Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft

[MaxGunz]

SOURCE:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

Some relevant sections:

In doing so each aircraft is compared as far as possible on the same basis, full war load but no external equipment such as bombs or r.p. Calculations for radius of action are, however, made with a compliment of external fuel tanks. These items, incidentally, are sometimes ignored by the well-meaning enthusiast who quotes maximum speeds of particular aircraft with complete disregard for the circumstances. Such quotations out of context can be very misleading to the layman, as external additions can account for 30-40 M.P.H. with the added disadvantage of a corresponding reduction in range and manoeuvrability.

The squadron pilot is sometimes the worst offender in this respect, as nothing delights him more than being able to prove that his squadron’s aircraft are superior in every respect to his rivals. In doing so, he commits a very forgivable sin and one, which only his unfamiliarity with another type can be blamed.

Comparison does not mean obtaining results from an indiscriminate dogfight between two fighter types, but a practical assessment of the information gained as a result of specific tests in specific circumstances. These circumstances are standardized by dividing the tests up into two categories, namely, Factual Comparison, which includes speed, rate of climb, range, endurance and acceleration, readily measured against the stop watch, and Competitive Comparison, such as turning circles, rates or roll and dive zoom climbs. Rates of roll an, of course be measured either way. The choice is a matter of opinion.

So much for "they were there so they knew" and "let's use war stories to compare fighters".

Turning Circles

In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.

The Aeroplane June 21st 1946.