PDA

View Full Version : THE Most Advanced Fighter in IL2



The_Stealth_Owl
10-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Sorry for so many threads.


But. What do you guys think the most advanced plane is in IL2 (Fighter) or (Fighter Bomber)?

It can be a jet, or whatever. Ingame, what is the most advanced. Not your favorite, not the best, but the most advanced. Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
10-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Sorry for so many threads.


But. What do you guys think the most advanced plane is in IL2 (Fighter) or (Fighter Bomber)?

It can be a jet, or whatever. Ingame, what is the most advanced. Not your favorite, not the best, but the most advanced. Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frankthetank36
10-24-2009, 04:55 PM
Go-229

waffen-79
10-24-2009, 05:00 PM
YP-80
Go-229
Do-335

M_Gunz
10-24-2009, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Go-229 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Sorry for so many threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on! You expect us to believe that?

The_Stealth_Owl
10-24-2009, 05:07 PM
You don't have to believe a true thing. Sorry.

The_Stealth_Owl
10-24-2009, 05:16 PM
Also by advanced, I mean also like witch one had more modern or advanced cockpits. But it has to be advanced plane.

Buzzsaw-
10-24-2009, 05:27 PM
Salute

The most advanced prop fighter in IL-2 is the one which isn't there.

P-51H. Far superior performance to any other production WWII Prop aircraft.

The most advanced Jet fighter could be anything, depending on whether you accept the fantasy aircraft as being credible. Doing that provides highly dubious results. For example, the only flying prototype of the G0-229 crashed on its third flight, killing the pilot.

If you are only looking at production aircraft, it would probably be one of the Soviet Jets from 1946, or the Me-262 or YP-80. If you are restricting the criteria to actual WWII production aircraft, then the 262 is the obvious choice.

Freiwillige
10-24-2009, 05:37 PM
P-80
ME-163

Mods
F-86\Mig-15

The_Stealth_Owl
10-24-2009, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The most advanced Jet fighter could be anything, depending on whether you accept the fantasy aircraft as being credible. Doing that provides highly dubious results. For example, the only flying prototype of the G0-229 crashed on its third flight, killing the pilot.

If you are only looking at production aircraft, it would probably be one of the Soviet Jets from 1946, or the Me-262 or YP-80. If you are restricting the criteria to actual WWII production aircraft, then the 262 is the obvious choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Anyplane without mods in the game as long as its a fighter or fighter bomber will do for the most advanced plane.


Also wthout mods.

PanzerAce
10-24-2009, 06:11 PM
Most advanced? Probably the Me-163.

Frankthetank36
10-24-2009, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

The most advanced prop fighter in IL-2 is the one which isn't there.

P-51H. Far superior performance to any other production WWII Prop aircraft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? The Ta-152 is only like 10mph slower at altitude, and it is much better armed.

baronWastelan
10-24-2009, 07:03 PM
La-9

Daiichidoku
10-24-2009, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

The most advanced prop fighter in IL-2 is the one which isn't there.

P-51H. Far superior performance to any other production WWII Prop aircraft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? The Ta-152 is only like 10mph slower at altitude, and it is much better armed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not to mention the 472mph 4,000ft/min 3,000mi range 4x 20mm twin engine safety dh103 hornet

Metatron_123
10-24-2009, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by baronWastelan:
La-9 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but apart from great armament (4 23mm cannon) there is absolutely nothing exceptional about that craft. It was as good as the La-7 performance-wise, but made to last i.e made of metal. After the war the Soviet air force had thousands of basically semi-disposable aircraft built for wartime that it had to replace. The La-9 is what I would call an evolutionary rather than revolutionary development in fighter design. It was a match for the late war piston fighters, but in no way radical or advanced. And it's not in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ImMoreBetter
10-24-2009, 08:08 PM
P.11c.

Kettenhunde
10-24-2009, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-51H. Far superior performance to any other production WWII Prop aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering it had a plain old carbureted engine, the P51H does pretty well.

The_Stealth_Owl
10-24-2009, 08:16 PM
In game

erco415
10-24-2009, 09:21 PM
On the bomber side, there can be little doubt that the B-29 was, easily, the most advanced.

On the fighter side, the late war piston fighters had all reached a similar level of sophistication. The writing was on the wall, however, for piston power, so we're left with the turbine powered fighters to choose from. Of these, the one most like the generations of fighters to come is the YP-80. The MiG-9 also has some of the traits of later generations of jet fighters, but the Lockheed is a more comprehensive answer to the question of how to build a jet fighter.

PanzerAce
10-24-2009, 09:55 PM
That's pretty disingenuous to the Soviet's erco. The P-80 is *an* answer to how to build a jet fighter, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the Mig-9. In fact, it arguably was a better fit for the needs of the country that produced it. While the P-80 was an OK dogfighter, it didn't have the range/endurance (before adding a bunch of drop tanks) to escort bombers (which is what was really what the US needed at that point), and the .50 cal armament, while sufficient for WWII, was already starting to show it's age by 1945 (Every other major combatant was using cannon as the primary armament).

Conversly, the Mig-9 is a great fit for the operational requirements of the Soviets (especially given that it was essentially their first jet fighter). They knew what the B-29 was capable of (remember, they got a few that landed in Russia), and so knew that it was the future of American airpower. The twin engine, heavy armament Mig-9 is a great interceptor. Sure, it can't dog fight very well (for a variety of reasons, mostly revolving around the weapons), it isn't supposed to. It's job is to shoot down bombers. The later Migs (Up untill the -19) continued the tradition of bomber destruction as the primary role.

Realistically, given the progression of Jet development, it's far more fair to compare the Mig-9 to the P-59, and the YP-80 to the later Mig-9s or maybe even the Mig-15, in terms of development times and experience with jet engines.

&lt;/senior thesis mode&gt;

Erkki_M
10-25-2009, 08:38 AM
If you dont look just at the performance but technical advantageness, I'd say Me-262 and Focke-Wulf 190s... Bearcat and Sea Fury too, if post-war aircraft that saw no action are counted.

DKoor
10-25-2009, 08:47 AM
P-38.

RSS-Martin
10-25-2009, 08:55 AM
Do335 one of the first fighters with presurized cockpit, ejection seat and the fastest propeller driven aircraft of WWII.

erco415
10-25-2009, 09:45 AM
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.

Airplanes like the ME262 and HE162 are very good, too, but their configuration was a developmental dead end.

doraemil
10-25-2009, 11:09 AM
you have to clarify advanced. If you mean technological and design wise, pick any of the swept wing jets in the game.


The Lerche is up there too, because it can hover and land vertically.


The most advanced carrier is Corsair *Cry* Where is the F8F Bear??

X32Wright
10-25-2009, 11:34 AM
With practical planes that had actual full-scale prototypes or limited runs I would say two:

Ta-152C

Do-335 (Pfeil)

They were the most advanced piston engined prop planes at the time. Jets belong to a different generation.

RSS-Martin
10-25-2009, 11:39 AM
The Lerche is a pile of rubbish, existed only on paper, never flew.

The_Stealth_Owl
10-25-2009, 11:55 AM
As advanced I mean, most modern cockpit, most modern technology, and most advancedness.

thefruitbat
10-25-2009, 01:18 PM
what does blue smell of?

The_Stealth_Owl
10-25-2009, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
what does blue smell of? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Daiichidoku
10-25-2009, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
Jets belong to a different generaton. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, an earlier generation

He-178 first flight: Aug 1939
He-280 first flight: Mar 1941
Me-262 first flight: July 1942
Gloster Meteor first flight: Mar 1943

Do-335 first flight:Oct 1943
Ta-152 first flight:"Autumn" 1944

na85
10-25-2009, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
Jets belong to a different generaton. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, an earlier generation

He-178 first flight: Aug 1939
He-280 first flight: Mar 1941
Me-262 first flight: July 1942
Gloster Meteor first flight: Mar 1943

Do-335 first flight:Oct 1943
Ta-152 first flight:"Autumn" 1944 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm... prop planes were flying long before the He-178's first flight. I wouldn't say jets are an earlier generation.

Xiolablu3
10-25-2009, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
As advanced I mean, most modern cockpit, most modern technology, and most advancedness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the Me262. For a combination of factors (swept wings, fast, heavy armament, its real etc etc)

He162 is close behind but has lighter armament and no swept wings.

On the Allied side it would be the P80, if there was a De Havilland Vampire in the game, that would be included too.

The Meteor F3 was a decent bird, but not as good overall IMO as the P80 or Vampire. The Meteor F1 and F2 were only just faster than the fastest props at sea level, and slower up high. 400+mph at sea level. The Meteor F3 of Dec 1944 was a large improvement. Basically the Meteor served as a great 'in service test bed' for the RAF jet generation.

Not sure about the Russian side as I never flew any of the Russian jets.

Daiichidoku
10-25-2009, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I wouldn't say jets are an earlier generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

clearly, I was citing Wrights examples, the Pfiel and the Ta 152, not props as a whole

but indeed, jets are not an earlier generation than props, but of the same generation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coanda-1910

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-25-2009, 03:00 PM
Westland Whirlwind

First flight: 15:00 Thursday October 11th 1938. Pilot - Harald Penrose, whose logbook read "This aircraft has the most advancedness I've ever seen".

koivis
10-25-2009, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Westland Whirlwind

First flight: 15:00 Thursday October 11th 1938. Pilot - Harald Penrose, whose logbook read "This aircraft has the most advancedness I've ever seen". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Advancedness... man that's my new favourite word in English language. From now on I'm gonna be a dedicated Advancedness-word user, and propably gonna change my sig accordingly too.

"Koivis, an advanced pilot, flying online as "4dv4ncedne55-f4n".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Tipo_Man
10-26-2009, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

The most advanced prop fighter in IL-2 is the one which isn't there.

P-51H. Far superior performance to any other production WWII Prop aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm lets see closesly:
A plane produced in 1945, using high octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...ang/p-51h-64161.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html)

Climb rate:
similar to 1940-1941 planes:
Bf-109F4
SpitV
Even I-16 with M-63 engine can beat it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Speed:
Yes, it was fast at high level, but at sea level (358Mph) still comparable to 1943 Fw-190A5, La-5FN.

Maneuverability:
Good high speed handling, but would be an easy kill in a dogfight against La-7, SpitXIV, Dora's, etc...
Even older SpitIX, Bf-109G2 or La-5FN would beat it easily.

Range:
Well.
P-38 and P-47 were there several years before.

Armement:
Weak even for a 1942 fighter. Hilarious for a late war bird

Conclusion:
Good escort fighter.
Poor armement.
Should avoid dogfights.
An easy kill in 1 on 1 engagements.

The best figther in WWII ?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

HarryVoyager
10-26-2009, 10:16 PM
Technically speaking, if the boost is 67" on a Merlin, it's 100 octane, not 150. 150 get 75" of boost.

On most advanced, I'd probably have to tip towards the YP-80, because of the operational jets, it's the only one with a lead computing gunsight, and I believe it may be the only one with fully powered control surfaces.

The Me-262 loses points for the highly breakable landing gear, and the under-wing podded jet engines, while a good idea for the engines at hand, ended up being a dead end as far as fighter design went.

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.

Basically, of the three, the YP-80 was generally a more mature design, with fewer nasty kill-you-now quirks than its contemporaries, while still offering full jet performance.

I will agree that the 0.50's were getting a bit long in the tooth, but the nose cluster configuration the P-80 allowed a relatively easy transition to 20mm cannon, if the USAAF had developed on that worked before the P-80 finished production. Though, I expect it would have had the same gun gas ingestion problem that the Sabre had, when they finally fitted that with 20mms, so ymmv.

Buzzsaw-
10-27-2009, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

The most advanced prop fighter in IL-2 is the one which isn't there.

P-51H. Far superior performance to any other production WWII Prop aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm lets see closesly:
A plane produced in 1945, using high octane fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...ang/p-51h-64161.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html)

Climb rate:
similar to 1940-1941 planes:
Bf-109F4
SpitV
Even I-16 with M-63 engine can beat it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Speed:
Yes, it was fast at high level, but at sea level (358Mph) still comparable to 1943 Fw-190A5, La-5FN.

Maneuverability:
Good high speed handling, but would be an easy kill in a dogfight against La-7, SpitXIV, Dora's, etc...
Even older SpitIX, Bf-109G2 or La-5FN would beat it easily.

Range:
Well.
P-38 and P-47 were there several years before.

Armement:
Weak even for a 1942 fighter. Hilarious for a late war bird

Conclusion:
Good escort fighter.
Poor armement.
Should avoid dogfights.
An easy kill in 1 on 1 engagements.

The best figther in WWII ?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-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.

BillSwagger
10-27-2009, 02:03 AM
If we are including planes not in the game then don't forget about the P-47J which was well before its time. It never made it into production but was already reaching speeds above 500mph by 1944. It was built really only to show off the technological advances that could be had if needed.

Republic shelved that project to make the P-72, which in my opinion craps on every other prop driven fighter plane, matching the performance of a P-51H in climb, but also traveling at much higher top speeds.

I'm not arguing against the H model stang, i just think the P-72 was more advanced and if the need had risen to produce such a fighter we would've probably seen the development of more extensive variants. They were designing variants capable of flying as high as 50,000ft. to operate as transcontinental interceptor and escort fighters.
These were some of the most advanced prop planes before jets came along.

The H model stang is really an old prodigy with a bigger engine, i can't say it wasn't a good plane, i just think its actual combat roll was very limited in a time that jets were really starting to succeed. So in otherwords, the P-51H might've been one of the better Mustangs performance wise, but for its time, it was really not all that advanced.

anyway, back to planes in game. I can't decide. P-47 is my favorite, and i find it does well against any opponent even jets.
Please don't kick me if i beat you using a P-47 and you are in a jet.

EJGrOst_Caspar
10-27-2009, 02:23 AM
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'.

Tipo_Man
10-27-2009, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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...

Xiolablu3
10-27-2009, 05:27 AM
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

DKoor
10-27-2009, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+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.

PanzerAce
10-27-2009, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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])

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 06:29 AM
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.

HarryVoyager
10-27-2009, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51H (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_13.html) 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 (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_10.html) 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

Xiolablu3
10-27-2009, 10:30 AM
Hi Harry, you are only talking about top speed. The Spit IX performs better in other areas.

The SPit XIV in more.

Daiichidoku
10-27-2009, 11:59 AM
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)

HayateAce
10-27-2009, 02:22 PM
Whichever one I'm flying at the time.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HarryVoyager
10-27-2009, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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