came up with of putting a vane on the barrel shroud. To *me* that indicates the problem was more with unequal distribution of exhaust gasses resulting in one of the engines losing thrust for long enough for the plane to start trying to spin. (But then, I am not an aeronautical engineer [IANAAE])

MiG-9 cannon as noted chances to stall the engine above 3000m and prohibited to fire above 6000m.

Performance is not the only measure of advanced. Gunsight, pilot protection, ability to exit in emergency, trim,
need for trim changes, ease of trim and flight, oxygen/pressurization/communications integration, radio(s),
instruments and layout, engine management and workload, gear and ease of landing, lift aid devices and other
handling and performance enhancing features, ability to take hits, fire inhibiting and extinguishing, types and
balance of control surfaces, and I'm sure there are more etcs enough for a list.

If your plane has an edge in battle but there are enough planes on both sides that your non-combat losses tip the
scale against you then you don't have the better overall plane.

quote:

Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Do some research.

The P-51H didn't use 67 inches of boost in any operational role.

Using 115/145 octane fuel, and at 90 inches MAP it had a climb over 5000 ft per minute and a top speed of 487mph, 424mph at Sea level. That sea level speed makes the rest of the WWII prop set (except the Tempest) look pathetic.

And thats with a full fuel load, which would take it to Berlin. In a combat load situation, it would have a climb closer to 6000 ft per min.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...1h-altperf-91444.jpg

And a properly modelled P-51H would have no problem dogfighting, it would be doing it at 400mph, flying circles around the opposition.

So why the majority of tests in 1944-1945 are done using normal grade fuel?
Maybe it wasn't available in sufficient amounts to feed a fleet of thousands of operational fighters during war-time? And the engine wasn't cleared for operational use at such boost back then? In fact P-51H wasn't used even in Korea...
which is.. strange....

Postwar tests look impressive, but are still inferior to contemporary jets by that time.

And... actually a SpitIX, using the same engine, boosted at that level would still perform better...

P-51H According to JBaugher's sight, and serial listings, only 555 P-51H's were produced, and almost none of its parts were interchangeable with the P-51D. If you take a look at his P-51D page, you'll see that nearly 10,000 P-51D/K's were produced.

In Korea, prop-jobs were AtG only, what with MiG-15's and F-86's buzzing around at near the speed of sound, so what are you going to field to get shot up by the AAA, the ultra-light weight version that was built in only small numbers before the war ended and all production contracts were canceled, on the one you've got so many that you have to sell then at scrap metal prices to get rid of them?

487mph is great for a propeller engined aircraft, but you have to remember, the F-86A does 679mph at sea level, and 601mph at 35,000 ft, with a ceiling of 48,000. The MiG-15 is reported to have a ceiling of 51,000ft (15.5km). It doesn't matter how advanced a prop fighter is; against those performance numbers, you're going to be extremely hard pressed to even break even if one of them decides you're going down.

Harry Voyager

Addendum, most of the tests were done using 100 octane, because 150 wasn't developed until Winter of 1944, and at that point was only for limited distribution. However, by the point at which the P-51H was being fielded, I am given to understand it was in much more general distribution. I'm pretty sure that's what the P-47M and N models were running off of, but I haven't found a way to confirm or deny it yet.

The Spit IX with +25lb boost is in game, and no, it doesn't perform better. Il-2 Compare pegs it at ~640kph at 5km, while the Mustang MkIII (again, +25lb/75" boost) does about 710kph at the same altitude, and 730kph at 6.5km

Hi Harry, you are only talking about top speed. The Spit IX performs better in other areas.

The SPit XIV in more.

most advanced fighters in-game

jets;

Go-229 for its airframe (and necessary control for said configuration, elevons and spoilers), axial flow jets, tricycle gear, braking parachute, ejection seat, airbrakes and "stealth", as Reimar Horton avers the charcoal dust in the glue was for

YP-80 for its boundary layer air intake bleed, boosted ailerons, tricycle gear, cockpit pressurization/air conditioning and dive recovery flaps

props;

P-38 for tricycle gear, turbo-supercharging, boosted ailerons, dive recovery flaps, hybrid flaps (that is, maneuver flaps were hinged, combined with extending Fowler-type), contra-inward-rotating props, flush riveting and overall airframe design (high aspect ratio with high wing loading and low power loading, high taper ratio, high tail length ratio and high aspect ratio for the tail)

Whichever one I'm flying at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hi Harry, you are only talking about top speed. The Spit IX performs better in other areas.

The SPit XIV in more.

Well, generally speaking, if I've got a 50-100kph speed advantage on you, co-altitude, unless I blow my energy, you've got a big problem. Speed really does allow you to control the terms of the fight. At least, until you screw it up, that is.

One fun little note, that I ran into after playing with the settings from the P-51D-20NA thread, is that the Mustang MkIII cruises at around 400mph at 3km.

Don't know how it would be against the Mk14, though. The Griffin is a major step up from the Merlin in many ways.

It would be interesting to see how the P-51 would have been with a Griffin. I do wonder why they never tried it.

Harry Voyager