Panzergranate
10-21-2009, 06:16 PM
I'm going to discuss the science and physics of what makes the idealised and never achieved perfect fighter aircraft.
Idealy, it should have the following characteristics:
A reliable and powerful engine with quick throttle response.
Good engine power at all altitudes. (Take an I-16 above 20,000 Feet to experience not having this ability).
High structural integrety. (Won't fall apart during maneuvers).
An ability to asorb high levels of damage and still function.
A high roll rate.
A high yaw rate.
A high pitch rate.
A high rate of climb.
A high rate of speed gain during a dive.
A small dive recovery radius. (Dive bombers excell here).
A tight turning circle.
A tight looping circle.
Low spin tendency.
Equally controllable at all speeds.
Excellent cockpit visibility all around.
Adequate or better firepower.
Good range and endurance.
Good protection. (Armouring).
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to build such a fighter, so both WW1 and WW2 are littered with both good, OK and bad fighter aircraft.
Some aircraft come close to the ideal only to fail elsewhere seriously. For instance, the A6M Zero was only agile at low speeds, suffering from heavy controls and poor agility at speeds over 300 MPH plus having a poor dive speed gain rate.
The Brewster Buffalo, notoriuous for being both the worst fighter of WW2 and the most successful fighter every built (40:1 kill to loss rate) suffered from engine power and reliability problems due to Brewster using badly reconditioned second hand ex-airliner engines in warplanes to maximise company profits. The Finns had brand new engines in theirs and the difference shows.
Despite this it could out turn, all Japanese, Allied, Soviet and Axis fighters in the world.... and the Gloster Gladiator bi-plane repeatedly, in one RAF trail.
Some fighters, such as WW2's least successful fighter, the P-43 Lancer, features a failing "X" next to anything to do with agility and maneuverabilty. It was developed into the P-47 with not much improvement on the checklist.
Others, tick just enough boxes to be labelled as "OK", "Fine" or "It'll do for now" or "Export" such as the Fokker D-21, P-35, P-36 Hawk, P-39 Airacobra, P-43 Lancer and P-66 Vengance.
This works fine unless the enemy fields any fighter with a lot more ticks in the list where there are crosses in their opponents.
And then there are those that shouldn't have even been allowed into service such as the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3, Fiat G-50, Fairey Fulmar, Blackburn Roc, etc.
You need to read the excellent book, "The World's Worst Aircraft" to see what horrors thankfully failed to enter service such as the P-75.
Of course, an advantage in pilot training, skill, ability and morale can make a big difference, for good or bad. If you opponents have better aircraft and better ability compared to yout own then you're about to experience what the Soviet airforce went through during the 1939 "Winter War" and later 1941 "Continuation War".
If one rates any WW2 fighter against the above mention checklist you'll understand why some fighters sucked, why some were legendary and why even some dive bombers, such as the Douglas Dauntless managed to unexpectedly do well as fighters, producing a few aces along the way.
Idealy, it should have the following characteristics:
A reliable and powerful engine with quick throttle response.
Good engine power at all altitudes. (Take an I-16 above 20,000 Feet to experience not having this ability).
High structural integrety. (Won't fall apart during maneuvers).
An ability to asorb high levels of damage and still function.
A high roll rate.
A high yaw rate.
A high pitch rate.
A high rate of climb.
A high rate of speed gain during a dive.
A small dive recovery radius. (Dive bombers excell here).
A tight turning circle.
A tight looping circle.
Low spin tendency.
Equally controllable at all speeds.
Excellent cockpit visibility all around.
Adequate or better firepower.
Good range and endurance.
Good protection. (Armouring).
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to build such a fighter, so both WW1 and WW2 are littered with both good, OK and bad fighter aircraft.
Some aircraft come close to the ideal only to fail elsewhere seriously. For instance, the A6M Zero was only agile at low speeds, suffering from heavy controls and poor agility at speeds over 300 MPH plus having a poor dive speed gain rate.
The Brewster Buffalo, notoriuous for being both the worst fighter of WW2 and the most successful fighter every built (40:1 kill to loss rate) suffered from engine power and reliability problems due to Brewster using badly reconditioned second hand ex-airliner engines in warplanes to maximise company profits. The Finns had brand new engines in theirs and the difference shows.
Despite this it could out turn, all Japanese, Allied, Soviet and Axis fighters in the world.... and the Gloster Gladiator bi-plane repeatedly, in one RAF trail.
Some fighters, such as WW2's least successful fighter, the P-43 Lancer, features a failing "X" next to anything to do with agility and maneuverabilty. It was developed into the P-47 with not much improvement on the checklist.
Others, tick just enough boxes to be labelled as "OK", "Fine" or "It'll do for now" or "Export" such as the Fokker D-21, P-35, P-36 Hawk, P-39 Airacobra, P-43 Lancer and P-66 Vengance.
This works fine unless the enemy fields any fighter with a lot more ticks in the list where there are crosses in their opponents.
And then there are those that shouldn't have even been allowed into service such as the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3, Fiat G-50, Fairey Fulmar, Blackburn Roc, etc.
You need to read the excellent book, "The World's Worst Aircraft" to see what horrors thankfully failed to enter service such as the P-75.
Of course, an advantage in pilot training, skill, ability and morale can make a big difference, for good or bad. If you opponents have better aircraft and better ability compared to yout own then you're about to experience what the Soviet airforce went through during the 1939 "Winter War" and later 1941 "Continuation War".
If one rates any WW2 fighter against the above mention checklist you'll understand why some fighters sucked, why some were legendary and why even some dive bombers, such as the Douglas Dauntless managed to unexpectedly do well as fighters, producing a few aces along the way.