Najlepszy myśliwiec II Wojny Światowej

[učitel]

Poldas napisal: Informacja o tym, że Niemcy byli bardziej zaawansowani w materii napędu odrzutowego jest przesadą.

Yes it is generally a bit exaggerated, but not so much. But:

1) How many jet planes do Allies see combat action, and how many Germans during WWII?

Allies: only Gloster Meteor (Mk.I only Air defence against V-1, and Mk.III – ground attacks)

But De Havilland Vampire was on production lines.

US: Lockheed P-80 was on production lines (only 1 plane was sent to Europe /Italian Front/, but after several flights it was sent home)

Germans: combat actions: Me 262 A and B

Arado 234

Heinkel 162

Me 163 (rocket propulsion – „dead street“ of aircraft development)

Conclusion to 1): Germans were better than Allies

I can´t take into account German Heinkel 178 and 280, as well as British Gloster P.39 Squirt, as well as U.S. Bell P-59. Particular Air Forces only collected experiences for jet-propulsion.

2) Only flight matherials, mainly good engine alloys – it was a big problem for Germany. Allied countries had better possibilities for using for aircraft frames.

Conclusion to 2): Allies were better than Germans

3) The quantity of air jet projects, plans, ideas etc – many, many and other, including those suggesting as the Wunderwaffen, Germans had obvious superiority. Further, German projects helped to modernize many postwar air forces (R.A.F., Vojenno-Vozdušnyje sily, L´Armée de l´Air, etc.), and German experiences moved postwar airframe development forward for many years. For example: Two main rivals from Korean War: F-86 (was affected by German Messerschmitt P.1101) and MiG-15 (was affected by German project Focke-Wulf Ta 183).

Conclusion to 3): Germans were much better than Allies

Poldas napisal: Gdyby dofinansowano pomysł Ohaina, było by Niemcom łatwiej.

I would not solve what would it happen (="gdyby"), if …

This is a real historical subforum, and „what would it happen“ we can talk hours and hours… The "Sci-fi subforum for WWII" is on other place.

[poldas]

No dobra;

W przypadku HeS- 013 obrano tzw. ślepą uliczkę.

Widzę, że Nauczyciel robi wykład dla...

Mniejsza dla kogo.

Spójrz na to z innej strony;

Firma Rolls Royce dała dobre motory odrzutowe o resursie rzędu ok. 150 godzin - Nene, Dervent, Goblin.

Niemcy cieszyli się, jeśli ich Jumo 004, czy też BMW 003 wylatały 50 godzin bez awarii.

Po takim przebiegu/nalocie, należało dokonać remontu silnika.

Niemieckie samoloty z napędem odrzutowym wykazały swoją sprawność, jednak w kwestii napędu tego rodzaju, Brytyjczycy byli lepsi.

Napęd MiG-15 nie powstał na jakimś tam klonie BMW-003, czy też Jumo-004, lecz na licencji brytyjskiego silnika Dervent.

Jaki wniosek?

Może i Niemieccy konstruktorzy byli bardziej dalekowzroczni, jednak... przesadzili, gdyż bardziej prostsza technologicznie i materiałowo była sprężarka odśrodkowa.

[učitel]

Poldas napisal: Firma Rolls Royce dała dobre motory odrzutowe o resursie rzędu ok. 150 godzin - Nene, Dervent, Goblin. Niemcy cieszyli się, jeśli ich Jumo 004, czy też BMW 003 wylatały 50 godzin bez awarii. Po takim przebiegu/nalocie, należało dokonać remontu silnika.

Do you notice it??? This is it, what I have written in my point 2) the quality of engine metal alloys – the matherial - In this Allies were better than Germans.

Further, Poldas, do you mean that the cause of good aircraft is only in using good engine?

Remember, good plane = good design (airframe, construction) + good engine

You speak about combat durability of engines and about good engines again and again. I speak mainly about perspective aircraft design.

Niemieckie samoloty z napędem odrzutowym wykazały swoją sprawność, jednak w kwestii napędu tego rodzaju, Brytyjczycy byli lepsi. This is the probleme of using matherial: Me 262 – turbine vane were often burning, supercharger vane sometimes burn (Jumo 004 - an axial supercharger).

Napęd MiG-15 nie powstał na jakimś tam klonie BMW-003, czy też Jumo-004, lecz na licencji brytyjskiego silnika Dervent. Again. I haven´t spoken about German engines at all. German suggested Heinkel´s engine HeS 011 for Messerschmitt P.1101, the Americans used their own engine in Bell X-5 during test flights.

A typical example is the development of the history of Czechoslovak training plane L-29 Delfin. Initially, it had also British engine – Bristol Viper, because Czechoslovak jet engine (with a centrifugal supercharger – M-701) hadn´t finished yet. The dilema – if an axial, or centrifugal supercharger is better, those ideas were discussed in late of 1950´s, when technicians considered a suitable engine for L-29 (M-710 engine, developing from 1954 to 1956). Most technicians enforced the Motorlet M-710 as the engine with an axial supercharger – then wide used for 2nd generation jet planes, while Ing. Rublič enforced heavily an opposite opinion - an engine with a centrifugal supercharger (M-701). In the end, „Soviet side“ prefered Rublič´s opinion - as the engine simpler for the production and for the maintenance. (By the way, if to use British engine or Czechoslovak, if axial supercharger or centrifugal, Delfín defeated Polish Iskra in comparative trials in 1961.)

Conclusion: Which of types of using supercharger is better – it depends on using role of aircraft, what parametre or destination we will expect from concrete aircraft.

Jaki wniosek? Did any Allied planes have swept-back wings, ejection seats, braking parachutes or A-A misilles during WWII? No, they had only better electronic equipment (radars) – mainly, and better metal alloys, then the matherial.

Good night.

[gregski]

Tak na marginesie "lepszości" jednych myśliwców nad innymi..

Przeczytałem właśnie wspomnienia Mieczysława Wyszkowskiego "Pod obcym niebem". Pisze on tam o próbnych walkach jakie odbywał gdy znajdował się w składzie brytyjskiego dywizjonu 195. Dywizjon ten latał na Typhoonach. Jego "sparingpartnerami" były Mosquito i Lightingi.

Co ciekawe według jego opisu wygrał dwa starcia z Mosquito ale po zaciętej walce. Natomiast z Lightingiem był remis. Dwie porażki i dwa zwycięstwa.

Przyznam się, że mnie to nieco zdumiało bo wydawało mi się że jednosilnikowy Typhoon powinien sobie poradzić w tych warunkach z dwusilnikowymi przeciwnikami.

[učitel]

GREGSKI napisal: Co ciekawe według jego opisu wygrał dwa starcia z Mosquito ale po zaciętej walce. Natomiast z Lightingiem był remis. Dwie porażki i dwa zwycięstwa.

Przyznam się, że mnie to nieco zdumiało bo wydawało mi się że jednosilnikowy Typhoon powinien sobie poradzić w tych warunkach z dwusilnikowymi przeciwnikami.

This is the reason why British didn´t use Mosquito as a day fighter, but as an attack-point bomber and a night fighter. They had bad experiences with two-engined fighters as day fighters (based on actions of Westland Whirlwind as day fighters in 1940 and American Lightnings in R.A.F. a bit later). British opinions also could be affected by very bad using of heavy fighter Bf 110 during Battle of Britain as a day escort fighter.

Unusual, but quite effective, is Mosquito using as an interceptor against German V-1 missiles. Brian Cull in his book (Diver! Diver! Diver!) writes that Mosquito´s pilots shot down together 586.5 flying bombs (mainly Mosquito versions Mk.13, 6, 17 and 19). This number includes mainly night kills, but taking into account, the first place belongs to Tempest V (851.75 kills) and the third place to Spitfires (together 543.25 kills: mainly Spitfire Mk. XIV – 377.5 kills, Mk. IX – 116.25 kills and Mk. XII – 41.5 kills), Mosquitos were placed on the second position. The interesting thing is, that Gloster Meteor Mk.I, predetermined to destruction of V-1s, achieved 12.5 kills of V-1 only!

Surely, Mosquito was better than Bf 110 as the fighter. It was faster, and excellent for point bombing especially. But in the role of night fighter were both the fighters successful, after my opinion – Mosquito was better. The obsolescence of Bf 110 as a night fighter was the reason for He 219 developing.

P-38 was rather hard for a pilot skill, but if a pilot learned to use best options both Lightning´s engines, P-38 also made its best. And this applies also for single-engined fighters, especially for Japanese pilots. It is an interesting thing that for German pilots, P-38s weren´t so dangerous as for Japanese ones. That fact is confirmed by lots of German fighter aces had been flying over West Europe.

Hawker Typhoon was not so good fighter for dogfights in Western Europe. S/L James Sheddan wrote in his book (Tempest pilot) that Typhoon´s cannons were the only good thing in that plane. Its cannons were much better than cannons used in first Tempests. Further, British combat and test pilot, S/L Paul Richey, tested Typhoon against Oberleutnant Faber´s captured FW 190 in summer 1942. British test pilots appreciated FW 190 very well, and according to S/L Richey´s tests, Typhoons were predetermined for coastal air defence and attacks on German bombers, not for dogfights. (And, of course, for ground attack, but still later.)