Favorite fighter/interceptor?

[ccheese]

If I read this poll correctly, the question was what was your favorite
fighter/interceptor. Doesn't say anything about performance, rate of
climb, can it turn on a dime, can it out dive a ME-262. It said favorite...

While the poll is an old one, I think I missed it somehow. So, my "favorite"
is the P-38. Doesn't mean it was the best, fastest, sleekest.... it was my
'favorite'.

Charles

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Bill, since you are our resident Mustang expert with outstanding credentials in that area, I have a question: Is the laminar flow wing more or less sensitive in terms of the finish being clean or smooth with regard to the effect on drag or lift compared to other wing configurations and how would ice or snow or salt water scale effect the lift characteristics of the laminar flow wing? Let me slip in another question: We know the Navy fighters had shorter takeoff distances than the AAF fighters. Was that a function of more wing area, angle of incidence, wing cross section(more camber) or a combination of factors? Thank you.

Depends. Mud and other debris, local damage to leading edge would affect the flow in that area. Ice affects ALL airfoils, don't believe snow fall per se unless it adhered to surface and was not cleared before take off, or accumulated in flight - in which case yes.

A 51 fully loaded (internally) had about 1020+ feet to normally clear a 50' obstacle.. this would vary on the skill of the pilot, the temperature and altitude of the airfield. For England in the winter, less - for Colorado Springs in the summer, more. The CLmax of the 51 wing in general was less than the Navy fighters, and the Drag coefficient was (much) lower.

The weight was not as important as the wing loading at Gross takeoff weights and the Max power thrust to weight ratio at takeoff roll. The latter determines the acceleration to rotation airspeed, the former determines how fast it gains enough altitude to clear an obstacle.

I once had a piece of a Mitsubishi MU-2 and learned how important that thrust to weight and wing loading combination was on a flight out of Addison airport in Dallas in August. We lost an engine right after take off, put the nose down to level flight and flew in a straight line for a couple of miles past TI before we had enough airspeed to safely turn around and return for landing. I sold my 'piece' two weeks later. If I had been in left seat that day, who knows?

That's why the Jug was such a long runner - and why an F4U fully loaded may not have had a shorther run than the 51. I would have to do some checking.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by thrawn

The Rechlin statement is from Dietmar hermann. Its written in his books about the Fw and at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com as a comment to the dora charts. I think he is credible on this. But i think its possible that later the rubber seal was used, but no documentary was found yet. I also find it odd that the germans were trying all with MW50 and higher manifold pressure to gain some km/h more and on the other side they are willing to lost 15km/h because they don't want so seal a simple gap.

Btw, drgondog, I think the methanol in MW50 was only used as an anti-freeze, while the evaporating water sinks the engine temp to allow a higher power output. So pure water will be more effective but it will freeze and cause corrosion. So the Power output will be similar.

Greetings

Thrawn

That makes sense Thrawn..

[renrich]

Thanks to both of you for your answers. Bill, according to Dean, and these data are from USAAF and USN wartime references and are with full load ammo and internal fuel, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and takeoff power. P51D at a gross weight of 10176 lbs took 1185 ft to takeoff. P47D25 @ GW of 14411 lbs took 2540 ft. F4U1 @ GW 12676 took 750 ft. F4U4 @ 12281 GW took 630 ft. F6Fs took slightly longer. P51A took longer than P51D. Bill, I have a friend, a lady from Houston, very well off whose daddy used to have a Bearcat and raced it. They had a MU2 and I seem to remember an incident like you mentioned. Could it be the same airplane?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Thanks to both of you for your answers. Bill, according to Dean, and these data are from USAAF and USN wartime references and are with full load ammo and internal fuel, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and takeoff power. P51D at a gross weight of 10176 lbs took 1185 ft to takeoff. P47D25 @ GW of 14411 lbs took 2540 ft. F4U1 @ GW 12676 took 750 ft. F4U4 @ 12281 GW took 630 ft. F6Fs took slightly longer. P51A took longer than P51D. Bill, I have a friend, a lady from Houston, very well off whose daddy used to have a Bearcat and raced it. They had a MU2 and I seem to remember an incident like you mentioned. Could it be the same airplane?

That F4U figure at 12K sounds like strictly internal load? where the 51D would have about 9600 pounds for full internal fuel, oil and ammo... at any rate the 51 take off roll sounds about right.

As to MU-2, who knows? Having said that it was two of us in 1983. I never flew it again. I also didn't like the way it landed. It was my first spoiler equipped (and last) a/c and was hard (for me) to fly a smooth coupled approach and seemed to always bang hell out of nosewheel when it finally lost enough lift to stay on the ground..

I loved the speed and it was a lot smoother ride in rough weather than say a King Air or Baron.. but like the monkey fornicating with a skunk, I enjoyed all I could stand.

[renrich]

According to Dean P51D with full max internal fuel GW is 10208 lbs. Fuselage tank is 55 lbs and fuel is 1590 lbs. The number of 9611 lbs gross weight is without the fuselage tank and the internal fuel weight is 1080 lbs. I don't know where 10176 GW came from but that was the weight quoted in the table. F4U 4 w/GW of 12420 lbs is with 1404 lbs of internal fuel. I do believe there are a lot of exciting stories about the MU2 but my memory does not serve as well as it once did. The lady I mentioned is about 70 years young and when they had the MU2 would probably be in the time frame mentioned.

[FLYBOYJ]

Ever see the fuel control/ power lever rigging in an MU2? It looks like a drunk spider's web.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

According to Dean P51D with full max internal fuel GW is 10208 lbs. Fuselage tank is 55 lbs and fuel is 1590 lbs. The number of 9611 lbs gross weight is without the fuselage tank and the internal fuel weight is 1080 lbs. I don't know where 10176 GW came from but that was the weight quoted in the table. F4U 4 w/GW of 12420 lbs is with 1404 lbs of internal fuel. I do believe there are a lot of exciting stories about the MU2 but my memory does not serve as well as it once did. The lady I mentioned is about 70 years young and when they had the MU2 would probably be in the time frame mentioned.

P 51D Performance Test

The 9760 Gross weight in the report is the weight with full ammo, full oil, Gentile in the cockpit, wing racks, full wing tanks (184 Gallons) plus 25 of the 85 possible gallons in the fuse tank - another 60 gallons would add 396 pounds if topped off.

That would take Gross to 10156 for complete internal fuel. Having said that, the test really represented a normally max (internally) loaded P-51D which rarely carried more than 55-60 gallons in fuselage tank because of aft cg problems.

So, your number of 10,208 is closer to above calculated 10,156 max TO total (for complete internal fuel, but no external load) and is closer than my recollection of 9600 (P-51B level - full internal load) gross.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Ever see the fuel control/ power lever rigging in an MU2? It looks like a drunk spider's web.

There is a reason that such a high performance ship like this is pretty cheap..

I had all I wanted of it in three flights. The first time I shot a landing in it you would have been switching between laughing and cryin' - I'm glad (just this once) that He wasn't there to critique it.

[renrich]

My table for Typical P51D in Fighter configuration is as follows: empty wgt=7205, trp fluid=61, 6 50 cal=401, pyrotech=6, basic weight=7673, pilot=200,use. oil=94, cal. 50 ammo=564, int. fuel =1080. total =9611 Fighter max fuel configuration is same except: fus. tank=55, bomb racks=32, internal fuel=1590, for total of 10208.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

There is a reason that such a high performance ship like this is pretty cheap..

I had all I wanted of it in three flights. The first time I shot a landing in it you would have been switching between laughing and cryin' - I'm glad (just this once) that He wasn't there to critique it.

There's a trash hauler operating out of Centennial airport that has MU2s - they plant one about 2x a year.

[Soren]

Bill,

The FW-190 Dora-9 performance figures are all at fully loaded weight, which is 4,300 kg.

As for the maneuverability, well I can't really stress this hard enough, the Dora-9 turns better than ANY of the Antons. Also there's no difference in performance or maneuverability between the A-7 & A-8, and the A-9 was a rather rare bird so they couldn't have been refering to this. All comparative tests were done with a cleanly loaded A-8 & D-9.

Didn't notice the P-51B in question had wing racks, thanks for pointing that out. However in terms of climb it doesn't change much other than 10 km is reach 0.05 to 0.1 min faster. Speed is most affected.

A clean model running at +25 lbs/sq.in. boost with a British Merlin engine reached 6km in 5.25 min.

As for diving, well the lighter FW-190A-5 out-accelerated the P-47D initially as-well.

Regarding take off roll, well according to the POH which lists minimum figures the P-51D at 10,000 lbs takes off after 1600 ft (487m) and will clear a 50 ft (15m) object after 2400 ft (731m).

Compared to other LW a/c:

P-51D: 487m, 731m to clear 15m object.
FW-190 A-8: 430m, 715m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 A-9: 390m, 600m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 D-9: 365m, 570m to clear 20m object.
Ta-152H-0: 295m, 495m to clear 20m object.

German data for fully loaded weight and take off power.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

As for the maneuverability, well I can't really stress this hard enough, the Dora-9 turns better than ANY of the Antons. Also there's no difference in performance or maneuverability between the A-7 & A-8, and the A-9 was a rather rare bird so they couldn't have been refering to this. All comparative tests were done with a cleanly loaded A-8 & D-9.

Soren - I did get a reply back from Don. He did not get disagreement from the JG26 pilots regarding either the diary comments in his JG26 War Diaries or his JG26 Top Gun book comments regarding anecdotes on the 109K-4.

He did say that the JG26 vet comparisons were largely not about high altitude performance as the Geschwader was largely tactical at that time in the war and most of the reflections were at low to medium altitude.

He was very emphatic that the Dora pilots felt they had an edge overall on the P-47 and Tempests - their main opponents but were disappointed that the Mustang still seemed to have an edge. He also emphasized that the pilots were getting aircraft of varying quality so performance figures had to be taken with a grain of salt.

He finished by saying that the Anton did have an edge in manueverability but what could you expect in comparison with a heavier, longer ship against the best fighter roll rate in the ETO


As for diving, well the lighter FW-190A-5 out-accelerated the P-47D initially as-well.

But not the 51B

Regarding take off roll, well according to the POH which lists minimum figures the P-51D at 10,000 lbs takes off after 1600 ft (487m) and will clear a 50 ft (15m) object after 2400 ft (731m).

Compared to other LW a/c:

P-51D: 487m, 731m to clear 15m object.
FW-190 A-8: 430m, 715m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 A-9: 390m, 600m to clear 20m object.
FW-190 D-9: 365m, 570m to clear 20m object.
Ta-152H-0: 295m, 495m to clear 20m object.

German data for fully loaded weight and take off power.

Soren - I will look when I get home. The number that sticks in my head for P-51D the max gross - internal- takeoff roll, at STP, was 1080-1100+ ft. 1600 is way too far.

I know from personal experience in one that was loaded with full wing tanks, me in back seat, no 85 gallon tank.. was between a Long Par 3 and Short Par 4" - or about 1000 feet plus or minus.

I'll send you an email with more detail from Don's observations in his interviews.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by thrawn

Btw, drgondog, I think the methanol in MW50 was only used as an anti-freeze, while the evaporating water sinks the engine temp to allow a higher power output. So pure water will be more effective but it will freeze and cause corrosion. So the Power output will be similar.

Greetings

Thrawn

You are quite correct in your assessment of MW50; yes, the methanol was there simply to prevent freezing at high altitude. The number "50" in the designation meant it was 50% water & 50% methanol; there was another formula used during the War, also, which was MW30, meaning it only had a 30% methanol ratio (to 70% water). I can only assume MW30 was used in aircraft that weren't planning on flying at high-altitudes (tactical bombers?), since it would've been more susceptible to freezing.

In any case, it was the water that did the trick; injecting water into the incoming compressed air stream cooled the air charge down, making it denser and, therefore, more volatile for combustion, especially at high altitude.

[Kurfürst]

Indeed, in fact even pure water could be used without any additive in emergency.

As for Caldwell, where did you contact him ? Personally, I found his book a great read (it was translated here, too) and an extremely well written unit history that is both very readable and yet informative. OTOH I don't think Caldwell did much research into aircraft, thing I read in his book about various aircraft types merely seem to repeat old topos taken from old books like Green, and in cases uncorrect. In short I wouldn`t rely on at all how he rates different aircraft, opinions of veterans he gives is an entirely different matter of course, but I realize how subjective those are, and how much based on perception/feel/personal preference.

But that`s fine, it`s a unit history after all, not a danged type catalouge...!

As for anecdotes about the 109K in Caldwell`s book, I can only recall two, summerized by Caldwell; one being that the K-4s JG 26 received were at first equipped with gondolas, while G-10s were not, and this made the G-10 more popular for high altitude work - no big surprise here - so later the gondies were removed. The other being the story of a German pilot who dived sometime in the winter in his 109K and his canopy glass misted/freeze up in the dive. Again, no big surprise. Neither accounts tell too much about the type`s qualities, the only tactical experience report I own is from units on different types (Bf 110, but mainly 262), which has a couple of paragraph devoted to the experiences with the K model. Not much there either, though. I don`t want to dig up the details, but the story was something about a higher ranking pilot shooting down three Thunderbolts in his K-4, then forced landed because of a radiator hit he received during combat.