Fastest Allied fighter ww2?

[jollyjack]

Experimenting with a V1 hunt mission, i wonder what the fastest allied plane is in IL2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(Griffon-powered_variants)

Mustang? P38?, Mosquito?

Edited October 28, 2023 by jollyjack

[AndyJWest]

What you actually need is the fastest aircraft at the altitude V1s are intercepted, which isn't necessarily going to be the fastest overall. You should be able to find the data in the IL-2 Compare with Great Battles airplanes data for top speeds thread I think, if someone doesn't come up with a direct answer.

 

Personally, I've found technique more important than minor differences in top speed when trying to catch V1s. You'll really only ever catch one if you see it well below you, and judge your intercepting dive just right.

 

 

[Jaegermeister]

True what AndyJWest said above, but I have found the P51B-5 when trimmed correctly, full rich and emergency boost engaged, 150 Grade fuel and the 1650-7 engine to be the only plane that can overtake the V-1 in level flight.

 

The slanting dive from about 4,000 feet above going in the opposite direction is the most reliable method. Basically a Split-S and pull in behind the Doodlebug.  

 

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Jaegermeister

[jollyjack]

I was hoping to level up to these buggers and flip 'em gently over for some more indoor IL2 sports ....

I really miss torpedoing the kriegsmarine. (LoL, windows correction suggested margarine for that).

Read somewhere that we need the Spit F Mk 24, so devs, as we got so many Bf109s, so you could straighten something out and do us a favor here?

Edited October 31, 2023 by jollyjack

[migmadmarine]

It can be done with the split-S into intercept method Jaegermeister mentioned, I've found myself mostly winding up slightly overshooting them, and letting my speed bleed a little to near matching providing me the most success. Seeing as they won't maneuver away, going flat out parallel after your dive you'll have a good window where your speed is the same or nearly the same. 

[Lusekofte]

6 hours ago, jollyjack said:

I was hoping to level up to these buggers and flip 'em gently over for some more indoor IL2 sports ....

I really miss torpedoing the kriegsmarine. (LoL, windows correction suggested margarine for that).

Read somewhere that we need the Spit F Mk 24, so devs, with got so many Bf109s, so you could straighten something out and do us a favor here?

I read flying alongside them with wing under the v1 made something with the aerodynamic and would after a few attempts make the v1 drop their wing and hopefully crash. 
But sometime they stabilised itself and continued flying. Flipping it was not really their strategy. 
But this came from a documentary on tv. And they are not always as true as one wish

[jollyjack]

I keep an eye out for ww2 TV doc stuff, but most only 'fly by' on History Channel over here, but alas not too often on planes.

Been experimenting now with various supposedly fast allied planes, only the Spitfire MkXiVe with clipped wings seems almost fast enough on level flights with water radiators open.

 

BTW thought the Mosquito was fast, but not nearly enough.

What would maybe be a fast plane advised list for the right choice and settings towards the fastest mouse in IL2 to catch theses cats?

Here's the list from CountZero from 2020, for starters .. https://www.mediafire.com/file/x8wgn081uwpgfbw/Il-2BoXtestrdatv5.zip/file

 

 

My adapted Spitfire MkXiVe tester started by @DD_Friar: V1_Intercept_SP v3c.zip

Edited October 30, 2023 by jollyjack

[Gingerwelsh]

IRL, at V-1 altitudes between 2-3000', the Tempest was the fastest, followed by the Mustang, then the Spit XIV, all tweeked for low level ops.

In game at 2000', the Tempest and Mustang are about level fastest with 405T mph. The V-1 will be doing 410+ mph.

 

The V-1 decreases speed with alt. till at 8200' it is down to 372T mph and as aircraft increase speed with alt,  it is easy to catch on the level from 4000' upwards.

Mosquito has same speed at 5000'. (390T mph).

IRL V-1 was designed for 10000' but was restricted to 2-4000' due to a fault in the aneroid mixture control, which couldn't be cured in time for ops.

V-1 started its journey at 430ish mph, but due to rapid engine shutter wear, it gradually reduced speed at varying rates, very often not making it to the target.

 

Wing tip, IRL, was achieved by flying under the wing without touching it. Gyro topple would send the V-1 down. There was no re alignment. It was going down.

In game a hefty shove is required and if the angle is not achieved, it will carry on to its target.

 

Great fun.

.. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Gingerwelsh

[Jaegermeister]

On 10/30/2023 at 8:28 AM, Gingerwelsh said:

IRL, at V-1 altitudes between 2-3000', the Tempest was the fastest, followed by the Mustang, then the Spit XIV, all tweeked for low level ops.

In game at 2000', the Tempest and Mustang are about level fastest with 405T mph. The V-1 will be doing 410+ mph.

 

The V-1 decreases speed with alt. till at 8200' it is down to 372T mph and as aircraft increase speed with alt,  it is easy to catch on the level from 4000' upwards.

Mosquito has same speed at 5000'. (390T mph).

IRL V-1 was designed for 10000' but was restricted to 2-4000' due to a fault in the aneroid mixture control, which couldn't be cured in time for ops.

V-1 started its journey at 430ish mph, but due to rapid engine shutter wear, it gradually reduced speed at varying rates, very often not making it to the target.

 

Wing tip, IRL, was achieved by flying under the wing without touching it. Gyro topple would send the V-1 down. There was no re alignment. It was going down.

In game a hefty shove is required and if the angle is not achieved, it will carry on to its target.

 

Great fun.

.. 

 

Gingerwelsh knows what he is talking about, but I was under the impression that the V-1 sped up during the course of it's flight as fuel was burned off and it became lighter as opposed to slowing down. That is the way it behaves in game. During testing the roll angle required to make the V-1 crash was reduced from 55 degrees to 45degrees

 

 

 

I found the following information while testing the V1 tipping stability....

 

Spoiler

At 15 degrees, the V1 continues to target with minor disruption as before

 

 

At 41 degrees, the V1 dives and recovers. The engine continues to run, and it proceeds generally towards the original target area;

 

 

At 45 degrees, the V1 dives, and the engine cuts out. If it has enough altitude, it will recover and continue for approximately 3 minutes, gliding towards the original target area before it runs out of forward momentum and crashes 

 

 

At 48 degrees, the V1 engine cuts out and the Flying Bomb goes into a vertical dive before crashing.

 

 

Compared to previous tests, this is approximately a 10 degree reduction from the previous versions in horizontal roll displacement required to make the V1 engine cut out and/or crash.

 

I don't believe there is any definitive information as to what upset angle was historically required to make the V1 crash, but I think 45+ degrees is a great final result.

 

There were YouTube videos for each of those tests, but I deleted them after we were done.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Jaegermeister

[Gingerwelsh]

On 10/30/2023 at 4:54 PM, Jaegermeister said:

I was under the impression that the V-1 sped up during the course of it's flight as fuel was burned off and it became lighter as opposed to slowing down. That is the way it behaves in game. During testing the roll angle required to make the V-1 crash was reduced from 55 degrees to 45degrees .

 

 

 

Good job with that roll investigation.

 

The speeding up with reducing fuel load is logical, except that the motor had a very short life span with rapid wear of the air shutters, (operating at 50 times per second), due to poor quality materials at the time. Radar shows them at reduced speed over the coast.

 

In game the Bumble Bomb doesn't slow, (I wouldn't expect it to). I'm not sure if it speeds up.

 

Wing tipping IRL was rare, but when it occured, would have been met with little resistance, (IMO), as there are no strong control surfaces to oppose it.

In game you need a hefty shove to get that 45 deg angle, still too much I think, but overall it's a good job done.

 

..

 

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Fastest Allied fighter ww2?

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

[MAJ_stug41]

Speaking of those...

https://youtu.be/zv83yBebiIU?si=Y40UTSJWZXKPlbJu

[Trooper117]

Gregs videos are great, and very informative... so, the upshot is the 262 is the faster aeroplane. (Gregs words).

[Gingerwelsh]

6 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Gregs videos are great, and very informative... so, the upshot is the 262 is the faster aeroplane. (Gregs words).

 

Fastest Allied aircraft ?

 

..

[Jaegermeister]

4 hours ago, Gingerwelsh said:

 

In game the Bumble Bomb doesn't slow, (I wouldn't expect it to). I'm not sure if it speeds up.

 

 

It does

[Sgt_Joch]

The fastest allied fighter in 1944 that was used against V1s was the Gloster Meteor. The fastest prop driven up to 20,000 feet was the Tempest.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpg

 

btw on the Mosquito, its reputation as the fastest AC around was based on its early war performance. When it was first introduced in 1941, it was faster than the the latest versions of the Spitfire or Me109s. By 1944 though, many Allied and German fighters were faster.

[Gingerwelsh]

9 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

The fastest allied fighter in 1944 that was used against V1s was the Gloster Meteor. The fastest prop driven up to 20,000 feet was the Tempest.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpg

 

That chart shows the Meteor III which wasn't used against V-1.

 

The Meteor 1 was used against the V-1 and was considerably slower, with prop aircraft, such as the Mustang, flying faster at high altitude.

 

The Meteor III speed was exceeded by the DH Hornet 1, (475 mph), which first flew July 1944, but didn't entre service 'till 1946.

 

..

 

[Sgt_Joch]

1 hour ago, Gingerwelsh said:

 

That chart shows the Meteor III which wasn't used against V-1.

 

The Meteor 1 was used against the V-1 and was considerably slower, with prop aircraft, such as the Mustang, flying faster at high altitude.

 

The Meteor III speed was exceeded by the DH Hornet 1, (475 mph), which first flew July 1944, but didn't entre service 'till 1946.

 

..

 

 

well if you want to be overly picky:

 

1. the Meteor III was an actual WW2 fighter and was deployed in combat operations;

 

2. the Meteor I was the fastest at low altitudes were the V1 flew.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-29sept44.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg

[Gingerwelsh]

On 11/3/2023 at 11:21 AM, Sgt_Joch said:

 

well if you want to be overly picky:

 

1. the Meteor III was an actual WW2 fighter and was deployed in combat operations;

 

2. the Meteor I was the fastest at low altitudes were the V1 flew.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-29sept44.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg

 

Not picky, just accurate.

 

The Meteor III was not used for Diver ops. but was the fastest RAF and only Allied jet to see ops in WW2.

Update: I found 15 sorties were carried out against V-1 by 616 Squadron Meteor III, during March 1945. No kills were recorded.

 

The Meteor I was on Diver ops, but at best was only, on par, with piston fighters, but inferior in other respcts.

 

The chart you supplied was for test flights by Rolls Royce on Mk1, using their uprated RR engine against Power Jets (Whittle) engine, in May 1945.

 

..

Edited November 7, 2023 by Gingerwelsh
Updated Meteor ops.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

On 11/2/2023 at 7:23 PM, Jaegermeister said:

 

It does

 

It's a little complicated. If we assume the thrust stays constant then two things can happen.

 

As the weight come off less lift is required so:

 

1) it stays at the same level, the angle of attack then reduces, meaning there is less drag and hence the velocity MAY increase.

 

2) it is allowed to climb as there is an access of lift and the velocity MY stay the same.

 

This is a simple understanding as things like air pressure at altitude .... could cancel these effects.

[Jaegermeister]

5 hours ago, -TBC-AeroAce said:

It's a little complicated. 

 

Or it's not that complicated;

 

V-1 launch sequence from Wikipedia

 

Final Checkout: In the non-magnetic building, "compass swinging" was completed by hanging the V-1 and pointing it toward the target. The missile's external casing of 16-gauge sheet steel was beaten with a mallet until its magnetic field was suitably aligned. The automatic pilot was set with the flight altitude input (300–2500 metres) to the barometric (aneroid) height control and with the range set within the air log (journey computer).

 

So if the altitude is set to be consistent, with less weight, instead of climbing it would increase speed. 

 

From NASA website;

Thrust to Weight Ratio - Four Forces

There are four forces that act on an aircraft in flight: lift, weight, thrust, and drag. Forces are vector quantities having both a magnitude and a direction. The motion of the aircraft through the air depends on the relative magnitude and direction of the various forces. The weight of an airplane is determined by the size and materials used in the airplane’s construction and on the payload and fuel that the airplane carries. The weight is always directed towards the center of the Earth.
The thrust is determined by the size and type of propulsion system used on the airplane and on the throttle setting selected by the pilot. Thrust is normally directed forward along the centerline of the aircraft. Lift and drag are aerodynamic forces that depend on the shape and size of the aircraft, air conditions, and the flight velocity. Lift is directed perpendicular to the flight path and drag is directed along the flight path.

Force Equation
Just as the lift to drag ratio is an efficiency parameter for total aircraft aerodynamics, the thrust to weight ratio is an efficiency factor for total aircraft propulsion. From Newton’s second law of motion for constant mass, force F is equal to mass m times acceleration a:
F = m * a
Weight Equation - If we consider a horizontal acceleration and neglect the drag, the net external force is the thrust F.
From the Newtonian weight equation:
W = m * g

where W is the weight and g is the gravitational constant equal to 32.2 ft/sec^s in English units and 9.8 m/sec^s in metric units. Solving for the mass:
Mass Equation
m = W / g
and substituting in the force equation:
F = W * a / g
F / W = a / g
Thrust to Weight Ratio
F/W is the thrust to weight ratio, and it is directly proportional to the acceleration of the aircraft. An aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio has high acceleration. For most flight conditions, an aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio will also have a high value of excess thrust. High excess thrust results in a high rate of climb. If the thrust to weight ratio is greater than one and the drag is small, the aircraft can accelerate straight up like a rocket. Similarly, rockets must develop thrust greater than the weight of the rocket in order to lift off.

 

 

The V-1 did not have a particularly high thrust to weight ratio so I doubt it climbed like a rocket.

 

From Wikipedia;

V-1 Rocket Bomb

Mass    2,150 kg (4,740 lb)
Length    8.32 m (27.3 ft)
Width    5.37 m (17.6 ft)
Height    1.42 m (4 ft 8 in)
Warhead    Amatol-39, later Trialen
Warhead weight    850 kg (1,870 lb)
Detonation mechanism
Electrical impact fuze, Backup mechanical impact fuze, Time fuze to prevent examination of duds
Engine    Argus As 109-014 Pulsejet
Operational range
250 km (160 mi)[2]
Maximum speed    640 km/h (400 mph) flying between 600 and 900 m (2,000 and 3,000 ft)
 

From https://ig.space/commslink/the-v-1-buzz-bomb-the-worlds-first-cruise-missile

The Argus 109-014 engine only produced around 660 lbs of thrust, while the fully fueled and armed V-1 weighed over 4,900 lbs, which meant that its engine was inadequate to get the V-1 airborne from a dead stop.

 

With all this information now in hand, I'll let you calculate how much the speed increased as weight decreased...

[-TBC-AeroAce]

On 12/5/2023 at 6:39 PM, Jaegermeister said:

 

Or it's not that complicated;

 

V-1 launch sequence from Wikipedia

 

Final Checkout: In the non-magnetic building, "compass swinging" was completed by hanging the V-1 and pointing it toward the target. The missile's external casing of 16-gauge sheet steel was beaten with a mallet until its magnetic field was suitably aligned. The automatic pilot was set with the flight altitude input (300–2500 metres) to the barometric (aneroid) height control and with the range set within the air log (journey computer).

 

So if the altitude is set to be consistent, with less weight, instead of climbing it would increase speed. 

 

From NASA website;

Thrust to Weight Ratio - Four Forces

There are four forces that act on an aircraft in flight: lift, weight, thrust, and drag. Forces are vector quantities having both a magnitude and a direction. The motion of the aircraft through the air depends on the relative magnitude and direction of the various forces. The weight of an airplane is determined by the size and materials used in the airplane’s construction and on the payload and fuel that the airplane carries. The weight is always directed towards the center of the Earth.
The thrust is determined by the size and type of propulsion system used on the airplane and on the throttle setting selected by the pilot. Thrust is normally directed forward along the centerline of the aircraft. Lift and drag are aerodynamic forces that depend on the shape and size of the aircraft, air conditions, and the flight velocity. Lift is directed perpendicular to the flight path and drag is directed along the flight path.

Force Equation
Just as the lift to drag ratio is an efficiency parameter for total aircraft aerodynamics, the thrust to weight ratio is an efficiency factor for total aircraft propulsion. From Newton’s second law of motion for constant mass, force F is equal to mass m times acceleration a:
F = m * a
Weight Equation - If we consider a horizontal acceleration and neglect the drag, the net external force is the thrust F.
From the Newtonian weight equation:
W = m * g

where W is the weight and g is the gravitational constant equal to 32.2 ft/sec^s in English units and 9.8 m/sec^s in metric units. Solving for the mass:
Mass Equation
m = W / g
and substituting in the force equation:
F = W * a / g
F / W = a / g
Thrust to Weight Ratio
F/W is the thrust to weight ratio, and it is directly proportional to the acceleration of the aircraft. An aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio has high acceleration. For most flight conditions, an aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio will also have a high value of excess thrust. High excess thrust results in a high rate of climb. If the thrust to weight ratio is greater than one and the drag is small, the aircraft can accelerate straight up like a rocket. Similarly, rockets must develop thrust greater than the weight of the rocket in order to lift off.

 

 

The V-1 did not have a particularly high thrust to weight ratio so I doubt it climbed like a rocket.

 

From Wikipedia;

V-1 Rocket Bomb

Mass    2,150 kg (4,740 lb)
Length    8.32 m (27.3 ft)
Width    5.37 m (17.6 ft)
Height    1.42 m (4 ft 8 in)
Warhead    Amatol-39, later Trialen
Warhead weight    850 kg (1,870 lb)
Detonation mechanism
Electrical impact fuze, Backup mechanical impact fuze, Time fuze to prevent examination of duds
Engine    Argus As 109-014 Pulsejet
Operational range
250 km (160 mi)[2]
Maximum speed    640 km/h (400 mph) flying between 600 and 900 m (2,000 and 3,000 ft)
 

From https://ig.space/commslink/the-v-1-buzz-bomb-the-worlds-first-cruise-missile

The Argus 109-014 engine only produced around 660 lbs of thrust, while the fully fueled and armed V-1 weighed over 4,900 lbs, which meant that its engine was inadequate to get the V-1 airborne from a dead stop.

 

With all this information now in hand, I'll let you calculate how much the speed increased as weight decreased...

 

 I will do it based on some close numbers but there will be assumptions lol.

 

But I think the real joke maybe of course it sped up..... when the engine got cut. OR DID IT " PLAYS X-Files Sound Bite"

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by -TBC-AeroAce

[Jaegermeister]

1 hour ago, -TBC-AeroAce said:

 

 I will do it based on some close numbers but there will be assumptions lol.

 

But I think the real joke maybe of course it sped up..... when the engine got cut. OR DID IT " PLAYS X-Files Sound Bite"

 

 

 

Yeah, you would have to know the fuel consumption rate.

 

It's actually easy to see that it speeds up in game. You just pull up next to it at top speed in the fastest fighter (whatever that is...) and see how long it takes it to pull away from you, because it eventually will.  

[EAF19_Marsh]

I would cheerfully take this site’s analysis and reporting with a pinch of salt, but if you scroll to the bottom it has the reported V1 kills by type which are probably / possibly from IWM or similar

 

https://hushkit.net/2022/12/15/top-10-raf-aircraft-of-world-war-ii-ranked-by-number-of-kills/ 

 

Obviously not the same as ‘fastest’ but just FYI.