PDA

View Full Version : Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft by the RAF



BigKahuna_GS
08-02-2008, 10:25 PM
S!

This forum has talked about dive speeds and dive speed superiority for years. Here is a comperative flight test by our friends at the RAF listing several aircraft types.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-dive.jpg

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

This test did not include a late model P47M or an over-boosted P47 version on 150grade fuel.


Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft

By Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R.

This is the first article of a series by former O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit in which he will discuss the flying characteristics of modern aircraft.

During the war many types of fighter aircraft were produced out of the designers bag, some never even reached the prototype stage, others failed to reach Service requirements, but not a few made the grade and are now house hold words the world over. The best known in this country are, of course, the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Typhoon, Mustang and Thunderbolt, and latterly the Tempest and Meteor. Each came out in many guises and fulfilled many roles, some of which they were never designed for, but all did a grand job of work, and were at one time or another indispensable to the work of the R.A.F. Fighter Command.

What follows is intended to give the average non-technically minded reader some idea of how some of these aircraft compare with each other in the matter of performance and manoeuvrability. This is a big job and one which could fill the proverbial book, but in order to keep the subject within the limits of paper rationing and the readers interest, we shall deal with only five of these types namely, the Spitfire XIV, Mustang III, Tempest V, Thunderbolt II and Meteor III, although their performance in relation to other types, including the two best known major German fighters will be found in the accompanying diagrams.

In doing so each aircraft is compared as far as possible on the same basis, full war load but no external equipment such as bombs or r.p. Calculations for radius of action are, however, made with a compliment of external fuel tanks. These items, incidentally, are sometimes ignored by the well-meaning enthusiast who quotes maximum speeds of particular aircraft with complete disregard for the circumstances. Such quotations out of context can be very misleading to the layman, as external additions can account for 30-40 M.P.H. with the added disadvantage of a corresponding reduction in range and manoeuvrability.

The squadron pilot is sometimes the worst offender in this respect, as nothing delights him more than being able to prove that his squadron's aircraft are superior in every respect to his rivals. In doing so, he commits a very forgivable sin and one, which only his unfamiliarity with another type can be blamed.

He is most naturally, far more concerned with what he can do with his own aircraft in the air, and his conviction that the Spitfire, for example is better than the Mustang is largely based on his own experiences. Moreover, his yardstick will be very different from a Mustang pilot, for example, who measures his aircrafts capabilities by its ability to carry out long range escort work, whereas a Spitfire pilot is more impressed by rate of climb and turning ability.

To build a fighter to meet every requirement is out of the question so, at best, every fighter is a compromise with emphasis on one particular quality. Speed may be sacrificed for range, and manoeuvrability for war load, depending on Service requirements and the role for which the particular design is expected to be suited. Generalization, therefore, is going to be difficult, but by making a comparison on "clean"ť aircraft at their individual rated altitudes considerable food for thought will materialize.

Comparison does not mean obtaining results from an indiscriminate dogfight between two fighter types, but a practical assessment of the information gained as a result of specific tests in specific circumstances. These circumstances are standardized by dividing the tests up into two categories, namely, Factual Comparison, which includes speed, rate of climb, range, endurance and acceleration, readily measured against the stop watch, and Competitive Comparison, such as turning circles, rates or roll and dive zoom climbs. Rates of roll an, of course be measured either way. The choice is a matter of opinion.


Maximum Speed and Rate of Climb
Altitude greatly affects the performance of aircraft, particularly its speed and climb, which means that comparison at any one height will give an erroneous impression of an aircrafts capabilities. A graphic presentation is, therefore, the only fair way of doing it, but for the purposes of this article we will take a selection of altitudes as shown in the diagram to illustrate the differences involved.


Speed
The Meteor III is the fastest of those depicted at all heights, followed by the Tempest V, up to 18,000ft when the Mustang III is slightly faster. Next comes the Spitfire, 30 mph slower than the Mustang III at sea level, but 10 mph faster at 30,000ft and nearly 30mph faster than the Tempest V at 25,000ft, which at sea level is 25mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. Finally comes the Thunderbolt II, easily bottom of the list at low altitudes but comfortably holding its own at 30,000ft.

Apart from the acknowledged superiority in this sphere of jet aircraft, therefore, it is not easy as some pretend it is to claim that any one particular fighter is the fastest, it probably isn't. Providing it has a reasonable top speed; its other qualities are far more likely to make it a better fighter than the rest; speed is emphatically not everything.

First prize to the Meteor III.


Climb
To a lesser extent the same applies to rate of climb. Almost invariably the aircraft with the best power to weight ratio will have the best rate of climb. Here the Spitfire XIV comes into its own, followed by the Mustang III, the Tempest V and then the Thunderbolt II. This aircraft incidentally, is actually better than the Mustang and Tempest at around 28,000ft. The Meteor III does not show up quite so well, better than the Thunderbolt at low level, but slightly worse above 15,000ft.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Operational Ceiling
Basic design and operational requirements at the time of the original specifications are largely responsible for dictating the operational ceiling of an aircraft. By operational ceiling is meant, of course, the height at which the maximum rate of climb does not fall below 1,000 ft/min. It will be noticed that there is a comparatively large gap between the high altitude and the low altitude fighter. This is s it should be, and too much importance should not be attached to this quality, particularly for the low altitude fighter, as in all normal circumstances aircraft will be largely operated with a comfortable margin to spare.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Range and Endurance
It is very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory and equitable method of measuring range and endurance on a common basis, but in order to compare one type with another, some sacrifice of individual performance must be made. Fuel consumption, capacity, throttle settings and altitude, particularly altitude, must all be taken into consideration. Detailed consideration of the method used is unnecessary, but it is important to have an appreciation of some of the major issues involved in arriving at accurate conclusions.

In all cases the range is given at the individual aircraft's rated altitude, with full complement of drop tanks where applicable. Throttle settings are standardized in that five minutes are allowed for take-off at full power, climb at maximum throttle settings to rated altitude, five minutes combat at full throttle, 15 minutes at maximum cruising and the balance at economical cruising. This method is purely arbitrary, and should not be taken as representative of an operational sortie.

On these assumptions the Thunderbolt II and Mustang III easily head the list, followed by the Tempest V, Spitfire XIV and Meteor III. Comparison with the speed and rate of climb data shows how considerably the position of the aircraft is changed. The Mustang IV, incidentally, is even better than the Thunderbolt. The Spitfire XIV, which has no equal in the climb, is badly placed, whereas the Tempest V, one of the fastest fighter aircraft, is at something of a disadvantage for a really long-range sortie.

The superiority of the American aircraft is not so remarkable as it seems in that all the other aircraft were originally designed as interceptor fighters, and it was not until the later stages of the War, when offensive action became the major work of Fighter Command, that they had to be impressed.

First prize to the Thunderbolt II.


Acceleration
The ability to accelerate quickly is of paramount importance to fighters and the interceptor class has an obvious advantage in this respect. For comparative purposes it is impracticable to take into account maximum speed as acceleration is only operationally useful at the slower speeds when an interception suddenly has to be made from slow cruising.

For instance, the Tempest V, which is faster than the Spitfire XIV, takes less time to reach any given speed, but the Spitfire has the best acceleration, followed by the Mustang III, Tempest V, Thunderbolt and Meteor III. The unhappy position of the Meteor is accounted for by the natural sluggishness of early jets at the lower speeds. Here again, the power to weight ratio coupled with clean lines in design has considerable effect.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Turning Circles
In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Rates of Roll
The ability to roll rapidly is vital to a fighter, and throughout the War continuous efforts were made to increase the rate of roll particularly at the higher speeds, where some aircraft tend to become unmanageable. Here again it is impossible to state categorically that any one particular type has the best rate of roll, as so much depends on the speed, and to a much lesser extent the altitude at which it is carried out.

For example, the Tempest V is not so good as the Spitfire between two and three hundred miles an hour, but above this speed, in common with the Thunderbolt it will out-roll anything, including the Thunderbolt, particularly at over 400mph. As will be seen from the diagram, the Meteor does not make a very good showing, and may cause some disappointment to jet enthusiasts. Far better results have been obtained from the Vampire class of jet and the Meteor IV.

First prize will have to be shared by the Spitfire and Tempest, depending on the speed at which the roll is executed.


Dives
Speed and acceleration in the dive is an essential quality to a successful fighter, but a decisive conclusion on the order of superiority is largely dependant on throttle settings, and the maximum speed in straight and level flight of the individual aircraft. Here again, however, by carrying out a number of tests under different conditions, it is reasonable to assume that the Meteor is well ahead of its rivals, followed by the Tempest, Thunderbolt, Mustang and Spitfire in that order.

Efficient streamlining and maximum speed both influence the dive, although a jet propelled aircraft will invariably have the advantage, particularly at the higher speeds, when the conventional fighter is progressively more handicapped by airscrew drag, and the accessory protuberances common to all conventionally powered fighters.

No account is taken in this order of Mach number limitations or altitude, as at around 500 mph the limitations imposed on the maximum permissible speeds for each type cause considerable change in the order, but it should be appreciated that these do not affect the diving qualities of the aircraft as opposed to maximum speed of which they are capable.

First prize to the Meteor.


Zoom Climb
The zoom climb is not so easy to assess. Duration of the dive, speed at the beginning of the dive, and throttle settings on the Zoom are amongst only a few of the problems that contribute to the difficulty of obtaining an equitable answer. Until some standard measurement of his quality has been generally agreed upon, the ability to zoom climb must remain one of the many bones of aeronautical contention.

That is the picture. What you make of it depends on the quality you consider most desirable in the modern fighter. Nobody has satisfactorily answered this question, but what ever you decide don't try to sell it to a commercially minded test pilot, his aircraft invariably has just the qualities for which you have been looking.

Comparitive Performance Chart: Maximum Speed, Rate of Climb, Time to Height
Operational Ceiling
Combat Radius of Action
Initial Acceleration
Turning Circle
Rate of Roll
Dive
Specific Data on Aircraft

The Aeroplane June 21st 1946.


_

BigKahuna_GS
08-02-2008, 10:25 PM
S!

This forum has talked about dive speeds and dive speed superiority for years. Here is a comperative flight test by our friends at the RAF listing several aircraft types.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-dive.jpg

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

This test did not include a late model P47M or an over-boosted P47 version on 150grade fuel.


Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft

By Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R.

This is the first article of a series by former O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit in which he will discuss the flying characteristics of modern aircraft.

During the war many types of fighter aircraft were produced out of the designers bag, some never even reached the prototype stage, others failed to reach Service requirements, but not a few made the grade and are now house hold words the world over. The best known in this country are, of course, the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Typhoon, Mustang and Thunderbolt, and latterly the Tempest and Meteor. Each came out in many guises and fulfilled many roles, some of which they were never designed for, but all did a grand job of work, and were at one time or another indispensable to the work of the R.A.F. Fighter Command.

What follows is intended to give the average non-technically minded reader some idea of how some of these aircraft compare with each other in the matter of performance and manoeuvrability. This is a big job and one which could fill the proverbial book, but in order to keep the subject within the limits of paper rationing and the readers interest, we shall deal with only five of these types namely, the Spitfire XIV, Mustang III, Tempest V, Thunderbolt II and Meteor III, although their performance in relation to other types, including the two best known major German fighters will be found in the accompanying diagrams.

In doing so each aircraft is compared as far as possible on the same basis, full war load but no external equipment such as bombs or r.p. Calculations for radius of action are, however, made with a compliment of external fuel tanks. These items, incidentally, are sometimes ignored by the well-meaning enthusiast who quotes maximum speeds of particular aircraft with complete disregard for the circumstances. Such quotations out of context can be very misleading to the layman, as external additions can account for 30-40 M.P.H. with the added disadvantage of a corresponding reduction in range and manoeuvrability.

The squadron pilot is sometimes the worst offender in this respect, as nothing delights him more than being able to prove that his squadron's aircraft are superior in every respect to his rivals. In doing so, he commits a very forgivable sin and one, which only his unfamiliarity with another type can be blamed.

He is most naturally, far more concerned with what he can do with his own aircraft in the air, and his conviction that the Spitfire, for example is better than the Mustang is largely based on his own experiences. Moreover, his yardstick will be very different from a Mustang pilot, for example, who measures his aircrafts capabilities by its ability to carry out long range escort work, whereas a Spitfire pilot is more impressed by rate of climb and turning ability.

To build a fighter to meet every requirement is out of the question so, at best, every fighter is a compromise with emphasis on one particular quality. Speed may be sacrificed for range, and manoeuvrability for war load, depending on Service requirements and the role for which the particular design is expected to be suited. Generalization, therefore, is going to be difficult, but by making a comparison on "clean"ť aircraft at their individual rated altitudes considerable food for thought will materialize.

Comparison does not mean obtaining results from an indiscriminate dogfight between two fighter types, but a practical assessment of the information gained as a result of specific tests in specific circumstances. These circumstances are standardized by dividing the tests up into two categories, namely, Factual Comparison, which includes speed, rate of climb, range, endurance and acceleration, readily measured against the stop watch, and Competitive Comparison, such as turning circles, rates or roll and dive zoom climbs. Rates of roll an, of course be measured either way. The choice is a matter of opinion.


Maximum Speed and Rate of Climb
Altitude greatly affects the performance of aircraft, particularly its speed and climb, which means that comparison at any one height will give an erroneous impression of an aircrafts capabilities. A graphic presentation is, therefore, the only fair way of doing it, but for the purposes of this article we will take a selection of altitudes as shown in the diagram to illustrate the differences involved.


Speed
The Meteor III is the fastest of those depicted at all heights, followed by the Tempest V, up to 18,000ft when the Mustang III is slightly faster. Next comes the Spitfire, 30 mph slower than the Mustang III at sea level, but 10 mph faster at 30,000ft and nearly 30mph faster than the Tempest V at 25,000ft, which at sea level is 25mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. Finally comes the Thunderbolt II, easily bottom of the list at low altitudes but comfortably holding its own at 30,000ft.

Apart from the acknowledged superiority in this sphere of jet aircraft, therefore, it is not easy as some pretend it is to claim that any one particular fighter is the fastest, it probably isn't. Providing it has a reasonable top speed; its other qualities are far more likely to make it a better fighter than the rest; speed is emphatically not everything.

First prize to the Meteor III.


Climb
To a lesser extent the same applies to rate of climb. Almost invariably the aircraft with the best power to weight ratio will have the best rate of climb. Here the Spitfire XIV comes into its own, followed by the Mustang III, the Tempest V and then the Thunderbolt II. This aircraft incidentally, is actually better than the Mustang and Tempest at around 28,000ft. The Meteor III does not show up quite so well, better than the Thunderbolt at low level, but slightly worse above 15,000ft.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Operational Ceiling
Basic design and operational requirements at the time of the original specifications are largely responsible for dictating the operational ceiling of an aircraft. By operational ceiling is meant, of course, the height at which the maximum rate of climb does not fall below 1,000 ft/min. It will be noticed that there is a comparatively large gap between the high altitude and the low altitude fighter. This is s it should be, and too much importance should not be attached to this quality, particularly for the low altitude fighter, as in all normal circumstances aircraft will be largely operated with a comfortable margin to spare.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Range and Endurance
It is very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory and equitable method of measuring range and endurance on a common basis, but in order to compare one type with another, some sacrifice of individual performance must be made. Fuel consumption, capacity, throttle settings and altitude, particularly altitude, must all be taken into consideration. Detailed consideration of the method used is unnecessary, but it is important to have an appreciation of some of the major issues involved in arriving at accurate conclusions.

In all cases the range is given at the individual aircraft's rated altitude, with full complement of drop tanks where applicable. Throttle settings are standardized in that five minutes are allowed for take-off at full power, climb at maximum throttle settings to rated altitude, five minutes combat at full throttle, 15 minutes at maximum cruising and the balance at economical cruising. This method is purely arbitrary, and should not be taken as representative of an operational sortie.

On these assumptions the Thunderbolt II and Mustang III easily head the list, followed by the Tempest V, Spitfire XIV and Meteor III. Comparison with the speed and rate of climb data shows how considerably the position of the aircraft is changed. The Mustang IV, incidentally, is even better than the Thunderbolt. The Spitfire XIV, which has no equal in the climb, is badly placed, whereas the Tempest V, one of the fastest fighter aircraft, is at something of a disadvantage for a really long-range sortie.

The superiority of the American aircraft is not so remarkable as it seems in that all the other aircraft were originally designed as interceptor fighters, and it was not until the later stages of the War, when offensive action became the major work of Fighter Command, that they had to be impressed.

First prize to the Thunderbolt II.


Acceleration
The ability to accelerate quickly is of paramount importance to fighters and the interceptor class has an obvious advantage in this respect. For comparative purposes it is impracticable to take into account maximum speed as acceleration is only operationally useful at the slower speeds when an interception suddenly has to be made from slow cruising.

For instance, the Tempest V, which is faster than the Spitfire XIV, takes less time to reach any given speed, but the Spitfire has the best acceleration, followed by the Mustang III, Tempest V, Thunderbolt and Meteor III. The unhappy position of the Meteor is accounted for by the natural sluggishness of early jets at the lower speeds. Here again, the power to weight ratio coupled with clean lines in design has considerable effect.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Turning Circles
In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.


Rates of Roll
The ability to roll rapidly is vital to a fighter, and throughout the War continuous efforts were made to increase the rate of roll particularly at the higher speeds, where some aircraft tend to become unmanageable. Here again it is impossible to state categorically that any one particular type has the best rate of roll, as so much depends on the speed, and to a much lesser extent the altitude at which it is carried out.

For example, the Tempest V is not so good as the Spitfire between two and three hundred miles an hour, but above this speed, in common with the Thunderbolt it will out-roll anything, including the Thunderbolt, particularly at over 400mph. As will be seen from the diagram, the Meteor does not make a very good showing, and may cause some disappointment to jet enthusiasts. Far better results have been obtained from the Vampire class of jet and the Meteor IV.

First prize will have to be shared by the Spitfire and Tempest, depending on the speed at which the roll is executed.


Dives
Speed and acceleration in the dive is an essential quality to a successful fighter, but a decisive conclusion on the order of superiority is largely dependant on throttle settings, and the maximum speed in straight and level flight of the individual aircraft. Here again, however, by carrying out a number of tests under different conditions, it is reasonable to assume that the Meteor is well ahead of its rivals, followed by the Tempest, Thunderbolt, Mustang and Spitfire in that order.

Efficient streamlining and maximum speed both influence the dive, although a jet propelled aircraft will invariably have the advantage, particularly at the higher speeds, when the conventional fighter is progressively more handicapped by airscrew drag, and the accessory protuberances common to all conventionally powered fighters.

No account is taken in this order of Mach number limitations or altitude, as at around 500 mph the limitations imposed on the maximum permissible speeds for each type cause considerable change in the order, but it should be appreciated that these do not affect the diving qualities of the aircraft as opposed to maximum speed of which they are capable.

First prize to the Meteor.


Zoom Climb
The zoom climb is not so easy to assess. Duration of the dive, speed at the beginning of the dive, and throttle settings on the Zoom are amongst only a few of the problems that contribute to the difficulty of obtaining an equitable answer. Until some standard measurement of his quality has been generally agreed upon, the ability to zoom climb must remain one of the many bones of aeronautical contention.

That is the picture. What you make of it depends on the quality you consider most desirable in the modern fighter. Nobody has satisfactorily answered this question, but what ever you decide don't try to sell it to a commercially minded test pilot, his aircraft invariably has just the qualities for which you have been looking.

Comparitive Performance Chart: Maximum Speed, Rate of Climb, Time to Height
Operational Ceiling
Combat Radius of Action
Initial Acceleration
Turning Circle
Rate of Roll
Dive
Specific Data on Aircraft

The Aeroplane June 21st 1946.


_

M_Gunz
08-02-2008, 10:58 PM
He has a lot of good things to say though a few more details on the dive chart as it were
would have been really nice. Like a number or two perhaps.

stalkervision
08-03-2008, 12:15 AM
why doesn't this non-partial evaluation impress me he asked?

Blottogg
08-03-2008, 12:23 AM
Interesting find, thanks for posting. These period insights are great, especially as time goes on and we loose more and more of the veterans, and their ability to provide first hand accounts.

A couple of things I'd like to comment on. First, I like Sqdn Ldr Wade's comment:

"Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong."

Apparently, fanboi's existed in the 1940's, too.

Second:

"For instance, the Tempest V, which is faster than the Spitfire XIV, takes less time to reach any given speed, but the Spitfire has the best acceleration, followed by the Mustang III, Tempest V, Thunderbolt and Meteor III."

This one has me a little confused. If the Tempest achieves any particular velocity before the Spitfires, then isn't that the definition of better acceleration? a=dv/dt? Or perhaps he's taking engine response time into account as well.

chunkydora
08-03-2008, 12:54 AM
Big, big S for the effort! Thanks a lot.

Nice sig too.

Kettenhunde
08-03-2008, 12:59 AM
It's a magazine article from this magazine:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/The-Aeroplane-Magazine-May-1942--...fp=TL0807030911a5103 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/The-Aeroplane-Magazine-May-1942--1943---4-Copies_W0QQitemZ160257241570QQcmdZViewItem?IMSfp=T L0807030911a5103)

http://www.aeroplanemonthly.co.uk/

Brain32
08-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Bunch of utter BS as usual http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Presmiješno kakvih seljaÄŤina ima na ovom forumu a tko ovo kuzi nek mi stisne bananka ako ima ovlasti http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
08-03-2008, 09:07 AM
IBTK

stathem
08-03-2008, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Zoom Climb
The zoom climb is not so easy to assess. Duration of the dive, speed at the beginning of the dive, and throttle settings on the Zoom are amongst only a few of the problems that contribute to the difficulty of obtaining an equitable answer. Until some standard measurement of his quality has been generally agreed upon, the ability to zoom climb must remain one of the many bones of aeronautical contention.

_ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

QFT

BigKahuna_GS
08-03-2008, 11:53 PM
S!

Here is the aircract type information including the Me109G & 190A series.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-data.jpg

Aaron_GT
08-04-2008, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">why doesn't this non-partial evaluation impress me he asked? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain why you think it is partial.

Kurfurst__
08-04-2008, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Here is a comperative flight test by our friends at the RAF listing several aircraft types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..where?

stalkervision
08-04-2008, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">why doesn't this non-partial evaluation impress me he asked? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain why you think it is partial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just my personal opinion. For one the fw-190 roll rate. Worse at all speeds then the spit?


Rates of Roll

"The ability to roll rapidly is vital to a fighter, and throughout the War continuous efforts were made to increase the rate of roll particularly at the higher speeds, where some aircraft tend to become unmanageable. Here again it is impossible to state categorically that any one particular type has the best rate of roll, as so much depends on the speed, and to a much lesser extent the altitude at which it is carried out.

For example, the Tempest V is not so good as the Spitfire between two and three hundred miles an hour, but above this speed, in common with the Thunderbolt it will out-roll anything, including the Thunderbolt, particularly at over 400mph. As will be seen from the diagram, the Meteor does not make a very good showing, and may cause some disappointment to jet enthusiasts. Far better results have been obtained from the Vampire class of jet and the Meteor IV.

First prize will have to be shared by the Spitfire and Tempest, depending on the speed at which the roll is executed."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg

Aaron_GT
08-04-2008, 03:50 PM
You're making the mistake of assuming that the Spitfire 21 (which is the one doing well in the tests) has anything much in common with the Spitfire IX or XIV. The 21 had a completely new wing which was stiff which virtually eliminated aileron reversal which was what crippled the roll rate of earlier marks. It also had larger ailerons, a revised planform and semi-clipped tips. It was designed to have a high roll rate and design started when the 190 came on the scene.

The stiff wing (earler marks had a telescoping spar in conjunction with a D torsion box) wasn't always popular as it made for a bumpier ride.

Compared to the IX the 21's a different plane that just happens to be mostly Spitfire shaped.

stalkervision
08-04-2008, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You're making the mistake of assuming that the Spitfire 21 (which is the one doing well in the tests) has anything much in common with the Spitfire IX or XIV. The 21 had a completely new wing which was stiff which virtually eliminated aileron reversal which was what crippled the roll rate of earlier marks. It also had larger ailerons, a revised planform and semi-clipped tips. It was designed to have a high roll rate and design started when the 190 came on the scene.

The stiff wing (earler marks had a telescoping spar in conjunction with a D torsion box) wasn't always popular as it made for a bumpier ride.

Compared to the IX the 21's a different plane that just happens to be mostly Spitfire shaped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

never knew that buddy. I will have to do a bit of research on the subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

La7_brook
08-04-2008, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Bunch of utter BS as usual http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Presmiješno kakvih seljaÄŤina ima na ovom forumu a tko ovo kuzi nek mi stisne bananka ako ima ovlasti http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>lol i would go with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Xiolablu3
08-04-2008, 04:44 PM
Nice article. Some mistakes, but on the whole correct as far as the Allied planes go.

Ignore the sour grapes from the Luft-lovers/Spit-haters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Some of you guys are reading things wrong, the diagram shows the FW190 having the best rate of roll, and the 'prizes' are using ALlied planes only, not German planes.

The only things I can see that are wrong are the turn times of the Bf109/FW190. Everything else looks pretty much as it should be.

The 109 tested is probably the 109G6, probably the worst but by far the most numerous Bf109 model, and the Fw190A is probably the captured A3 of Fabers. Its no real surprise that a SPitfire XIV could outdive a Bf109G6 and a Fw190A3.

Ignore the turn times of the German planes, and remember that the German planes are mid-war types vs late war Allied types, and the article is good. What he writes makes pretty good sense.

Aaron_GT
08-04-2008, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">never knew that buddy. I will have to do a bit of research on the subject. Smile </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry if I came over as a bit patronising.

Whilst the 21 first flew in WW2 it's really a post war bird as it wasn't really rushed out into service and only a few hundred of all 2x and Seafire equivalents were built. From memory (dad has most of my books at the moment) the 21 also had some stability teething issues that delayed introduction until 1945, fixed part way through the run and from the start in the 22.

There are basically three classes of Spitfire built in any numbers:

I-II-V-VI-VII-IX-XVI - same airframe, variations on the same wing (armament, wing tips, but same 'core')

VIII-XIV-XVIII - new fuselage but same wings as above. Griffon from XIV (was supposed to be Griffon from IV).

21-22-24 - new fuselage and wing, new u/c.

And Spiteful - prototyped as a new wing on a XIV but production as new wing and fuselage, but the fuselage different in looks enough to warrant a new name.

Not sure if the XII is a VIII airframe or a V.

stalkervision
08-04-2008, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">never knew that buddy. I will have to do a bit of research on the subject. Smile </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry if I came over as a bit patronising.

Whilst the 21 first flew in WW2 it's really a post war bird as it wasn't really rushed out into service and only a few hundred of all 2x and Seafire equivalents were built. From memory (dad has most of my books at the moment) the 21 also had some stability teething issues that delayed introduction until 1945, fixed part way through the run and from the start in the 22.

There are basically three classes of Spitfire built in any numbers:

I-II-V-VI-VII-IX-XVI - same airframe, variations on the same wing (armament, wing tips, but same 'core')

VIII-XIV-XVIII - new fuselage but same wings as above. Griffon from XIV (was supposed to be Griffon from IV).

21-22-24 - new fuselage and wing, new u/c.

And Spiteful - prototyped as a new wing on a XIV but production as new wing and fuselage, but the fuselage different in looks enough to warrant a new name.

Not sure if the XII is a VIII airframe or a V. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don't worry about it buddy. It gives me a good excuse to research into spitfires a lot more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I love researching aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The late war bit through me off... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
08-05-2008, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Not sure if the XII is a VIII airframe or a V. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK they used both types.