Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

Karnak, those V 1 pursuit hi-boost R-R mills were running 150 grade petrol..

Note: grade, not octane..

Brooke, for cost of lost P-38s, vs 109/190s,
 - include 2 engines, & most every pilot. LW  pilots jumping out could fly again..

Obviously - 'Bad'...

 [ & I do not describe the P-38 as 'poor' - except by direct comparison with its 'better' rivals - & the P-38 had a 'poor' Vne,- that is a fact]

...planes don't pass service acceptance tests, but a 'better' plane gets 'better' results & a 'better' commander will make 'better' use of them..

[The P-38's 'poor' Vne was not a big factor in the PTO, since most of its opposition had fairly 'poor' Vne performance too..]

Fighters expensively modified to carry out medium bomber missions because fighter bomber A2G missions are TOO expensive [losses-wise] for example..

Doolittle - correctly - determined that the better plane [P-51] got the star gig..

A.A., I never claimed that LW cannon fire caused the RAF to START  fitting their own cannon, I stated that it gave them a proper wake up to bloody well get on with making them work in their major combat types..& just because you fail in your argument, you reach for the  T-bomb.. ..weak mate, piss weak..

Gs, P-38 'dive recovery flaps' did not improve the Vne.. the P-38 was fundamentally incapable of matching or beating either LW 109/190 or P-51
in terms of dive performance/Mach limit..

[Brooke]

Two years from flying prototype to service is pretty much the standard of those days. Fw 190 first flew in 1939 and entered service in 1941. In many respects the 262 was still "experimental" when it was pressed into service, but the enemy was, quite literally, at the gates.

True, but it is so amazing that those folks were working on such a jet fighter starting in 1939 or so and then flew it with jet engines in 1942.

[J.A.W.]

Speaking of flight test data: I was reading the actual US BuAer comparison tests between the F6F-3, F4U-1 (a 1D was tested, which was a bit slower than the birdcage and 1A due to the fixed pylons) and 190A5 the other day. Conclusion from the flight test data was the F4U-1 was superior to the 190 in all aspects except for firepower (due to the cannon) and climb at speeds above 140kts (Corsair was superior in the low-speed climb). The 190's simplified engine controls were noted to be handy and convenient, but nothing that conferred it a particular advantage in combat (and according to the report, was actually a DISADVANTAGE in some ways) over the two American aircraft. It's unclear whether the 190 had the water injection system installed, but the airframe was otherwise confirmed to perform well within the known capabilities of a typical A5 fighter variant.

One of the things I noticed in the report was that the F4U was stated to have the best roll rate at all airspeeds of the three. That's NOT the case in Aces High, where the 190 is one of the few aircraft that will out-roll the Corsair.


Sm,

Those tests were a bit self-serving on behalf of the USN..

They were trying to 'prove' that no new-fangled Nazi scientific gadgets were better than their good ol' US know how..

AFAIK, the radial '190s used hi-test C3 Fuel - with extra injected as a form of ADI, rather than MW-50 or 'water injection' used as internal liquid cooling for WEP on the R-2800s.

& of course, the Kommando-Gerat engine management coordination was better for a fighter pilot concentrating on his combat flying than having to faff about fettling the myriad R-2800 engine control systems - that were really a flight engineers job - in a regular radial bomb-truck/transport application..

The USAAF were pleased to pick up the similar coordinated throttle/prop/mixture/boost controls with the Merlin for the Mustang..

There is some question also, as to the '190 on USN test's ailerons being incorrectly rigged & therefore giving less than optimal [ or LW standard]
performance..

[Ack-Ack]

Karnak, those V 1 pursuit hi-boost R-R mills were running 150 grade petrol..

Note: grade, not octane..

Brooke, for cost of lost P-38s, vs 109/190s,
 - include 2 engines, & most every pilot. LW  pilots jumping out could fly again..

Are you trying to claim that majority of pilots that bailed out of the P-38 didn't survive?  If you are, USAAF records don't back up your 'myth'.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

No, but if they landed safely in Nazi occupied Europe, then they were 'lost' to the USAAF for service in Britain..

[Karnak]

Karnak, those V 1 pursuit hi-boost R-R mills were running 150 grade petrol..

Note: grade, not octane..

They were also at +21lbs boost, not the +25lbs boost shown on the chart you linked.  Note that chart is also calculated performances, not flight data.  WWIIaircraftperformance.com has flight data for the Spitfire Mk XIV at +21lbs boost, fyi.

[J.A.W.]

A.A., What do you know of the "Fork tailed Devil" P-38 myth?

& if the LW actually called them such..

As opposed to it being a another bit of propaganda hype..

[Ack-Ack]

Fighters expensively modified to carry out medium bomber missions because fighter bomber A2G missions are TOO expensive [losses-wise] for example..

Only up to 123 P-38s were converted into Droop Snoots, and the primary ground attack missions flown by the P-38s were dive bombing, not level bombing missions with a Droop Snoot in the lead.  Please show some official USAAF records that show otherwise.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

Karnak, if you are interested in the subject, Mike Williams has a wealth of original documentation on it at his www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site..

[GScholz]

True, but it is so amazing that those folks were working on such a jet fighter starting in 1939 or so and then flew it with jet engines in 1942.

Indeed. They were ahead of their time in several areas of technology, but thankfully it wasn't enough for them to prevail.

[MiloMorai]

Karnak, if you are interested in the subject, Mike Williams has a wealth of original documentation on it at his www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site..

They were also at +21lbs boost, not the +25lbs boost shown on the chart you linked.  Note that chart is also calculated performances, not flight data.  WWIIaircraftperformance.com has flight data for the Spitfire Mk XIV at +21lbs boost, fyi.

Karnak, as well as many others are very familiar with Mike's site.

[Karnak]

Karnak, if you are interested in the subject, Mike Williams has a wealth of original documentation on it at his www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site..

Indeed, as you may note I referenced that very site and I have read all of the Spitfire evaluation documents there.

Mk XIVs on 150 ran at +21lbs boost, not +25lbs boost.

[J.A.W.]

Karnak & M.M., instead of 'troll'-type repetition- why don't you post some actual data, or links to the specifics?

You might learn the reason why Griffon boost was limited to +21lb..

[ Main bearings failing - when run at +25lb]..

& the full RAE report on hi-boost/150 grade V 1 catching FLIGHT TESTS
is there too..

[Karnak]

Karnak & M.M., instead of 'troll'-type repetition- why don't you post some actual data, or links to the specifics?

You might learn the reason why Griffon boost was limited to +21lb..

[ Main bearings failing - when run at +25lb]..

& the full RAE report on hi-boost/150 grade V 1 catching FLIGHT TESTS
is there too..

As stated, contrary to the chart you posted the Mk XIV ran at +21lbs boost on 150 fuel.  You're being childish in your attempt to evade that correction.

[Saxman]

Those tests were a bit self-serving on behalf of the USN..

So let me get this straight, you're calling for people to

why don't you post some actual data, or links to the specifics?

and then when they do and it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, you're dismissing it as being "self-serving."

FYI, if you've read that report, the F6F was noted as inferior to the 190 in a number of performance categories, so no, this wasn't just the USN trying to promote its own machines over the 190.