Author Topic: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)  (Read 18660 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #270 on: November 18, 2013, 10:36:06 PM »
In game...

(Image removed from quote.)

So max speed is now cruise speed. OK got it.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #271 on: November 18, 2013, 10:39:08 PM »
Yes it says max cruise speed > 395mph @ 20kft

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #272 on: November 18, 2013, 10:48:06 PM »
From D.Caldwell's JG 26 history P.369,Re: Action 29th April;

"At 1230, Lt Soeffing led 6 1st Gruppe aircraft to attack the leading British armour near Lauenburg. In a battle with Spifire XIVs, Soeffing shot down one, but the unit lost Fw. H. Walter. Walter was the last of 763 JG 26 pilots to be killed in the course of the war. Later in the afternoon, Soeffing led 7 aircraft in an escort mission for 14 SG 151 FW 190Fs..."
"On the 30th, the 2nd Gruppe joined the 1st in the Neumuenster area. Both Gruppen spent the day attempting to attack British armour while avoiding 2nd TAF fighters."

& Ww, if your son was one of those lost in these actions, would it be an 'inconsequential, minor annoyance'?



"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #273 on: November 18, 2013, 11:00:15 PM »
So max speed is now cruise speed. OK got it.

Do you fly Aces High?

Unless you have a need to conserve fuel, you push the throttle to max power and keep it there. No time limit in game. No risk of damage. No concerns for oil or cylinder head temps. Climb out to 30k, level off and let it run. Once it peaks at 440 mph, you cruise to where you are headed. The P-51B is top tier at high altitude.
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #274 on: November 18, 2013, 11:09:56 PM »
From D.Caldwell's JG 26 history P.369,Re: Action 29th April;

"At 1230, Lt Soeffing led 6 1st Gruppe aircraft to attack the leading British armour near Lauenburg. In a battle with Spifire XIVs, Soeffing shot down one, but the unit lost Fw. H. Walter. Walter was the last of 763 JG 26 pilots to be killed in the course of the war. Later in the afternoon, Soeffing led 7 aircraft in an escort mission for 14 SG 151 FW 190Fs..."
"On the 30th, the 2nd Gruppe joined the 1st in the Neumuenster area. Both Gruppen spent the day attempting to attack British armour while avoiding 2nd TAF fighters."

& Ww, if your son was one of those lost in these actions, would it be an 'inconsequential, minor annoyance'?


Complete strawman argument. We are discussing the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the Luftwaffe in the closing weeks of the war. Caldwell's description is that of a small number of fighters doing what they could in the face of overwhelming enemy superiority. A gnat bite on the backside of the elephant. Sure, they could shoot down an Allied fighter here and there. Hell, even a blind pig finds the corn sometimes.
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #275 on: November 18, 2013, 11:32:25 PM »
Wow Ww, & written in the best tradition of disregarding losses..

Stalin wrote something similar - even about his own son..

Fact is, those on the receiving end would not agree that those LW dropped butterfly bombs were equivalent to 'straw'..

Here are some air-cooled vs liquid cooled cruising speed match-ups,

R-2800 vs Griffon & Sabre..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-II-ads-a.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/corsair-II-III-ads-b.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_thunderbolt2-aircraftdatasheet.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg



« Last Edit: November 18, 2013, 11:34:06 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15717
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #276 on: November 19, 2013, 12:45:52 AM »
The 109G-6 neither outclimbs nor out-turns a P-51B at 30k.

Sorry -- I meant the D and should have been more clear and said "the G-6 outclimbs and outturns the P-51D at 30k."  I think that the G-6 might outturn both the P-51B and D at 30k, but I would have to test it to know for sure and thus could be wrong in my current suspicion.

Quote
At 30k the 109G-6 can't quite manage 1,400 fpm, while the P-51B can just exceed 2,000 fpm. At that altitude, the 109G-6 simply lacks the power to sustain maneuvering without losing big chunks of altitude. The 109G-6 faces the same issues against the P-47D-25 at 30k. The Jug is still making sea level HP at 30k. It can dump flaps to maneuver, where doing so in the 109G-6 means an unwanted stall if any attempt is made to match the Jug.

If I were to pick a fighter for high altitude bomber escort, I'd pick the P-51B. The Spitfire Mk.XIV has similar speed at 30k, but lack the legs to go more than a couple of sectors.

P-51's and P-47's (and especially Spit 14's, but they are rare in scenarios) are great planes at 30k -- I'm not saying otherwise.  I do agree that P-51's and P-47's are better than 109's in some ways.  It's just that I feel that 109's are better in turning and sometimes, depending on which particular matchup and which alt, at climbing.  In scenarios, the 109's, including the G-6 and G-2, do OK vs. P-51B's, P-51D's, P-47's, and P-38's at all altitudes up to 34k.  Neither dominates the other overall in scenarios, and they are well matched in that environment.  What ends up being much more important is numbers and group tactics.

One would think (I did think it too, until I flew the 109 many times in high-alt scenarios) that the P-51's and P-47's would have such significant advantages at 30k or 34k that the G-2 and G-6 would be annihilated.  But I found that not to be so in the scenario environment.  One big aspect is that everything has constraints at 30-34k.  Up there, one hard turn blows such huge amounts of energy that even a slower G-6 to blow through P-51 and P-47 sweeps more often than not (talking from much personal experience here flying them in scenarios at 34k against a wide assortment of pilots, some of them very good pilots who are the opposite of inept).  Also, it's hard to kill anything at 30-34k if the opponent is willing to pull a decent number of g's to get out of your way, no matter whether you are the P-51 trying for the 109 or vice versa.  Most dogfights starting at 30-34k don't get resolved until a much lower altitude (unless it is against an escort who isn't evading as hard as possible because he is trying to stay with the bombers).  Many-on-many fighting changes the dynamics of the fights as well.

The toughest plane I ever fought at high alts in scenarios has been the Spit 14.  That one, I do think is better than any 109 model in every way at high alt.  Still, even there, high alt and many on many are the great equilizers, and the groups I was in did OK against them in 109K's (The Final Battle) and 190D's (Winter Sky).

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #277 on: November 19, 2013, 06:22:56 AM »
The P-51B can cruise along at 440 mph at 30k in MIL power.... Pretty sporty.

Yes it is a superb high altitude fighter with that -3 engine. Don't get to see them very often in 1944 scenarios though, mostly D-Ponies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most 51Bs re-engined to the -7 in 1944?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #278 on: November 19, 2013, 08:25:55 AM »
With the introduction of the P-51C-5-NT onto the Dallas production line and the P-51B-15-NA in the Inglewood production line, the Packard V-1560-7 engine was adopted as standard. It offered 1450 hp for take off and a war emergency rating of 1695 hp at 10,300 feet. Maximum speed at 20,000 feet was reduced from 440 to 435 mph, but increased from 430 to 439 mph at 25,000 feet. 398 P-51B-10-NAs, 390 P-51B-15-NAs, and 1350 P-51C-10-NTs were built, all powered by the V-1650-7 engine.

 Serial numbers of P-51Bs:

43-12093/12492      North American P-51B-1-NA Mustang
            (NA-102)  c/n 102-24541/24940.  400 aircraft
43-6313/7112       North American P-51B-5-NA Mustang
            (NA-104)  c/n 104-22816/23305, 24431/24540, 24941/25140.
            800 aircraft
43-7113/7202       North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25141/25230.  90 aircraft
42-106429/106540      North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25231/25342.  112 aircraft
42-106541/106738      North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25343/25540.  198 aircraft
42-106739/106978      North American P-51B-15-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25541/25780.  240 aircraft
43-24752/24901      North American P-51B-15-NA Mustang
            (NA-104) c/n 104-25781/25930.  150 aircraft

   total of 1990 P-51Bs

Serial numbers of P-51Cs:

42-102979/103328      North American P-51C-1-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-22416/22765.  350 aircraft
42-103329/103778      North American P-51C-5-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-22766/22815, 103-25933/26332. 450 aircraft
42-103779/103978      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-26333/26532.  200 aircraft
43-24902/25251      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-103) c/n 103-26533/26882.  350 aircraft
44-10753/10782      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28886/28915.  30 aircraft
44-10783/10817      North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28916/28950.  35 aircraft
44-10818/10852      North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28951/28985.  35 aircraft
44-10853/10858      North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28986/28991.  6 aircraft
44-10859/11036       North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-28992/29169.  178 aircraft
44-11037/11122       North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-29170/29255.  86 aircraft
44-11123/11152       North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
            (NA-111) c/n 111-29256/29285.  30 aircraft

   total of 1750 aircraft

If an engine change was required and there was -7 engines available is possible.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #279 on: November 19, 2013, 02:24:31 PM »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #280 on: November 19, 2013, 06:14:44 PM »
Yes it is a superb high altitude fighter with that -3 engine. Don't get to see them very often in 1944 scenarios though, mostly D-Ponies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most 51Bs re-engined to the -7 in 1944?

Later in 1944, should a B model require a replacement engine, the general tendency was to change to the -7. However, some pilots preferred the -3 and were not happy. Likewise, some pilots were less than thrilled to surrender their tired B models for new D models. Some came around after flying the D, others found that their original skepticism was reinforced. Personal taste and the natural resistance to change.... A common facet found in every air force.

My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #281 on: November 19, 2013, 06:21:31 PM »
Wow Ww, & written in the best tradition of disregarding losses..

Stalin wrote something similar - even about his own son..

Fact is, those on the receiving end would not agree that those LW dropped butterfly bombs were equivalent to 'straw'..

Not disregarding losses; accepting the reality of war. One needs a perspective that is relevant.

Losses are always saddening. Nonetheless, losses are expected and tolerated if within acceptable numbers. That is the nature of war.

If your air force flies 1,500 sorties a day, you can expect a percentage will not come back. Some lost to enemy action, some lost to operational mishaps.

My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #282 on: November 19, 2013, 06:25:33 PM »
& not to discount the influence of rank/ace status,
 in being able to cherry pick/claim the best performing plane on base,
 & have it well fettled/personalised by the top ground crew..

Re: air superiority, well - the fact is, the  LW's ability to - in the face of overwhelming/crushing Allied numbers - to provide any measure of organised defence/counter attack was actually fairly remarkable, & creditable..
 
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 06:37:19 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #283 on: November 19, 2013, 06:31:56 PM »
Sorry -- I meant the D and should have been more clear and said "the G-6 outclimbs and outturns the P-51D at 30k."  I think that the G-6 might outturn both the P-51B and D at 30k, but I would have to test it to know for sure and thus could be wrong in my current suspicion.

P-51's and P-47's (and especially Spit 14's, but they are rare in scenarios) are great planes at 30k -- I'm not saying otherwise.  I do agree that P-51's and P-47's are better than 109's in some ways.  It's just that I feel that 109's are better in turning and sometimes, depending on which particular matchup and which alt, at climbing.  In scenarios, the 109's, including the G-6 and G-2, do OK vs. P-51B's, P-51D's, P-47's, and P-38's at all altitudes up to 34k.  Neither dominates the other overall in scenarios, and they are well matched in that environment.  What ends up being much more important is numbers and group tactics.

One would think (I did think it too, until I flew the 109 many times in high-alt scenarios) that the P-51's and P-47's would have such significant advantages at 30k or 34k that the G-2 and G-6 would be annihilated.  But I found that not to be so in the scenario environment.  One big aspect is that everything has constraints at 30-34k.  Up there, one hard turn blows such huge amounts of energy that even a slower G-6 to blow through P-51 and P-47 sweeps more often than not (talking from much personal experience here flying them in scenarios at 34k against a wide assortment of pilots, some of them very good pilots who are the opposite of inept).  Also, it's hard to kill anything at 30-34k if the opponent is willing to pull a decent number of g's to get out of your way, no matter whether you are the P-51 trying for the 109 or vice versa.  Most dogfights starting at 30-34k don't get resolved until a much lower altitude (unless it is against an escort who isn't evading as hard as possible because he is trying to stay with the bombers).  Many-on-many fighting changes the dynamics of the fights as well.

The toughest plane I ever fought at high alts in scenarios has been the Spit 14.  That one, I do think is better than any 109 model in every way at high alt.  Still, even there, high alt and many on many are the great equilizers, and the groups I was in did OK against them in 109K's (The Final Battle) and 190D's (Winter Sky).

One of the factors in scenarios is the likelihood that very few players have experience fighting at high altitude. It's a different world up high. When I was a trainer, I would run clinics on high altitude fighting. With practice, one can learn that indicated airspeed is what one watches. Those who plan to fly in a high altitude scenario should practice first. I suggest using the TA where there are 30k air spawning fields.

Wotan and I flew a P-47D-25 vs a 109G6 at 30k. Up that high, the 109 was outclassed. Wotan had to take the fight down hill. At 25k it was closer to even. At 20k the 109 began to show it's strength. Below that, the 109 was notably better (I'm talking maneuver fighting). It clearly showed us the relative strengths of both types. 190Ds are pigs at 30k. Still carry some speed, but they maneuver like dump trucks up that high.
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
« Reply #284 on: November 19, 2013, 06:54:19 PM »


If your air force flies 1,500 sorties a day, you can expect a percentage will not come back. Some lost to enemy action, some lost to operational mishaps.

Yes, the USAAF flying against the LW suffered
higher combat casualties than the USMC grunts in the PTO..

I understand that the comparatively uncomplicated flying technique required
to operate the `51 was also a factor in it being preferred by the 8th AF..



"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."