Super vrs Uber

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
We are taking about airplanes Otto. I don't see any kill tallies for the number of Ivan foot solders. Why do you hide your other nick? Fw190fan was, and most likely still is, Barbi's little lapdog. There is a simularity between you and him.

No you're talking about airplanes. I said: "Up till the Normandy landing the air war in the west was little more than a sideshow to the huge bloody war in the east. It is only natural that the kill tallies reflect this fact."

The war in the east was a war of annihilation. The war in the west was a nuisance until Normandy and had little or no real effect on the outcome of the war.

And I'm not Fw190fan.

[MiloMorai]

I suggest you dig out that Spit VIII document that you saved Kurfy. On it the Spit got 10mi/gal > 85 x 10 = 850mi(1367km)

850 - 615 = 235mi
850 - 725 = 125mi

average range advantage of +180mi for the Spitfire.

Would you like to try again?

[OttoJ]

Btw. Milo, fully fueled the P-51 was also a female dog to fly. Dangerous even.

[Kurfürst]

The Spit VIII datasheet says 740 miles on eco cruise on internal, Milo.

If you really want to use comparable figures, use the 10 mpg given for the 109G, it had 88 gallon internal, so its 880 miles. Of course, its quite theoretical, like your figure, and not many MkVIIIs were built.

[F4UDOA]

Kurfurst/HoHun

Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift. Almost all fighters in WW2 had Clmax's of between 1.3 and 1.6 with no flaps and engine power off. Based on this and the very small wing area of the 109 as soon as the weight of the 109 begins to reach 7000lbs the wingloading hits 40lbs per SQft. And the G6 was a 7000lb aircraft. The F4U-1A at 12,000lbs had wing loading of 38lbs per Sqft. and combat flaps deployable up to 200Knots IAS. And at 12,000lbs it was carrying enough fuel (237 gallons 1422lbs) for a 1,000mile range and 750lbs of .50cal ammo. The actual "Interceptor" Loadout was half fuel and half ammunition. That is more than 1,000lbs lighter. At that weight the wingloading is 35lbs per SQft and the climb to 20K is reduced by 1 minute while the range is still comprable to the 109.

Also the power loading of the 109G6 at 6,950LBS and 1475HP is 4.7. The F4U-1A is at 5.3 at gross weight but only 4.8 at 11,000lbs. Almost equal.

Otto,

I am not sure were the 109 was being produced (I think it was in Czechoslovakia) or in what year, but the F4U was being produced at the Vought factory in the 1950's for use in the US and sold to the French to be flown off of their carriers and then the Argentinian's Carrier into the 60's. Not third world countries or the Yugo factory in Czechoslovakia.

Bruno,

Your getting boring. Bring something to the table to make an arguement please.

[OttoJ]

The range listed would most likely include a reserve, so if you look at consumption and fuel load numbers they will usually yield a greater range. This will most likely vary depending on aircraft and nationality.

Spits and 109s are very similar in range on internal. Depending on version the real advantage can go either way. The Spit carried more fuel, but the 109 had a more economical engine.

[MiloMorai]

Oh yes Otto, the P-51 was so unsuited for ground attack that the A-36 flew some +23,000 sorties and only lost 177 a/c to enemy air and ground weapons. That is 1 A-36 lost for every 130 sorties flown. Naturally the 109 with 2 radiators under the a/c was not as suseptable to ground fire.

Only with the fuselage tank filled was the P-51 hard to fly.

[OttoJ]

F4UDOA, the 109 was produced in Spain until the late '50s. I forget the exact year.

[OttoJ]

Yes Milo the 109 would be more survivable because of the two radiators. They had shut-off valves. One bullet in the P-51's radiator and it is doomed. One bullet in a 109's radiator and it can fly home with 50% of its cooling intact.

I have read nothing that says the 109 G-2 R1/R2 was difficult to fly. The R2 version was perhaps the most used recce 109 in the mid-war years.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Kurfurst/HoHun

Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift. Almost all fighters in WW2 had Clmax's of between 1.3 and 1.6 with no flaps and engine power off.

[/B]

If thats true it would mean that two planes with exactly the same wingloading can differ by 20% on the actual amount of lift delivered. And you obviously dont take into account the leading edge slats of the 109, which will allow AoA that normal airfoils simply cannot follow without stalling. It`s just not that simple.

 Based on this and the very small wing area of the 109 as soon as the weight of the 109 begins to reach 7000lbs the wingloading hits 40lbs per SQft. And the G6 was a 7000lb aircraft. The F4U-1A at 12,000lbs had wing loading of 38lbs per Sqft. and combat flaps deployable up to 200Knots IAS. And at 12,000lbs it was carrying enough fuel (237 gallons 1422lbs) for a 1,000mile range and 750lbs of .50cal ammo. The actual "Interceptor" Loadout was half fuel and half ammunition. That is more than 1,000lbs lighter. At that weight the wingloading is 35lbs per SQft and the climb to 20K is reduced by 1 minute while the range is still comprable to the 109.

[/B]

So if your data is correct, they are very close and you havent even looked into details like the slats and CLs.

In the lightened condition it has 500 miles range and little ammo, and still not much of a diffo for turning. I don`t know for climbing, havent checked it yet. It would be best to plot the data on charts, its easiest to see that way.

Also the power loading of the 109G6 at 6,950LBS and 1475HP is 4.7. The F4U-1A is at 5.3 at gross weight but only 4.8 at 11,000lbs. Almost equal.

[/B]

Yep, not much of a difference, and the 109 is likely to have much less drag. Would that mean F4U was totally obsolate since it matched the 109G-6?

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by OttoJ
Spits and 109s are very similar in range on internal. Depending on version the real advantage can go either way. The Spit carried more fuel, but the 109 had a more economical engine.

Actually the only Spit carryign more fuel is the MkVIII and its offsrping MkXIV, ie 111/120 imp gallons. The other Spits carried 85 impg vs. 88 on the 109, pretty much the same.The VIII had good range, thats why it was used in the PTO, but the XIV had the big griffon that eat so much that it would range with 111 gallons to same as the IX with 85 gallons.

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Yep, not much of a difference, and the 109 is likely to have much less drag. Would that mean F4U was totally obsolate since it matched the 109G-6?

lol

[Karnak]

Kurfurst,

I called you a Nazi?  I see your revisionist history doesn't just extend to WWII, but also to the recent past.  You have repeatedly called me a Nazi whenever you can't make solid points.  It is your typical method to resort to ad hommes.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spit VIII datasheet says 740 miles on eco cruise on internal, Milo.

If you really want to use comparable figures, use the 10 mpg given for the 109G, it had 88 gallon internal, so its 880 miles. Of course, its quite theoretical, like your figure, and not many MkVIIIs were built.

You do have your troubles don't you Kurfy, as well as being selective on which documents you use. Try doc A58-315 which was posted here some time ago.

The LF MkVIII and LF MkIX used the same engine, a 66. The HF MkVIII and LF MkIX used the same engine, a 70. The only difference in the engines was the supercharger gearing. It does not really matter if it was a HF or a LF, it still got 10mi/gal in eco cruise mode.

eco cruise milage for the G-6:
725/88 = 8.2mi/gal
615/88 = 7.0mi/gal

Not up to the 10mi/gal the Spit got on eco cruise, is it?

740mi is not eco cruise but for high cruise speed. Eco cruise is 1800rpm while your range data is for 2650rpm.


Otto, why would short range tactical recon a/c need the extra wing drop tanks.

[Bruno]

Yep, not much of a difference, and the 109 is likely to have much less drag. Would that mean F4U was totally obsolate since it matched the 109G-6?

Exactly,

The G-6 would accelerate faster, climb better and turn, at least initially, with his state of the art F4U-1. His issue with 'top speed' depends on the boost.

For instance in AH2 the top speed of the G-6 is:

20K

Military Power – 20000 FT 38.9 MP @ 2600 RPM = 378 MPH
Emergency Power – 20000 FT 42.2 MP @ 2800 RPM = 388 MPH

630km/h @ 6600m is the top speed for a G-6 @ 1.30 ata

At 1.42 ata the top speed should be around 655km/h (depending on whose numbers you believe cleared for 1,42ata  in June/July '43 or Nov '43).

As an example the F-4 was flight tested:
635 km/h with 1.30 ata / 2500 rpm.
670 km/h with 1.42 ata / 2700 rpm

and in regards to the G-2 at least according to Butch:

In fact when first issued to units the G-2 was cleared for 1.42ata, hence faster than the F-4 with a top speed around 700-710 km/h IIRC. Then serious troubles with the DB605A appeared with mass production of the engine, which resulted in the boost being limited to 1.30ata. Keep in mind that G-2 top speed in the later condition is around 660-670km/h roughly similar to an F-4 cleared for 1.42ata.

The Gustav certainly wasn't outdated by '43, not even if we believe F4U's math...

By early '44 new variants improved upon the standard G-6 (G-6/AS, G-14, G14/AS, and later in '44 G-10, K-4).