# "Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs



## spicmart (Sep 20, 2019)

Gentlemen

I don't know if it is possible to assess in advance how much "stretch" capability aka develoment potential and adaptability a design initially has.
A plane which was literally "stretched" from a stocky brute of a plane to an elegant slim longwinged bird is the Fw 190 to become the Ta 152.
A plane which reached his pinnacle early and could not developed much further without growing disadvantages was the Me 109.
There are many examples for both to be found in history.
Some designers/companies were renowned to create planes which wouldn't age or at least age well, like Ed Heinemann.
Others were less succesful in that.

What do you think about this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 21, 2019)

I would have liked the Spitfire stretched like the FW190 for no other reason than to give it more internal fuel capacity.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 21, 2019)

Hello Spicmark,

This is a pretty interesting subject and one that I have also wondered about.
First of all, I disagree with you a bit about the Messerschmitt 109. It had some inherent flaws pretty early in the series and the later versions just made those flaws more obvious because of increased speeds, but I believe it stretched pretty well from the pre-war versions through the last K series that were over 100 MPH faster.

I believe there are a couple important factors to consider:
Engine type and location: If your initial design has an engine that has a great potential for improvement and increased power such as the Merlin and DB 601/605 series did, then things are likely to go well; As the aircraft grows, the engine power can maintain or even improve performance. The alternative would be something like the Whirlwind with the Peregrine engine. When the Peregrine went out of production, there really was no suitable replacement. I believe the Wildcat had nearly the same situation.
The engine location is also important because more powerful versions are likely to be bigger even if only slightly and also heavier.
In the case of the Airacobra, there was no room to put in a better supercharger when that became available.
With Wildcat and Whirlwind, higher powered replacement engines would have required a major airframe redesign in order to maintain a proper Center of Gravity.

Another factor required for "stretch" is either a high fuel capacity in the original design or the space to add internal fuel capacity. As engine power and weight grow, fuel consumption also increases. Many fighters ended up with additional fuel tanks in non-optimal places because without them they could not fly the required missions. The Airacobra and Messerschmitt 109 were two that had no room for increasing fuel capacity, but both ended up in theaters in which range was not a big factor. The Warhawk was another aircraft that didn't have room for additional fuel

Yet another factor is of course the capability for armament changes. The FW 190 and Spitfire accepted new weapons pretty well. The Me 109 and Airacobra did not. Having to mount additional weapons externally in pods is really not the best way to do things.

These are pretty obvious things. A lot can be gathered by observing where the major components of the aircraft are and determining what would happen if they were to increase in size and weight as they inevitably do. Along with this comes another question of how the maximum G Load would change with the new weight of the aircraft.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2019)

Trying to assess how much stretch an airplane had very early in it's career is just about impossible. 

The more powerful engines it will use later in it's career don't exist. In a lot of WW II aircraft the fuel they used late in their careers didn't exist early in their careers. 
P-51D running at 9lbs (48in) boost anyone? 

The Warhawk was actually this aircraft after a lot of stretching.





The P-36 was this aircraft on it's 3rd or 4th engine change let alone sticking the Allison on it. 

Ed Heinemann's A-4 Skyhawk first flew months if not a year before the engine that would power the later versions was first run on a test stand. Engine power went from 7000lbs thrust on the early planes to over 11,000lbs thrust on the later ones (and they may have gotten better fuel consumption) now perhaps Mr. Heinemann designed the engine bay with a little extra room to allow for a possible engine change even if he didn't know exactly what was coming? 

The Bf 109 of WW II was stretched from this.




They did find room for extra fuel and more/larger guns but when you start with a 700hp engine there is only so much you can do. You either design an oversized airframe to allow for stretch and that doesn't perform very well with existing engines or you design a smaller airframe that performs better with the existing engines and hope better engines become available that will still fit in the airframe.

Spitfire with RR Vulture engine running on 87 octane anyone? 
That is why the Hurricanes successors were so large, using late 1930s fuel and engines require a large airframe f you were going to get anywhere near a 2000hp engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Sep 21, 2019)

German planes were mostly conceived with a minimum of surface (wing) area and had to have the wings enlarged/fuselage lengthened during their evolution whereas the Western Allied planes had often plenty of wing and big fuselages from the get-go. 
I wonder if resources were a reason for the Germans to keep their planes' dimensions smaller. They were generally not lighter though than their a Allied counterparts, often even heavier.

Just going with feel I have the impression that the planes of Kurt Tank were designed with a bit more foresight than Messerschmitt's as those were to reach a certain performance goal as fast as possible with less thought on later development. At least it seems so.
But I could be wrong.
Messerschmitt liked to use underwing radiators which required large cut-outs which increased aero-elasticity which decreased manoeuverability and high speeds. And they took away potential space for wing tanks while not being the aerodynamically most sound solution for radiator placement.
He preferred the ellipsoid shape for airframes to be the one with least resistance but shot it with draggy radiator installations.

Not sure about it but could it be that wings of one-spar construction were less able to mount wing tanks?

The later US fighters were roomy and had the propulsion to give them cutting edge performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Trying to assess how much stretch an airplane had very early in it's career is just about impossible.
> 
> The more powerful engines it will use later in it's career don't exist. In a lot of WW II aircraft the fuel they used late in their careers didn't exist early in their careers.
> P-51D running at 9lbs (48in) boost anyone?



Hello Shortround6,

For the most part, I agree with you. It is hard to tell whether an engine will have a lot of development potential or prove to be a dead end. It is also hard to guess what suitable replacement engines would become available during the aeroplane's production life.

In the case of the Mustang, I believe your example is not a good illustration. The Mustang started off life with a fairly low powered Allison engine with a boost pressure pretty close to +9 pounds. The basic design of the airframe DID have a fair amount of stretch to accommodate the heavier two-stage Merlin and the external radiator location allowed for a great increase in size without too many issues.
The same would not have worked with the Warhawk. The heavier engine and cooling system were all up front and did not balance each other out. Perhaps relocating the cooling system aft would have been a solution to the balance problem.
The cooling system space limitations also affected designs such as the Airacobra and King Cobra.

The +9 pounds sounds pretty low, but that also works out to 1.65 ATA or +465 mm boost for the Japanese and many of THEIR engines never exceeded that level of supercharging.



spicmart said:


> German planes were mostly conceived with a minimum of surface (wing) area and had to have the wings enlarged/fuselage lengthened during their evolution whereas the Western Allied planes had often plenty of wing and big fuselages from the get-go.
> I wonder if resources were a reason for the Germans to keep their planes' dimensions smaller. They were generally not lighter though than their a Allied counterparts, often even heavier.



Hello Spicmart,

I don't believe the wing area of either the FW 190 or Me 109 changed much once they were past their prototype stage.
I believe the size of the wing was mostly a result of design philosophy. Larger wings cause more drag in general and the idea was to use the smallest wing that would not greatly compromise handling. This can be seen in the prototypes of the FW 190.
The original small winged aircraft were a bit faster but had worse handling. The wing size was increased and was probably reasonable for the weights of the early aircraft but I am fairly convinced that the wings were too small when the aircraft became heavier in later versions.
The Russians also had a tendency to use relatively small wings for their fighters as compared to American or British aircraft.



spicmart said:


> Messerschmitt liked to use underwing radiators which required large cut-outs which increased aero-elasticity which decreased manoeuverability and high speeds. And they took away potential space for wing tanks while not being the aerodynamically most sound solution for radiator placement.



I am not sure there is a connection between wing mounted radiators and maneuverability and high speed. From one article describing the radiator system of the Me 109, it sounded like a fairly well thought out system.
Basically, any radiator location has its costs.

Wing tanks also may not be such a great idea. As Shortround6 has mentioned a few times, a flat and wide fuel tank tends to have a lot of surface area relative to volume which means it is heavier. Location in the wings also makes for a fairly large target.
Another aspect of wing tanks is that they often (as in Hayabusa and Yakovlev / Lavochkin fighters) prevent the installation of wing armament. All armament mounted in the fuselage sounds like a pretty serious limitation, but some designers have managed to work around it with three or four guns around the cowl.

- Ivan.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 21, 2019)

I really agree with you that the wings of later German fighters were way too small for their weight. The Spitfire Mk. XIV weighed about 3900 kg compared a D-9's about 4300 kg while featuring a 22.5 sqm wing in contrast to the Dora's 18.3 sqm wing. The Ta 152C weighed in at over 5300 kg with 19.5 sqm wing area.
It must have flown like a truck. Same for the Me 309 (16 sqm for 4600 kg).
Imo the only Focke Wulfs capable of tangling with the latest nimble Allied fighters were the late hotrod Doras, especially thanks to their superior roll rate and the Ta 152H thanks to its turn rate. The heavy fighter versions B and C were practically single-engined destroyers.
Most German panes were to receive larger wings in one form or the other. Other nations much less so.


Wing mounted radiators and manoeuverability do not have a connection I think but high speed does. The British performed postwar tests on drag of various radiator installations. Chin radiators were the worst, followed by underwing radiators iirc. Ventral were the best. Annular/drum installations were surprisingly good.

Focke Wulf preferred large ailerons and fuselage mounted tanks to lessen the inertia in a roll to keep a high roll rate,, though with the latest Ta 152 they used a shortened, 250 kg heavier steel main bar to incorporate additional wing tanks. This should have made them even less capable as dogfighters.

I wonder how Soviet fighters could have been developed. They had a high-altitude fighter (project) with the MiG-3 even though that machine looks like a low-to-medium alt fighter.

Japanes planes had rather large surfaces as they had to carry a lot of fuel to cover the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean and to provide superior turn performance.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 21, 2019)

Light stick forces and control harmony were also important with increasing speeds. 
Some designers seem to put more emphasis on that than others.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 21, 2019)

Early P47 with relatively small amount of fuel and toothpick prop, then went to more fuel, drop tanks, more hp and paddle prop, then went to P47N with even more power, lots and lots of fuel finally finishing with the ‘wish they would have built it’ XP72 with a mind blowing amount of power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 21, 2019)

You could say the P-51 was stretched into the F-82. 

For the P-58 its a stretch to say it was stretched from the P-38, it followed the design concept.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2019)

The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, _IF _they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal. 

The thing about the fuel is that allowed some engines, like the Merlin, to make the same power at less weight than a new larger engine would using the old fuel. Some engines could not make as good a use of the new fuels. And yes, many nations didn't have access to 100/130 fuel and were forced to use larger, heavier engines in order to get the required power. 

Some aircraft that tried to get a little too tricky with low drag/size/radiator placement did wind up have limited growth potential. 
The Mustang may have benefited from the initial armament fit. Two .50 cal in the cowl and a single .50 and a pair of .30 cal guns was fairly heavy armament (weight wise) in 1940 and also required a fair amount of volume.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, _IF _they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal.
> 
> The thing about the fuel is that allowed some engines, like the Merlin, to make the same power at less weight than a new larger engine would using the old fuel. Some engines could not make as good a use of the new fuels. And yes, many nations didn't have access to 100/130 fuel and were forced to use larger, heavier engines in order to get the required power.
> 
> ...


How did the fuel affect, specifically, the turbocharged radials used in the B17, B24 and P43?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 21, 2019)

P35 with 1 30 and 1 50, that rediculous landing gear and top speed of 275 ish stretched to the P43, turbocharged, 4 50’s, top speed 350+ at 25,000 feet. Too bad it didnt have real fuel tanks that didn’t leak, the few they built could have been very useful against the Japanese


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 21, 2019)

spicmart said:


> I really agree with you that the wings of later German fighters were way too small for their weight. The Spitfire Mk. XIV weighed about 3900 kg compared a D-9's about 4300 kg while featuring a 22.5 sqm wing in contrast to the Dora's 18.3 sqm wing. The Ta 152C weighed in at over 5300 kg with 19.5 sqm wing area.
> It must have flown like a truck. Same for the Me 309 (16 sqm for 4600 kg).
> Imo the only Focke Wulfs capable of tangling with the latest nimble Allied fighters were the late hotrod Doras, especially thanks to their superior roll rate and the Ta 152H thanks to its turn rate. The heavy fighter versions B and C were practically single-engined destroyers.



Hello Spicmart,

The real heavyweight before the Ta 152 was actually the FW 190A-8 / A-9. The D-9 actually weighed less but for some reason apparently lost some of its roll rate as well. I don't believe the B and C models ever got past the prototype stage to make a difference.



spicmart said:


> Wing mounted radiators and manoeuverability do not have a connection I think but high speed does. The British performed postwar tests on drag of various radiator installations. Chin radiators were the worst, followed by underwing radiators iirc. Ventral were the best. Annular/drum installations were surprisingly good.



The Spitfires and late Me 109 were able to achieve some pretty good speed with underwing radiators. It may not have been the best setup, but seemed to work well enough.
I believe the cleanest setup from a drag point of view is the buried cooling system as found in the Airacobra and King Cobra. The problem was that it wasn't very effective and limited the amount of power that could be installed.



spicmart said:


> Focke Wulf preferred large ailerons and fuselage mounted tanks to lessen the inertia in a roll to keep a high roll rate,, though with the latest Ta 152 they used a shortened, 250 kg heavier steel main bar to incorporate additional wing tanks. This should have made them even less capable as dogfighters.



I don't believe the FW 190 actually had particularly large ailerons. I believe their effectiveness had more to do with the actuating mechanisms which were rigid rods and the lack of friction in the system. Although the fuel location was better for inertia, there was typically a fairly heavy wing armament which would have increased the moment of inertia as well.



spicmart said:


> Japanes planes had rather large surfaces as they had to carry a lot of fuel to cover the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean and to provide superior turn performance.



I don't believe this is actually an accurate summary. Aircraft such as the A6M and Ki 43 really didn't carry all that much fuel. They were just very economical in their use of fuel. The A6M2 for example only had 535 liters of internal fuel.
Later Japanese aircraft in general didn't carry a particularly large amount of fuel either.



Shortround6 said:


> The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, _IF _they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal.



Hello Shortround6,

If the Merlin had been limited to +9 pounds boost, it might have been a better idea to keep using the Allison engines. The speed down low was better and the altitude performance was only slightly worse than the typical German fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, _IF _they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal.
> 
> The thing about the fuel is that allowed some engines, like the Merlin, to make the same power at less weight than a new larger engine would using the old fuel. Some engines could not make as good a use of the new fuels. And yes, many nations didn't have access to 100/130 fuel and were forced to use larger, heavier engines in order to get the required power.
> 
> ...



I think the question is whether the airframe can be modified/upgraded to suit the later war high H/P engines successfully, the Spitfire P51 FW190 P47 are examples that did.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 21, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I don't believe this is actually an accurate summary. Aircraft such as the A6M and Ki 43 really didn't carry all that much fuel. They were just very economical in their use of fuel. The A6M2 for example only had 535 liters of internal fuel.
> Later Japanese aircraft in general didn't carry a particularly large amount of fuel either.



Japanese planes sacrificed everything for range and cruised at 120mph over open ocean to reach those distances, you won't last long doing that in the ETO.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 22, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Japanese planes sacrificed everything for range and cruised at 120mph over open ocean to reach those distances, you won't last long doing that in the ETO.



Hello Pat303,

The A6M and Ki 43 are about the only two fighters that this description really applied to.
The Japanese manufactured and fielded quite a few other designs for which this description did not apply.
The Ki 44 and J2M would be examples of just the opposite kind of thing.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 22, 2019)

The Japanese designers were limited by the engines and fuel they had, Japanese aircraft were very good but when you are 300+ hp down there's only so much you can do.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

Hello Ivan

The real heavyweight before the Ta 152 was actually the FW 190A-8 / A-9. The D-9 actually weighed less but for some reason apparently lost some of its roll rate as well. I don't believe the B and C models ever got past the prototype stage to make a difference.

*The Jumo 213 weighed less than the BMW 801. I'm not sure if it really lost that much roll rate as the effective increase of inertia would still be at the centerline , so it should not have been to great. But I'm so physicist. But the Dora turned better than the Anton due to better power-to-weight ratio and aerodynamics. It's right hand turn at speed almost matched the Spitfire XIV's.*



The Spitfires and late Me 109 were able to achieve some pretty good speed with underwing radiators. It may not have been the best setup, but seemed to work well enough.
I believe the cleanest setup from a drag point of view is the buried cooling system as found in the Airacobra and King Cobra. The problem was that it wasn't very effective and limited the amount of power that could be installed.

*The underwing raidators actually caused more drag than the annular/drum radiator installation of late war German planes.
Most effective setup apparently was the Mustang's which was effective and produced the most additional thrust.*


I don't believe the FW 190 actually had particularly large ailerons. I believe their effectiveness had more to do with the actuating mechanisms which were rigid rods and the lack of friction in the system. Although the fuel location was better for inertia, there was typically a fairly heavy wing armament which would have increased the moment of inertia as well.

*The wing root, basic, armament is still near the centerline and many pilots removed the outer wing cannons, when there wer some, in order to make the plane more agile
The Russian fighter also featured cowling cannons to have place for fuel tanks in the wings. The late Yaks and Las had three or four cowl cannons, thanks for the Berezin B-20 20 mm being such a compact design.*


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

Would it have been possible to stretch the Me 109 design like the Fw 190? Lengthening the fuselage to carry more armament and fuel, enlarging the wings to carry the weight. Obviously the undercarriage would have to change to a broad one, too. They would have had to strenghten the structure considerably as the 109 was not nearly as rugged as the 190.

Why did they not develop the A6M Zero further to be competitive?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Would it have been possible to stretch the Me 109 design like the Fw 190? Lengthening the fuselage to carry more armament and fuel, enlarging the wings to carry the weight. Obviously the undercarriage would have to change to a broad one, too. They would have had to strenghten the structure considerably as the 109 was not nearly as rugged as the 190.



The Me-209 looks the part, with it's enlarged (but still not too big) wing and a much better undercarriage.



> Why did they not develop the A6M Zero further to be competitive?



Probably a combination of shortsightedness, overload of Mitsubishi's design department, and Japanese aero industry lagging back vs. West (USA, UK, Ge). Japan was not as rich & developed as the 3 leading Western countries, meaning that best engines went into 2-engined bombers 1st, instead of Anglo-American practice of making 4-engined bombers powered by widely-available engines.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

Despite being quite a small (wet area-wise) airframe tomo once said that it was THE fighter airframe of WW2.
Why is that that it was capable of so much stretch, arguably the most if you compare it to other fighters?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Despite being quite a small (wet area-wise) airframe tomo once said that it was THE fighter airframe of WW2.
> Why is that that it was capable of so much stretch, arguably the most if you compare it to other fighters?



Which one is that? 
Among other a few fighters, I'm the admirer of the Fw 190's airframe.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Which one is that?
> Among other a few fighters, I'm the admirer of the Fw 190's airframe.



Sorry, I meant the Fw 190.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Would it have been possible to stretch the Me 109 design like the Fw 190? Lengthening the fuselage to carry more armament and fuel, enlarging the wings to carry the weight. Obviously the undercarriage would have to change to a broad one, too. They would have had to strenghten the structure considerably as the 109 was not nearly as rugged as the 190.



The 109 had also seen considerable "stretch", at least in weight growth if not actual dimensions. Let's remember that it was _designed_ as a two gun (or one cannon) fighter using a 20 liter (600-700hp) engine and weighing under 2000kg. The Jumo engined planes were NOT interim planes while they waited for the DB engine, nearly 1000 Jumo 210 powered planes were built. At some point is not wise/worthwhile to keep 'stretching" an airframe and it is better to start over. On the 209-II they got to a point where only 30% of the airframe was common to the 109G and that is what killed the project, they were looking for a plane that could be put into production with only a small disruption in production and the 209-II had ceased to be that plane once all the desired modifications had been made. It might have been a very good airplane, nobody knows. But Germany could not afford the loss of hundreds of aircraft per month for several months as the production was changed over. 



> Why did they not develop the A6M Zero further to be competitive?



Lack of engineers and engineering staff. (plus politics?) 

The designer of the Zero (and some of the staff) had started on what would be the A7M Reppu in 1940 although project was quickly shelved (no suitable engine) while the staff worked on the A6M3 and the J2M. Project was restarted in April of 1942. Again the staff had to also work on later versions of the A6M, the G4M and the J2M so work was slow. 
At any given point in time the priorities between the new fighter/s and the improved model/s of the zero changed back and forth depending on the war situation. 
Compounding this was the availability of suitable engines. You had a Mitsubishi airframe powered by a Nakajima engine which Mitsubishi was not happy about. But trying to get the Japanese navy to agree to change to a Mitsubishi engine (the only one with a hope of fitting) doesn't seem to gone well until the very end of the war. The "improved" Nakajima engines never seemed to meet the promised goals?
How much politics played a part in the engine selection I don't know. The larger heavier Mitsubishi engine might have robbed some of the range from the A6M.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

I was wondering about the A7M Reppu as the successor to the Zero as it was a very large aircraft.
The trend at the end of the war was towards smaller-sized fighters
(F8F Bearcat).
The power-to-weight ratio would decrease with airplane size and so would flight performance and agility.
But what were the advantages?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2019)

You are confusing the timing. The early to mid war trend was to larger fighters, the F6F and F4U for example.

The F8F was NOT an example of a trend but rather a special used fighter, Grumman already had the F7F in the works for large carriers (of which there were few) but needed a replacement for the F4F/FM2 for small carriers, of which there were many.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

Okay. But the Japanese did plan the deployment of the Reppu? Flight wise it would have been hopelessly outclassed by the Bearcat I assume.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> The Jumo 213 weighed less than the BMW 801. I'm not sure if it really lost that much roll rate as the effective increase of inertia would still be at the centerline , so it should not have been to great. But I'm so physicist. But the Dora turned better than the Anton due to better power-to-weight ratio and aerodynamics. It's right hand turn at speed almost matched the Spitfire XIV's.



Hello Spicmart,

I am not so sure that is really a valid conclusion.
The FW 190D-9 weighed about 50 kg less than the FW 190A-8 but the standard armament did not include the outboard wing cannon which would have more than made up the difference. Perhaps the JuMo 213 weighed less than the BMW 801, but one cannot conclude that from the aircraft weights.
There was apparently a slight decrease in roll rate.
The next part is speculation on my part: I believe it might have had something to do with a change in alignment between the center of mass and center of form with the new engine. That might explain why an overall decrease in weight along with a deletion of outboard wing armament did not increase roll rate.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Okay. But the Japanese did plan the deployment of the Reppu? Flight wise it would have been hopelessly outclassed by the Bearcat I assume.


You may be right but the Japanese did not have an engine of the same class as the R-2800-*C *which the Bearcat used.
The C series R-2800 used just about no interchangeable parts with the B series engines used in the F6F-3 or F4U-1s aside from a few nuts, bolts, washers and perhaps the starter dog.
The Japanese also didn't have 115/145 fuel which the post war Bearcats ran on.
Make sure you are using the performance numbers for the early F8F-1 Bearcat.

The A7M was much more of a match for the F6F in concept.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The A7M was much more of a match for the F6F in concept.



That's what I thought seeing the specs.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 22, 2019)

Perhaps an oversimplification but I've often thought you could continue to develop just about anything indefinitely(within reason) by lengthening the fuselage to keep the COG after adding the disired aditional fuel, power, etc.
This approach seemed to work pretty well for several types like the p40. Ya, I know, we don't normally think of the p40 as being a stretched/ much improved design but if you consider where it started by the time it got to the p40 f/L it really had come a very long way from the pre p36 origins.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Perhaps an oversimplification but I've often thought you could continue to develop just about anything indefinitely(within reason) by lengthening the fuselage to keep the COG after adding the disired aditional fuel, power, etc.
> This approach seemed to work pretty well for several types like the p40. Ya, I know, we don't normally think of the p40 as being a stretched/ much improved design but if you consider where it started by the time it got to the p40 f/L it really had come a very long way from the pre p36 origins.




The thing with the P-40 is that any additional "length" was to accommodate the V-12 engine and for aerodynamic reasons. There was no real change in fuel capacity, the Hawk75/P-36 could hold about 160 gallons if the overload/ferry tank behind the pilot was filled. The later versions got a longer tail (20 inches) instead of a larger vertical stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizers and elevators stayed in the original position, Only the vertical stabilizer, rudder (and tail wheel?) moved. and it was not for CG reasons. 
The P-40 did come a long way from the pre P-36 aircraft but the wing stayed the same size/shape, It got quite few pounds heavier to take the increased loads. 
The fuselage guns migrated to the wings (on the CG) so no stretch was required for armament.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The thing with the P-40 is that any additional "length" was to accommodate the V-12 engine and for aerodynamic reasons. There was no real change in fuel capacity, the Hawk75/P-36 could hold about 160 gallons if the overload/ferry tank behind the pilot was filled. The later versions got a longer tail (20 inches) instead of a larger vertical stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizers and elevators stayed in the original position, Only the vertical stabilizer, rudder (and tail wheel?) moved. and it was not for CG reasons.
> The P-40 did come a long way from the pre P-36 aircraft but the wing stayed the same size/shape, It got quite few pounds heavier to take the increased loads.
> The fuselage guns migrated to the wings (on the CG) so no stretch was required for armament.


From what I've read even if the tail was not lengthened for COG reasons it did have a positive effect in that regard( if unintentional) as pre-lengthening p40s were apparently quite squirrely and after pretty stable. At least that's the impression I've gotten from pilots quotes so I always assumed it was lengthened for that reason.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> From what I've read even if the tail was not lengthened for COG reasons it did have a positive effect in that regard( if unintentional) as pre-lengthening p40s were apparently quite squirrely and after pretty stable. At least that's the impression I've gotten from pilots quotes so I always assumed it was lengthened for that reason.



Hello Michael Rauls,

I don't know as much about the P-36 as I would like, but from a comparison of drawings, it appears to me that the change to P-40 was a bit more than a simple engine swap. There were a few construction or dimensional changes as well and they can be seen by comparing a drawing of a P-36 and early P-40. From diagrams, it also appears that at least the fuselage fuel tank and tail wheel changed slightly as well.
The early P-40 only had about 1150 HP.
The P-40E and P-40K had engines that could be over boosted to give in the neighborhood of 1550-1600 HP at low altitude and that made them a bit difficult to control at low speeds. The same thing was probably happening with the P-40F with a Merlin engine.
With the P-40K, a few things were tried: A large fillet added to the fin and then just moving the fin and rudder back 20 inches as Shortround6 described. The horizontal tail and tail wheel were unchanged.
The longer tail did improve directional stability and control, but I believe that the lower absolute engine power of the later versions might also have given the impression that the longer tail helped things more than it actually did.
The additional weight at the tail would if anything have made the aircraft LESS stable, but later engines also added extra weight up front and that would have affected the CoG.

- Ivan.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 23, 2019)

So I see it that virtually any design has stretch. But the potential of "how much" depended on the basic design. Its dimensions, construction properties of wings and fuselage, location of cooling devices, weapons, fuel tanks, landing gear configuration etc.. All these interact and influence the extent to which modifications were possible to push the evolution further.
Planes which become "obsolete" obviously reach a level faster where it would be easier and more feasible to go with a whole new desgin.
A case where it becomes a separate machine was e.g. the Me 209 V5 which incorporated not enough common parts to the Me 109 to warrant production, other than to not offering any advantages to its competitor Fw 190D.

But how would you describe a Yak-3, Bearcat or Sea Fury? Are they "shrinkage" versions of the Yak-9, Hellcat and Tempest?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> So I see it that virtually any design has stretch. But the potential of "how much" depended on the basic design. Its dimensions, construction properties of wings and fuselage, location of cooling devices, weapons, fuel tanks, landing gear configuration etc.. All these interact and influence the extent to which modifications were possible to push the evolution further.
> Planes which become "obsolete" obviously reach a level faster where it would be easier and more feasible to go with a whole new desgins.
> The case where it becomes a separate machine was e.g. the Me 209 V5 which incorporated not enough common parts to the Me 109 to warrant production, other than to not offering any advantages to its competitor Fw 190D.
> 
> But how would you describe a Yak-3, Bearcat or Sea Fury? Are they "shrinkage" versions of the Yak-9, Hellcat and Tempest?


I think the bottom 3 would be referred to as clean sheet designs. About all the Bearcat shares with the Hellcat is the engine type and the paint. I believe the same applies to the Sea Fury and Tempest. I know very little about the Soviet aircraft


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I think the bottom 3 would be referred to as clean sheet designs. About all the Bearcat shares with the Hellcat is the engine type and the paint. I believe the same applies to the Sea Fury and Tempest. I know very little about the Soviet aircraft



Hello Pinsog,

I believe Spicmart is more or less correct for two of the three types he listed.
The Yak-3 isn't too different from the Yak-1M and was developed from it.
The Sea Fury actually WAS a more refined and lightened Tempest Mk.II.
The Bearcat didn't even share an engine with any production version of the Hellcat though.

- Ivan.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pinsog,
> 
> I believe Spicmart is more or less correct for two of the three types he listed.
> The Yak-3 isn't too different from the Yak-1M and was developed from it.
> ...


Interesting. 
I knew the Hellcat and Bearcat shared the R2800 and that it wasn’t the same model R2800. I should have typed a bit more. 

I didn’t realize the Tempest and Sea Fury shared much of anything.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2019)

In many cases the chance to improve performance was given up simply to get more planes. The planned development of the Spitfire and the actual production were almost strangers to each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 23, 2019)

The German Heinkel and Dornier bombers were stretched. The versions flown in the Mid Thirties evolved significantly into the 40's.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> In many cases the chance to improve performance was given up simply to get more planes. The planned development of the Spitfire and the actual production were almost strangers to each other.


That's a good point and one that I only recently came to realize. I've often thought" why didn't they make this improvement or that" but I guess it was better to have enough good planes than not enough great ones.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Interesting.
> I knew the Hellcat and Bearcat shared the R2800 and that it wasn’t the same model R2800. I should have typed a bit more.
> 
> I didn’t realize the Tempest and Sea Fury shared much of anything.



The Bearcat used a single stage, two speed "C" series R-2800 (actually at least 3 different engines were used in Bearcats, the F8F-2 used an "E" series engine) While the Hellcat used the two stage B series engines. The C series engines used cylinders and heads with much more finning than the B series engines which allowed them to make more power without overheating or to make the same power with about 10% less cooling air flowing through the cowling (less drag) they also used different pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, crankcases, reduction gears, and so on. 
The Bearcat, aside from looking short and pudgy like many Grumman products, shared no common parts, was not scaled down in anyway from the F6F and had nothing to do with the F6F design. 

On the Fury, from Wiki so take as you wish.

Developed as the "Tempest Light Fighter (Centaurus)", the semi-elliptical wing of the Tempest was incorporated, but was shortened in span by eliminating the central bay of the wing centre-section, the inner part of the undercarriage wells now extending almost to the aircraft centreline, instead of being situated level with the fuselage sides.[3][4][5] The fuselage was broadly similar in form to that of the Tempest, but was a fully monocoque structure, while the cockpit level was higher, affording the pilot better all-round visibility

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The Yak-3 isn't too different from the Yak-1M and was developed from it.



That is true but the Yak-1M's wing differed considerably from the normal Yak 1 (or 7 or 9) wing. Work on the Yak 1M didn't start until 1942? first prototype flew in Feb 1943. 
Fuselage showed little difference however from normal Yak 1.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That's a good point and one that I only recently came to realize. I've often thought" why didn't they make this improvement or that" but I guess it was better to have enough good planes than not enough great ones.


Towards 1944 it was sometimes preferable to have more planes now rather than better planes after D-Day for example. The Typhoon and Lancaster were two that I can think of where more was seen as preferable to fewer but better later.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2019)

spicmart said:


> A plane which was literally "stretched" from a stocky brute of a plane to an elegant slim longwinged bird is the Fw 190 to become the Ta 152.
> A plane which reached his pinnacle early and could not developed much further without growing disadvantages was the Me 109.





pinsog said:


> Early P47 with relatively small amount of fuel and toothpick prop, then went to more fuel, drop tanks, more hp and paddle prop, then went to P47N with even more power, lots and lots of fuel finally finishing with the ‘wish they would have built it’ XP72 with a mind blowing amount of power.



Here we have some extremes on the definition of "stretch" The P-47 didn't change more than couple of inches in any dimension until you got to the N and those few inches (if the change existed at all) was due to changing the propeller. Yet the fuel capacity (internal) went up 21%, the engine power went up 25% and external loads drastically changed. The N used a bigger wing wing to house even more fuel and it's engine was 40% more powerful than the early P-47. BTW the early P-47 only had a relatively small amount of fuel compared to what it would later carry using drop tanks. The early P-47 carried over 2 1/2 times as much fuel as an early Spitfire or 109 and around twice as much as an early Fw 190. 

The Fw190 to TA152 was one of, if not the most extreme, cases of actual physical change in dimensions of aircraft design for single engine fighters. Little of the change had to do with increased armament.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> The German Heinkel and Dornier bombers were stretched. The versions flown in the Mid Thirties evolved significantly into the 40's.



While the capabilities (gross weight and power) of the He 111 were stretched the actual aircraft was not, yes it got a new nose and they straightened out the wing leading edge but a 1937 and a 1943 HE 111 were pretty much the same sized aircraft. 
The Dornier Do 217 was a not quite clean sheet of paper aircraft compared to the Do 17. Similar configuration and shape but no actual interchangeable parts aside from hardware. 
Max gross weight of the later 217s being almost double that of a Do 17Z-2. 

Many planes got new engines or more powerful versions of existing engines, they changed armament, they changed cockpits or noses (on twins) and they got heavier, sometimes much heavier. All without changing the basic external shape and size. So what do we consider "stretch". Changing the external dimensions to any great extent (not bolting on different wing tips like the Spitfire) was much rarer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 24, 2019)

I'm not sure it's germane here, but I always thought that one of the most successful stretches of an aircraft was a C-141A to a C-141B. That really opened up a whole different world of mission effectiveness for that airframe. 

When I read the OP thread title, that was what came to mind at first.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> While the capabilities (gross weight and power) of the He 111 were stretched the actual aircraft was not, yes it got a new nose and they straightened out the wing leading edge but a 1937 and a 1943 HE 111 were pretty much the same sized aircraft.
> The Dornier Do 217 was a not quite clean sheet of paper aircraft compared to the Do 17. Similar configuration and shape but no actual interchangeable parts aside from hardware.
> Max gross weight of the later 217s being almost double that of a Do 17Z-2.



I'd say that Do-217 was a clean sheet design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd say that Do-217 was a clean sheet design.



You may be right 

At most they may have started with a fuzzy tracing of the Do 17 outline as a starting point 

roughly the same size and configuration including twin tail but that is about as close as it goes.

A bit like saying a Douglas A-26 is a stretched Douglas A-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 24, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Why did they not develop the A6M Zero further to be competitive?


Besides the overburdened engineering staff and the less than optimum fuel, there just didn't seem to be available significantly more powerful engines of the necessary reliability and power-to-weight ratio to go with A6M's ultralight design philosophy. Any serious upgrading would require serious beefing up of the airframe, which brings into question the feasibility of a quick production change over. Any attempt to improve combat survivability would doom the ultralight philosophy entirely as well as any hopes for a quick change over.
Time for a clean sheet of paper.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Sep 25, 2019)

The Japanese never completely gave up on their lightweight design philosophy, so that one can doubt if their presumably excellent late-war fighters could compete with sturdily build American fighters in high speed ACM.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 25, 2019)

spicmart said:


> The Japanese never completely gave up on their lightweight design philosophy, so that one can doubt if their presumably excellent late-war fighters could compete with sturdily build American fighters in high speed ACM.


By most accounts they did, though handicapped by undertrained pilots, lower grade fuel, and overwhelming opposition.
Still, the ultralight design approach seems to naturally be handicapped in the growth department compared to the "sturdily built" design philosophy. Also, it appears Japan put a much smaller portion of their resources into aeronautical research and development than did the US, UK, and Germany. The Japanese penchant for the "sudden offensive strike" and "single decisive battle" tended not to favor long term thinking, nor did their impending resource crisis.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 25, 2019)

spicmart said:


> The Japanese never completely gave up on their lightweight design philosophy, so that one can doubt if their presumably excellent late-war fighters could compete with sturdily build American fighters in high speed ACM.



Hello Spicmart,

I would have to agree with 
X
 XBe02Drvr
here. The late war Japanese fighters actually appear to be quite competitive except for build quality, reliability and pilot quality. Even their best engines were not quite keeping up with what was available to American designers, but from a performance standpoint, they were near even at low to medium altitudes. 
The design philosophies were still a bit different though: American aircraft tended to be very well protected. With few exceptions such as the Ki 61, Japanese aircraft were not. Some carried very minimal armour such as a sheet behind the pilot. Some such as the N1K2-J were just sturdily built but carried no actual armour at all.
Another inconvenience was the need to carry substantial amounts of Water-Methanol for anti detonant because the fuel was poor quality and ADI was needed to use anything past cruise settings.

With the A6M, I believe they had a suitable replacement pretty early: the Kinsei / Ha 112 but for some reason decided not to attempt a conversion until the war was nearly over. I believe it was even considered for the initial design for the A6M but eventually the Zuisei was chosen for the prototype and then replaced by Sakae in production models.
The conversion to Ha 112 / Kinsei would have required some armament considerations though. It required the deletion of the cowl armament and without that, the A6M2 and early A6M3 would have had no staying power with just 60 rounds per wing cannon and no other guns.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 25, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> With the A6M, I believe they had a suitable replacement pretty early: the Kinsei / Ha 112 but for some reason decided not to attempt a conversion until the war was nearly over.


I think that reason may have been that the Kinsei didn't reliably develop enough additional horsepower to offset its greater weight until late in the war.
In the array of missed opportunities for stretchable aircraft, there hides the ill-fated Gloster F.5/34, often accused of paternity in the case of the A6M, and which died too young to even be christened with a name. The Hurricane and Spitfire beat it to the production line, so it was dropped. But looking at the numbers, if it had hung around long enough for its puny 840 horse radial to be replaced with one of the 1000 or 1100 hp types that showed up soon after, it might have been a useful item in the war to come. With its generous wing area and light wing loading, plus its typical Gloster rugged construction, it looks like an airframe with plenty of growth potential. Perhaps it could have been doing the Typhoon's job before the Typhoon made it out the factory door. Or maybe it could have given the Fleet Air Arm the high performance fighter that it so painfully lacked. We'll never know.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 25, 2019)

Hello 
X
 XBe02Drvr
,

I had never looked at the Gloster F.5/34 in detail before. It does look interesting from a technical point of view.
It is running a bit less power but has about the same performance as a Hurricane. I wonder what would have happened if they had cleaned up that semi-retractable main gear. That should have improved things.
Sounds like these guys just had some bad timing and were a little late to the party.

Regarding Kinsei as a replacement for Sakae, I believe this is a bit of a judgment call. By 1942, it was already making 1300 HP (Take-Off) and 1100 HP at 20,000 feet as installed in the D3A dive bomber as compared to the single speed Sakae 12 that was in service in the A6M2. Even the A6M3 / A6M5 with 1130 HP at Take-Off and 980 HP at 6,000 meters wasn't doing quite as well.
Is the extra power worth the extra weight and having to redesign the armament package? That is really the judgment call.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 25, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Is the extra power worth the extra weight and having to redesign the armament package? That is really the judgment call.


Hello Ivan. Good question, isn't it? I think the tiebreaker here is reliability, which, IIRC, was something of an issue with the higher powered versions of the Kinsei. Too bad we can't rewrite history.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 25, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hello Ivan. Good question, isn't it? I think the tiebreaker here is reliability, which, IIRC, was something of an issue with the higher powered versions of the Kinsei. Too bad we can't rewrite history.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Hello XBe02Drvr,

In this case, with Kinsei engines already being installed in the D3A2, I don't think it was necessary a reliability issue though these were also not particularly high powered engines either.
I suspect (!) it had more to do with the strategic situation at the time.
Keep in mind that this is when the brand new A6M3 Model 32 was coming out.
In theory it was a hotter aeroplane with a two speed supercharger and more power and speed.
The problems were that it was a heavier aeroplane and not quite as agile at low altitude AND that it had an engine that consumed more fuel. The extra space of the engine cost some of the fuselage tank capacity, so it didn't have the range.
The Guadalcanal campaign was being fought from Rabaul and the new Model 32 could not fly that far.
The bigger Kinsei would probably have just made things worse at THAT time.
Up to that point, the only wing armament was a couple Type 99-I cannon with 60 round drum magazines with a total firing time of about 7 seconds. Magazine capacity was increased shortly after, but additional wing armament didn't come along until the A6M5 series quite a bit later.
I believe that carrying more fuel as was done in the A6M3 Model 22 or perhaps using a larger drop tank was easier to work out than revising the wing armament to address the loss of cowl guns.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 25, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hello Ivan. Good question, isn't it? I think the tiebreaker here is reliability, which, IIRC, was something of an issue with the higher powered versions of the Kinsei. *Too bad we can't rewrite history.*
> Cheers,
> Wes



Uhhh, have you ever watched CNN...
😉

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 26, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Uhhh, have you ever watched CNN...
> 😉


I wasn't talking about them. "We", as in you and me and all our fellow insignifici who can't or won't go viral and change the public mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 26, 2019)

P-51 was the ultimate stretch, getting a two stage engine and 85 gallons more fuel.

P-39 could have been stretched. Substitute 50gal fuel for the wing .30s and use the V1710-93 two stage engine available from April '43. Would have weighed around 8000# as compared to a P-63 at 8950# or a P-51B at 9600#.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 26, 2019)

Just for fun, how about the stretch from a DC-8-10 to the DC-8-60 series?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 26, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-51 was the ultimate stretch, getting a two stage engine and 85 gallons more fuel.
> 
> P-39 could have been stretched. Substitute 50gal fuel for the wing .30s and use the V1710-93 two stage engine available from April '43. Would have weighed around 8000# as compared to a P-63 at 8950# or a P-51B at 9600#.



Hello P-39 Expert,

I believe that by the time all the that would result from the substitution were corrected, the aircraft would greatly resemble a P-63 King Cobra. Where would you put an intercooler? Where would the additional pieces of the supercharger go? The cooling system isn't really adequate for the non two-stage supercharged engines. Is anyone other than the Russians willing to accept a frontline fighter with just a 37 mm and two cowl mounted .50 cal?

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 26, 2019)

A big stretch for a WW II aircraft (but not fighter) was the Lockheed 14/Hudson to the PV-2 Ventura. Longer fuselage, more wingspan, much more powerful engines, more/bigger weapons and a larger bomb load.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Trying to assess how much stretch an airplane had very early in it's career is just about impossible.
> 
> Ed Heinemann's A-4 Skyhawk first flew months if not a year before the engine that would power the later versions was first run on a test stand. Engine power went from 7000lbs thrust on the early planes to over 11,000lbs thrust on the later ones (and they may have gotten better fuel consumption) now perhaps Mr. Heinemann designed the engine bay with a little extra room to allow for a possible engine change even if he didn't know exactly what was coming?



Actually, it went the other way - the original engine was larger & heavier than its replacements.

The A-4's original engine (A-4A/B/C) was the Wright J65-4/16/20 (license-built Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire 100 series).
That engine had a length of 130", a diameter of 37.7", and a weight of 2,750 lb.
Thrust was 7,650 lb.s.t. A-4A (-4); 7,700 lb.s.t. A-4B (-16); & 8,400 lb.s.t. A-4C (-20).
Fuel consumption was .90 lb fuel/lb thrust/hr

Starting with the A-4E, the engine was the Pratt & Whitney J52-6/8.
That engine had a length of 117", a diameter of 30.2", and a weight of 2,100 lb.
Thrust was 8,500 lb.s.t A-4E (-6); 9,300 lb.s.t. A-4E/F/G/H/J/K (-8).
Fuel consumption was .82 lb fuel/lb thrust/hr

The "Super-Skyhawk" (A-4M/N/KU) had the J52-408.
That engine had a length of 118.9", a diameter of 32.1", and a weight of 2,318 lb.
Thrust was 11,200 lb.s.t
Fuel consumption was .79 lb fuel/lb thrust/hr

Singapore rebuilt its used A-4B/Cs with the F404-100D (A-4S-1/SU).
That engine had a length of 94", a diameter of 35", and a weight of 1,830 lb.
Thrust was 11,000 lb.s.t
Fuel consumption was .80 lb fuel/lb thrust/hr

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2019)

Interesting discussion! I had a few thoughts nobody will probably care about but I will post them anyway....

*On the point in the OP *

The OP has a good point. I think 'stretch' was a fairly common tactic both in substantial revisions of old designs and in new ones. Not universal but by no means unusual. Even the Spitfire was stretched.
I think the main reason for the stretch however is for improved stability, which became needed with increased speed and power, such as during takeoff and also hard maneuvering.
Fuel tanks seemed to do best when placed between engine and cockpit, in the central part of the wings, or beneath the cockpit in roughly that order. Fuel tanks behind the pilot seemed to frequently cause stability problems when full (though they could still be used anyway for long range flights).
Conversely I believe a lot of very short (and often overly fat) aircraft, particularly early war fighters, suffered some stability issues as a result. The I-15 / I-16 series are one good example. The Bloch 152 is I think another as is the Brewster F2A Buffalo. However the trend of some shorter and also smaller planes did also exist as previously mentioned (Bearcat etc.)

Since guns and fuel were best put between the engine and cockpit there was a limit to how far you could push the cockpit backward that limited how much 'stretch' could help. Some, when it came to adding a bigger supercharger or for ammunition storage for example. But not too much.

*Limitations of Japanese fighters*
I think the biggest problems with Japanese fighters and aircraft more generally was with engines. I believe like the Russians and Italians and all the lesser powers, they struggled with engine design most of all. At the end of the 30's nearly every advanced nation proved capable of making the modern standard of fighter planes: single-engined, closed cockpit, cantilever winged monoplanes with at least partly stressed metal skin*, closed cockpit, and retractable landing gear. Small countries like Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and Romania made reasonably good planes - engines were the single most difficult stumbling block for most. When you read the design history of countless planes problems with the new or anticipated engines were so routine as to be almost inevitable - even in the UK, Germany or the US but especially in every other country.

The Soviets struggled with derivations of the Hispano Suiza 12Y or whatever and until nearly the end of the war their inline engines were rarely capable of more than 1,200 or 1,300 HP so to improve performance they had to keep their fighters very light and therefore small. Only their Shvestov M-82 radial enabled them to break out into heavy duty horsepower (which is perhaps why they loved the La 5 series so much). The Italians just had to adopt German DB 600 series engines.

In Japan they _did_ make much more powerful engines than the 800 or 900 hp motors they started the war with (up to 2,000 hp and more eventually), they just couldn't make more powerful engines _that could reliably work _and be maintained onboard aircraft carriers or dusty, humid, squalid island revetments. So to speak only of fighters the Ki-44 (early 1942), J2M (Dec 1942), and Ki-61 (early 1943) did arrive in time to potentially make a difference in the war. They were not available in huge numbers but many of the key battles in the Pacific were fought with surprisingly few aircraft. The float plane version of the N1K1 also arrived in 1943, and there were some innovative and highly capable Japanese bomber types arriving around the same time as well. But problems with their engines, both on the production side and in terms of maintenance in the field were so crippling that these aircraft were produced at a slow rate and had a very low availability ratio. So if you have 100 new planes that are pretty good, but can only field 20 at a time and then half of them have to turn around en-route to the target, you really have no benefit.

Furthermore trying to fix teething problems with engines slowed down both engine and aircraft production & development and is a large part of the reason why so many more very promising Japanese aircraft which flew in say 1941 or 1942 didn't make into combat until late 1944 or 1945 (and then only in small numbers), when it was clearly too late.

*Japanese aircraft and armor*
My understanding is that the Japanese fighters and some of the bombers arriving mid-war did have armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Can somebody clarify about the N1K1? I thought it had armor too. The problem was that the Japanese didn't have a robust system for pilot rescue and recovery. Armor in an aircraft served two purposes. One was Tactical - to enable the aircraft to survive being hit and keep fighting- maybe still win in spite of a few bullet holes. Japanese fighters such as the A6M5 had that. The other was Strategic / Attritional: for the aircraft though basically smashed up, to remain flyable long enough for the pilot to bail out, ditch or crash-land. Read the personal histories of German or Russian aces in WW2, or any Ace who fought for a very long period of time - you will find almost inevitably that they were shot down multiple times, but survived to return to base and fight again and again. On the Russian Front for both sides this was accomplished mainly by the air combat being right next to the front line and a relatively lucky pilot being able to make his way to friendly troops. In the West you had the Resistance plus air-sea rescue.

In the Pacific though due to the vast distances over water you needed a _very_ robust dedicated air-sea rescue system. Even a moderately damaged aircraft often faced a very long flight back to base, often through dangerous weather, in a challenging navigational environment and near the limits of their fuel / range. The Americans and ANZAC forces had life jackets, they had dinghy's in their combat planes, most importantly they had fleets of PBY, OS2U, Lockheed Hudsons, Sunderlands, later PB4Y as well as submarines and PT boats and the like assigned to rescue and recovery duties. The Japanese never really had this in place as a system (even though they had submarines and some great seaplanes and flying boats that could do the job), they famously had a hard time even getting pilots to wear parachutes. The notion of a pilot who was defeated still being worth keeping as a pilot was also slow to realization for the IJA and IJN.

So without a recovery system in other words most shot down Japanese pilots, even if they survived the destruction or crippling of their aircraft, ended up POW, MIA, or KIA, whereas a large number of Anglo-American / ANZAC pilots survived being shot down (sometimes two and three times) and were able to keep fighting. In part due to the armor and self-sealing fuel tanks on their aircraft, but in part due to that air-sea rescue system. Even when the Japanese caught up in this area, they still lacked the pilot recovery infrastructure or system to get the greatest benefit out of it in terms of attrition warfare.


* almost always some kind of duralumin or the equivalent in some kind of wartime-expedient advanced plywood

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 27, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello P-39 Expert,
> 
> I believe that by the time all the that would result from the substitution were corrected, the aircraft would greatly resemble a P-63 King Cobra. Where would you put an intercooler? Where would the additional pieces of the supercharger go? The cooling system isn't really adequate for the non two-stage supercharged engines. Is anyone other than the Russians willing to accept a frontline fighter with just a 37 mm and two cowl mounted .50 cal?
> 
> - Ivan.


The big advantage of the P-39 with the -93 engine is it would have been available 6 months before the first P-63 appeared. And the P-39 was already in full production while the P-63 was just entering production. No intercooler needed. P-63 didn't have on but used water injection instead. Or don't even use water injection, just don't utilize WEP (war emergency power) which was only good below the critical altitude and the P-39 already had excellent performance at low/medium altitude. Oil cooling radiators could have been enlarged somewhat by better utilizing the space allotted. A 37mm cannon with two .50s was more than adequate considering the AAF and Navy had newer fighters armed with only 4 x .50 caliber MGs (P-51A/B/C, FM-2 and F8F).


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2019)

The J2M looks like a good candidate for a 'stretch' by the way... maybe the Ki-44 too...


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 27, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> The big advantage of the P-39 with the -93 engine is it would have been available 6 months before the first P-63 appeared. And the P-39 was already in full production while the P-63 was just entering production. No intercooler needed. P-63 didn't have on but used water injection instead. Or don't even use water injection, just don't utilize WEP (war emergency power) which was only good below the critical altitude and the P-39 already had excellent performance at low/medium altitude. Oil cooling radiators could have been enlarged somewhat by better utilizing the space allotted. A 37mm cannon with two .50s was more than adequate considering the AAF and Navy had newer fighters armed with only 4 x .50 caliber MGs (P-51A/B/C, FM-2 and F8F).



Hello P-39 Expert,

My mistake regarding the two-stage Allison engine.
Without a lot more engine power or a much greater critical altitude, performance would still be somewhat lacking compared to contemporaries.
I don't believe there actually was the capability to increase the cooling capacity in the available space or that would have been done because cooling was always somewhat inadequate in the Airacobra.
I think you have much greater faith in the air-to-air capability of the 37 mm cannon than I do. Ballistics are lousy, firing rate is too slow and ammunition capacity is too low.
The other 4 gun fighters you mentioned had free-firing, not synchronized .50 cal MG. The Bearcat also was using the M3 HMG with a much higher firing rate.
If one HAD to keep the P-39 in service, I believe it would have made more sense to stretch the wings and possibly the horizontal tail to adjust the center of lift to cure the aft CoG problem and use a more modern airfoil. A symmetrical airfoil just didn't make sense in an aircraft that was not intended to sustain inverted flight.
From various descriptions, the migration of the CoG did not seem particularly great or very far aft but the Airacobra seemed to be affected much more than other fighters. Perhaps a new wing design would cure that problem.



Schweik said:


> The J2M looks like a good candidate for a 'stretch' by the way... maybe the Ki-44 too...



Hello Schweik,

Out of curiosity, how would you stretch the J2M?

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 27, 2019)

How? I think I would just push the tail about two feet back, if nothing else for aesthetic reasons.

I wonder if they made it so short to fit on aircraft carrier elevators maybe? Wouldn't be the first design messed up for that reason.

I really don't know but would expect a slightly longer fuselage with the tail 2 or 3 feet back might improve stability a little bit without adding much weight. No other reason.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 27, 2019)

Schweik said:


> . Even the Spitfire was stretched.
> 
> I think the main reason for the stretch however is for improved stability, which became needed with increased speed and power, such as during takeoff and also hard maneuvering.
> Fuel tanks seemed to do best when placed between engine and cockpit, in the central part of the wings, or beneath the cockpit in roughly that order. Fuel tanks behind the pilot seemed to frequently cause stability problems when full (though they could still be used anyway for long range flights).


The fuel tanks of a plane must be as close to the centre of gravity as possible because they change in weight as the plane flies. The performance envelope of the Spitfire in its service life was stretched massively, its power and weight doubled however the wing plan hardly changed at all, and the fuselage became longer at the front because of bigger engines but hardly at all at the rear, instead they used balance weights. Literally stretching an airframe, making it longer makes it more stable, that isn't always desirable in a fighter.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 27, 2019)

Schweik said:


> How? I think I would just push the tail about two feet back, if nothing else for aesthetic reasons.
> 
> I wonder if they made it so short to fit on aircraft carrier elevators maybe? Wouldn't be the first design messed up for that reason.
> 
> I really don't know but would expect a slightly longer fuselage with the tail 2 or 3 feet back might improve stability a little bit without adding much weight. No other reason.



Hello Schweik,

The J2M was never intended to be flown from carriers. The J designation meant that it was a land based fighter as opposed to A for a carrier fighter or N for a seaplane fighter.
The length was 9.695 Meters and wing span was 10.800 meters, so it wasn't really that short at 31,8 feet.
The pilot report actually commented that stability was excellent, so there wasn't really anything to fix in that area.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> The big advantage of the P-39 with the -93 engine is it would have been available 6 months before the first P-63 appeared. And the P-39 was already in full production while the P-63 was just entering production. No intercooler needed. P-63 didn't have on but used water injection instead. Or don't even use water injection, just don't utilize WEP (war emergency power) which was only good below the critical altitude




-93 engine, available how and at what ratings? It didn't pass it's type test until Nov 27th 1943. P-63s built and equipped with the -93 engine were flying with restrictions. 

As for no intercooler needed? 
The earlier E9 engine(alias -47, the -93 was the E11) was supposed to use an intercooler. As things developed this was changed to an after cooler. In the end in Dec of 1943 the aftercooler was canceled due to poor performance of the unit supplied by the Harrison Radiator division of General Motors and also the large amount of mechanical troubles with the set up. (page 256 Vees for Victory) 

The -47 was rated at 1150hp at 21,000ft and the -93 was rated at 1150hp at 22,400ft. A Merlin 61 was supposed to give 1390hp at 23,500ft. 
Since the Merlin 61 was over 1 year earlier in timing (vs the -93) one can see why the two stage Allison didn't exactly take the Allied aviation world by storm. 

Not using WEP power would have simplified things and speeded up the engines introduction as much of the summer of 1943 was spent trying to get the engine to stand up to the WEP ratings ( Better pistons and rings for example). 
The water injection was a fall back position. The two stage engines were around 165lbs heavier than the single stage engines so does the added weight really pay off without the performance the wep settings give? 

Please note that several thousand of the -47 engine were on order at one point for the P-39E (2000 engines, 270 engines as spare parts and 430 engines without reduction gears) , with the contract amended to add another 2300 engines (and 700 spares) added in July of 1942. 
Since we are talking about aircraft stretch consider the P-39E 
" The XP-39E bore the same armament as the P-39D but featured a new wing with square-cut tips. Wing span and gross area were increased to 35 feet 10 inches and 236 square feet........ The carburetor air intake was relocated and the wing-root radiator intakes were enlarged. The fuselage was lengthened by 1.75 feet to accommodate the longer -47 engine.

Empty and loaded weights were 6936 lbs and 8918 lbs respectively, making the XP-39E the heaviest of all Airacobra variants. During tests, a maximum speed of 386 mph at 21,680 feet was attained, which was much better high-altitude performance than other Airacobra variants. "

From Joe Baugher's website. 
The P-39E was redesignated the P-76 and the then the whole things was canceled in favor of the P-63.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> -93 engine, available how and at what ratings? It didn't pass it's type test until Nov 27th 1943. P-63s built and equipped with the -93 engine were flying with restrictions.
> 
> As for no intercooler needed?
> The earlier E9 engine(alias -47, the -93 was the E11) was supposed to use an intercooler. As things developed this was changed to an after cooler. In the end in Dec of 1943 the aftercooler was canceled due to poor performance of the unit supplied by the Harrison Radiator division of General Motors and also the large amount of mechanical troubles with the set up. (page 256 Vees for Victory)
> ...


The whole point of putting the -93 in the P-39 was to have a two stage P-39 earlier than the P-63. No WEP speeds up the whole process (no intercooler, no water injection etc).

The two stage -93 was about 165# heavier and the extra horsepower would have dictated a four blade prop which would have weighed about 100# more, so 265# extra weight. But an extra 300HP over the single stage -85 at 22400' would have made it all worth the trouble. The heavier prop somewhat offset the weight of the second stage for balance. The two stage P-39 would have weighed in the neighborhood of 8000#, quite an improvement over the 8918# for the XP-39E and the 8950# for the P-63. And that's with 170gal fuel internal.

Merlin 61 made more power but would not fit into a P-39. The -93 would fit and was available from April '43 for a plane that was already is series production.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 28, 2019)

Hello P-39 Expert,

Let's accept for a moment that there are no issues with an engine swap and no additional cooling requirements for the higher powered engine (which I believe to be unlikely).
How much performance improvement do you believe would result from adding 300 HP at 22,400 feet?
The P-39N with the V-1710-85 was tested at
398.5 MPH @ 9700 feet and
389.5 MPH @ 16100 feet.

Would it even break 400 MPH at altitude?
Would the performance level be more suited to a typical ETO fighter from 1942?
The armament of a single big 37mm and a couple synchronized .50 cal would still be less than adequate.

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 28, 2019)

Maybe this is a topic for it's own thread but speaking of the p39 I've often wondered why it was not that effective aside from the Russian front(at least at medium to low altitudes like the p40) as it looks pretty good on paper. Good speed, good climb, and at least descent in the moaenuverability department. 
Kind of a head scratcher.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 28, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The fuel tanks of a plane must be as close to the centre of gravity as possible because they change in weight as the plane flies. The performance envelope of the Spitfire in its service life was stretched massively, its power and weight doubled however the wing plan hardly changed at all, and the fuselage became longer at the front because of bigger engines but hardly at all at the rear, instead they used balance weights. Literally stretching an airframe, making it longer makes it more stable, that isn't always desirable in a fighter.



You have a point - instability can be used to an advantage, and sometimes seems to correlate with agility. The I-16, which I mentioned, was notoriously twitchy but also had a great roll rate and was considered very agile... which you could take full advantage of if you were a very skilled pilot. However instability was also a problem, particularly if the fighter isn't super fast for it's time. The LaGG-1/3 and MiG-3 were also quite 'twitchy' or unstable but this was not considered an asset. Instability was especially a problem for less experienced pilots during takeoff and landing when many accidents, including often fatal ones, occurred.

Generally speaking there is a kind of sweet-spot that designers are looking for, and the perception of these characteristics by a given group of pilots, can in part be a reflection of the culture or training regime. Too stable can definitely be a drawback, look at the Hurricane. Too twitchy without a doubt can also be a problem.

For example there is also mention here of the P-39. One of the great mysteries of WW2 is why the Soviets liked them so much and did so well with them, while the Americans, British, Australians, Free French, Italian Co-Belligerent forces and so on, did fair to very badly with them and tended to want to get rid of them as fast as possible.

One explanation is that the Soviets were lying and they didn't actually shoot down very many German planes. I find this hard to credit.

Another partial explanation is that Soviet pilots were used to planes prone to stalls such as the I-16, LaGG-3, MiG-3 and so on, and they knew how to fly them without going into a spin etc. So they weren't bothered by the potential instability of the P-39, it was just like a LaGG-3 only faster, better armored, equipped with a radio and a giant cannon... whereas the Americans were not accustomed to these characteristics and hated the plane which they called the "Iron Dog".



However as a general rule, I would say that if you start out with say an airframe of a given size, it makes sense to lengthen it somewhat as you increase your engine output to help with stability. You can offset your tail stabilizer, you can make one wing shorter than the other and there are other tricks, but lengthening works too.

As was done between the P-40C (31'8") to the P-40N (33' 4") or from the Spitfire Mk1 (Length 29' 11" - 1030 hp) to the Spitfire Mk XIV (30' 9") to the Spitfire Mk. 24 (2,035 hp, length 32' 8")


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Maybe this is a topic for it's own thread but speaking of the p39 I've often wondered why it was not that effective aside from the Russian front(at least at medium to low altitudes like the p40) as it looks pretty good on paper. Good speed, good climb, and at least descent in the moaenuverability department.
> Kind of a head scratcher.


I've always wondered why Bell went with a symmetrical airfoil, given that practically all combat maneuvers of the day were positive G, with the exception of the pushover ("bunt" in Brit-speak). A carefully chosen positive G "lifting" airfoil could have given better L/D in all positive G maneuvering, as well as improved rate of climb and possibly slightly higher speed. The P39 does look better on paper than its reputation supports, and I think that's partially due to the "paper" airplane's numbers being a little more optimistic than the aluminum plane's. This, coupled with its unorthodoxy of design, its behavioral issues and the inappropriate tactical training its early pilots got, started it off on the wrong foot, from which it never recovered.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For example there is also mention here of the P-39. One of the great mysteries of WW2 is why the Soviets liked them so much and did so well with them, while the Americans, British, Australians, Free French, Italian Co-Belligerent forces and so on, did fair to very badly with them and tended to want to get rid of them as fast as possible.
> 
> One explanation is that the Soviets were lying and they didn't actually shoot down very many German planes. I find this hard to credit.



Hello Schweik,

I believe that part of the explanation here is the relative performance of the P-39 in each theatre.
On the Eastern Front, the P-39 was flying near ground level where its performance was at its peak.
The Soviets deleted the wing guns, reduced the fuel load, and seriously overboosted the engines without regard to the limitations in the manual. At low altitude, there was enough supercharger to give some extra boost.
They also typically loaded more ammunition for the cowl mounted .50 cal than the US or other allies did.
This would tend to push the CoG forward and increase the margins for stability.
The single 37 mm cannon and pair of cowl mounted .50 cal didn't bother them because that was pretty close to what other Soviet fighters used. 1 MG and 1 cannon was not an unusual armament for their late fighters.
Also, for the most part, Soviet fighters were not particularly fast, so the speed of a late model P-39 would have been very comparable.

On the Western Front, the battles are much higher and start off about where the P-39 runs out of steam.
The P-39 was also relatively slow at altitude, especially by the standards in the West.



Schweik said:


> However as a general rule, I would say that if you start out with say an airframe of a given size, it makes sense to lengthen it somewhat as you increase your engine output to help with stability. You can offset your tail stabilizer, you can make one wing shorter than the other and there are other tricks, but lengthening works too.
> 
> As was done between the P-40C (31'8") to the P-40N (33' 4") or from the Spitfire Mk1 (Length 29' 11" - 1030 hp) to the Spitfire Mk XIV (30' 9") to the Spitfire Mk. 24 (2,035 hp, length 32' 8")



In the case of the Spitfire, I believe the "real" length of the airframe never really changed. The distance from firewall to rudder hinge line was the same for all versions. The overall length changed because the engine dimensions forward of the firewall changed and the rudder aft of the hinge line changed.

In the case of the P-40 Hawk 87 series, the short tail aircraft had an offset fin that was straightened on the long tail aircraft. Part of the problem with offset surfaces is that they are really only balanced for a certain speed range. There isn't enough aerodynamic force below the speed and there is too much above the speed and both conditions need to be trimmed out to fly straight and level without control inputs.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> One explanation is that the Soviets were lying and they didn't actually shoot down very many German planes. I find this hard to credit



Not lying, but perhaps overly optimistic as to how many enemy aircraft that they did shoot down?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2019)

I believe Ivan1GFP is close to the truth. 
The engines in most P-39s the Russians had gave as much or more power at 4000 meters and under than the M-105 engines in the Yaks and Lagg-3s. The build quality was better on the P-39 (as much of difference between the paper specs of the P-39 and the aluminum ones the difference between the paper specs of the Russian aircraft and the aluminium/wood ones was often greater.) 
Most Russian fighters were poorly armed by western standards. I say this because while there are certainly numbers of Russian fighters that were at least adequately armed (faint praise intended) a batch of several hundred planes is a mere handful in Russian terms. 
Range of missions tended to short on the Russian front so short range was not as big a problem. The low alittidues of the vast amjority of combat meant the P-39s poor perfroamce at 15,000ft (or 20,000ft for later ones) and above was not a problem. 

AS an exercise try to substitute any Russian fighter for an Allied fighter in other theaters at the same time. Lagg-3s or Yak-1s in New Guinea/Australia or Guadalcanal ??Or cross channel operations in NW Europe?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello P-39 Expert,
> 
> Let's accept for a moment that there are no issues with an engine swap and no additional cooling requirements for the higher powered engine (which I believe to be unlikely).
> How much performance improvement do you believe would result from adding 300 HP at 22,400 feet?
> ...


Not really an engine swap, same Allison just 8.1 internal supercharger gears. Second stage was just an add-on. Like the P-63 just move the coolant tank from behind the engine to the front, then put the second stage where the coolant tank was. Shouldn't need more cooling, same horsepower (1325/1150) as the -73 in the P-39D-2/K/L, the -95 just made it's 1150hp at 22400' instead of 12000'.
I don't know exactly what performance improvement the two stage P-39 would have. Probably a little better than the P-63 since it would have been 1000# lighter and have 35sqft less wing for the same HP. Climb should have been outstanding.
The P-39N had 100HP more at altitude than the P-39K and was 20mph faster. 300 extra HP at an even higher altitude 22400' would have made quite a difference, certainly more than 400mph. Probably a little better than a P-63A.
A P-39N was already about the same performance as the 109 and 190. A bit slower at altitude but better climb, turn and endurance. Add another 300HP at higher altitude and performance improves drastically.
The 37mm and two .50s was plenty. One hit from the cannon and goodby opponent. Just my opinions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Not lying, but perhaps overly optimistic as to how many enemy aircraft that they did shoot down?



Yet somehow more 'overly optimistic' than everyone else. For some reason we ignore huge rates of overclaiming by say, the Germans in these contexts.... which is odd

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe Ivan1GFP is close to the truth.
> The engines in most P-39s the Russians had gave as much or more power at 4000 meters and under than the M-105 engines in the Yaks and Lagg-3s. The build quality was better on the P-39 (as much of difference between the paper specs of the P-39 and the aluminum ones the difference between the paper specs of the Russian aircraft and the aluminium/wood ones was often greater.)
> Most Russian fighters were poorly armed by western standards. I say this because while there are certainly numbers of Russian fighters that were at least adequately armed (faint praise intended) a batch of several hundred planes is a mere handful in Russian terms.
> Range of missions tended to short on the Russian front so short range was not as big a problem. The low alittidues of the vast amjority of combat meant the P-39s poor perfroamce at 15,000ft (or 20,000ft for later ones) and above was not a problem.
> ...



I think way too much emphasis tends to be put on NW Europe in WW2. During the Battles of France and Britain it was very important. Then fighting settled down quite a bit, barring brief but bloody flareups like Dieppe, all the way until June of 1944. The direction of the war had changed by then.

A lot of the fighting in the Med, the Pacific, and the CBI was done at quite low altitude. This is why aircraft like the A6M2 and Ki-43-I which did not have good high altitude capabilities performed quite well.

Imagine say a Yak-9T available in Burma instead of a Hurricane. Yak -9T is armed with a 37mm NS-37 nose gun and a 12.7mm mg,. More than adequate to destroy any Japanese aircraft. It is 50 kph faster and far more agile than a Hurricane. I think it might have been a good swap.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> I believe that part of the explanation here is the relative performance of the P-39 in each theatre.
> On the Eastern Front, the P-39 was flying near ground level where its performance was at its peak.



As I mentioned previously, much of the fighting in the Pacific, the CBI and the MTO was at low altitude. Fighters have to follow the bombers, and only a few A/O were based around high flying medium bombers (eg Darwin), in most of these Theaters most of the damage was being done by medium bombers flying at medium altitude, or dive bombers / fighter bombers fighting down to the deck. So in other words, the altitude limitations of the P-39 were not as crucial as alluded. It's also worth pointing out that the P-40 performed well in MTO, Pacific and CBI Theaters, so why couldn't the P-39 with the same engine? The only real difference in raw numbers was range.

I'm suggesting there were also other differences which are a bit harder to quantify.



> The Soviets deleted the wing guns, reduced the fuel load, and seriously overboosted the engines without regard to the limitations in the manual. At low altitude, there was enough supercharger to give some extra boost.



Anglo-American and ANZAC pilots did the same thing with their fighters in places like the Pacific and MTO... do you have any evidence the Soviets did more of these weight saving measures than anyone else?



> The single 37 mm cannon and pair of cowl mounted .50 cal didn't bother them because that was pretty close to what other Soviet fighters used. 1 MG and 1 cannon was not an unusual armament for their late fighters.



I already pointed this out. 1 37mm and 2 nose mounted HMG was actually quite good armament unless you are trying to shoot down B-17s.



> Also, for the most part, Soviet fighters were not particularly fast, so the speed of a late model P-39 would have been very comparable.



Both the P-39 and say, Yak 1B or Yak 9 were quite fast for their era, assuming they were performing to spec. Faster than say, an A6M2, a Hurricane or an MC 200.



> On the Western Front, the battles are much higher and start off about where the P-39 runs out of steam.
> The P-39 was also relatively slow at altitude, especially by the standards in the West.



Again, only if you are talking about the English Channel where the focus of fighting was gone for most of 1941-1944



> In the case of the Spitfire, I believe the "real" length of the airframe never really changed. The distance from firewall to rudder hinge line was the same for all versions. The overall length changed because the engine dimensions forward of the firewall changed and the rudder aft of the hinge line changed.



I'm referring to the length from the propeller blade to the rudder tip. Which is I think the significant part.



> In the case of the P-40 Hawk 87 series, the short tail aircraft had an offset fin that was straightened on the long tail aircraft. Part of the problem with offset surfaces is that they are really only balanced for a certain speed range. There isn't enough aerodynamic force below the speed and there is too much above the speed and both conditions need to be trimmed out to fly straight and level without control inputs.
> 
> - Ivan.



Part of the issue with the P-40 was that it was routinely able to dive at speeds up to 500 mph and more, most aircraft didn't have to contend with controlling an aircraft going that fast (certainly I don't know of any Soviet planes which could). Lengthening the tail on the P-40 seemed to fix the torque problems substantially, although you did still have to use trim somewhat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

A couple of other thoughts.

My comment that the flight characteristics of the P-39 may have been more manageable to Soviet pilots due to their familiarity with less than stable aircraft (and other things like the nose guns etc.) was not meant to explain the _entire_ mystery. The single most significant factor was probably the careful and extensive 4 month workup the Soviets did with the P-39 before sending it into combat which was more than with any other Lend Lease aircraft. The full explanation though defies complete understanding to date as far as I'm concerned. The combat performance of the P-39 in US and "Western" Allied hands was abysmal, in Soviet hands, excellent. There was apparently one P-39 Ace in USAAF, in the Soviet Union there were dozens, including several of their top scoring pilots. The Soviets preferred it over the Hurricane, the Kittyhawk, the Spitfire, the P-47, and most their own fighters up to 1944.

Another possible factor which has been mentioned before is climate - P-39s may not have performed as well in high humidity, hot tropical environments. However that doesn't completely explain it either because though people tend to forget, Russia, Ukraine etc. do have Summer and in fact Summer there can be quite hot.

As for the armament of Soviet fighters, as I have mentioned before the weapon loadout of most mid war Soviet Yakovlev or Lavochkin series fighter aircraft was comparable to that of the contemporaneous Bf 109F which was considered the best 109 version by German pilots themselves, and were generally superior to the Ki-43 which was apparently the most successful Japanese fighter in terms of victory scores. Nor was a Spitfire with two wing mounted 20mm cannon carrying 60 rounds and badly prone to stoppages / jams necessarily vastly superior to a single hub mounted 20mm cannon with 120 rounds in a Yak-9.

You don't _need_ 3 or 4 x 20mm cannon, or 6 or 8 x 12.7mm MG unless you are shooting down big four engine bombers or super heavily armored attack planes. The Germans up-gunned their fighters (at the detriment of maneuverability) to contend with B-17s, B-24s, and Il2-Sturmoviks. The Germans themselves on the other hand did not have any bombers as difficult to shoot down as a B-17 or a Sturmovik, so the Soviets didn't need such an arsenal on their fighters

That is also why it was not so unusual to have a 4 x gun armament on many American fighters in the early to mid-war. The F4F-3, the P-51B, the Kittyhawk I, (and later 'stripped' Kittyhawks) all fought with just 4 guns and did so quite effectively. Hurricanes were also on numerous occasions stripped down to two (20mm) guns in the field.

Six guns or 4 x 20mm are convenient for strafing and it certainly doesn't hurt to have extra guns and extra ammunition for overkill, but the Soviet system did not emphasize a 'spray and pray' approach to gunnery- their pilots were trained to close to point blank range and kill with just a few rounds. Much like Hans Joachim Mariselle did with his Bf 109F. We know this was effective in Soviet use because there are enough well documented incidents in which Soviet Aces shot down multiple German planes - whose wrecked carcasses were recovered by ground troops or even Soviet ground crews operating near their airbases- to demonstrate it was possible to destroy several fighters on a single sortie in a fighter that carried little more than 100 rounds of ammunition.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think way too much emphasis tends to be put on NW Europe in WW2. During the Battles of France and Britain it was very important. Then fighting settled down quite a bit, barring brief but bloody flareups like Dieppe, all the way until June of 1944. The direction of the war had changed by then.
> 
> A lot of the fighting in the Med, the Pacific, and the CBI was done at quite low altitude. This is why aircraft like the A6M2 and Ki-43-I which did not have good high altitude capabilities performed quite well.
> 
> Imagine say a Yak-9T available in Burma instead of a Hurricane. Yak -9T is armed with a 37mm NS-37 nose gun and a 12.7mm mg,. More than adequate to destroy any Japanese aircraft. It is 50 kph faster and far more agile than a Hurricane. I think it might have been a good swap.


There was a fair amount of cross channel flying being done in NW europe even if it didn't really amount to much in terms of effectiveness or notable battles. The whole lean into France thing. It may have been a poor strategy or tactic but it was being done and it did affect fighter development and for the British, fighter deployment. Better fighters kept at home. 
The altitude ability of the A6M2 and Ki-43-I was not bad due to the power to weight ratio and low wing loading. That is not bad for their time. 
If you have several planes with engines giving similar power at similar altitudes and using similar sized wings the 6000lb planes are going to perform better at higher altitudes than 7500-8000lb planes. Once the Japanese changed to improved engines with 2 speed superchargers their altitude performance got better. Of course some of the improved engine power was sucked up by better protection on the Ki-43 II and improved armament and slightly heavier construction on later A6Ms.

Not sure how good the Yak 9T would have been. The 37 is great IF you can hit with it but since the ammo for it (and the single) 12.7 are ,limited and since even a MK I Hurricane could destroy most Japanese aircraft the Yak doesn't actually bring much.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There was a fair amount of cross channel flying being done in NW europe even if it didn't really amount to much in terms of effectiveness or notable battles. The whole lean into France thing. It may have been a poor strategy or tactic but it was being done and it did affect fighter development and for the British, fighter deployment. Better fighters kept at home.



I never said that no fighting was happening there, but the important battles from 1941-1944 were actually in _other_ parts of the world. It's certainly understandable that the British would keep their best fighters at home given the horrors and near catastrophe of the BoB, but that doesn't change the fact that the hardest and most intense fighting during that time was happening in places like Guadalcanal, El Alamein, and Stalingrad, not over La Havre.

So when people discuss aircraft and routinely dismiss planes, including basically all the Soviet fighters, because they didn't fight well at 25,000' and therefore would have been rubbish in Northwest Europe, I would say they are missing the mark. The notion of swapping Soviet fighters with say, Spitfires or P-40s in some other Theater is also flawed because whereas many Anglo-American aircraft (both fighters and bombers) were effectively generalist war machines, meant to operate in a wide variety of environments, the Soviet fighters, certainly by 1942, were specifically tailored specialists for fighting in _their_ environment, i.e. on the Russian Front. That was one of the differences in their whole approach to warfare. Which didn't make them worse it was just different.

So let me turn your question on it's head - what American or British army in 1942/43 could have defeated the German Army faced by the Soviets at Stalingrad or Kursk?

It's kind of like how most Americans think the P-51D was the most important and best fighter of WW2. I do think it was an excellent fighter, and did more damage to the enemy than all other American fighters probably, but it didn't even appear in the skies until after the hardest batles had already been fought and won by the Allies and the momentum of the war had permanently turned against the Axis. The P-51D was involved in a massive and glorious mopping up operation, albeit with some intense flare ups of combat which equaled those of the more pivotal parts of the war - they just didn't threaten the actual _outcome_ of the war in anywhere near the same way.



> The altitude ability of the A6M2 and Ki-43-I was not bad due to the power to weight ratio and low wing loading. That is not bad for their time.



Not bad is certainly a subjective term, but they certainly did not perform well at 25,000'



> If you have several planes with engines giving similar power at similar altitudes and using similar sized wings the 6000lb planes are going to perform better at higher altitudes than 7500-8000lb planes. Once the Japanese changed to improved engines with 2 speed superchargers their altitude performance got better. Of course some of the improved engine power was sucked up by better protection on the Ki-43 II and improved armament and slightly heavier construction on later A6Ms.



A6M5's also had armor, more and heavier guns and more ammunition.



> Not sure how good the Yak 9T would have been. The 37 is great IF you can hit with it but since the ammo for it (and the single) 12.7 are ,limited and since even a MK I Hurricane could destroy most Japanese aircraft the Yak doesn't actually bring much.



Yak-9T brings 50 kph faster speed and substantially greater agility. The 37mm gun makes it at least the equivalent of the Hurricane (whose ammunition is also limited)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 29, 2019)

Not sure if this is true but I've read several different places that the p39s the Soviets got all were equipped with 20mm not 37mm cannon as is commonly thought.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

No that is not true. They had some with 20mm but most of the ones they got had the 37mm gun which they liked.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> No that is not true. They had some with 20mm but most of the ones they got had the 37mm gun which they liked.


Thanks for clearing that up. It's amazing how many articles get written stating things as fact that are not. Sometimes it's difficult to figure out what's true and what's isn't.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

I was unclear myself for a long time. There are still some good articles on lend-lease website though they seem to have moved location and are a bit harder to find now. 

This is a good one about early P-39s in Soviet use

Early Versions of Airacobra Aircraft in Soviet Aviation. Part 1 – Lend-Lease
Early Versions of Airacobra Aircraft in Soviet Aviation. Part 2 – Lend-Lease

an interview with a Soviet pilot who flew P-39s

Interview with Alekseev Dmitrii Dmitrievich – Lend-Lease

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Sometimes it's difficult to figure out what's true and what's isn't.



Almost every book written about fighters in the 20th Century (see Bill Gunston et al) claimed that the soviets used P-39s almost exclusively for tank busting. As if one can run up 63 air to air victories as an afterthought in between strafing tanks. It was only after Soviet sources became available after ~ 1991 that we were reminded by the Russians that almost no AP ammunition was ever sent to Russia for the Oldsmobile 37mm gun and that the Soviets mostly flew them on air superiority missions.

Such a huge variation between the just about universally accepted assumption and the actual facts should give us pause, and is worth thinking about in the context of many other supposedly long proven historical facts. It is by no means a unique case!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2019)

The Russian aircraft were not tailored for the eastern front. Not in the sense that they were really what the Russians wanted/desired. 
They were what the Russians were able to build and they did the best the could with what they had a available and they were rather realistic about what could and could not be done with engines, fuel and guns they had available. 
The Russians would have loved to build fighters using the more powerful M-106 engine and they would have loved even more to use the M-107 engine but both engines (prototypes built before the german invasion) simply could not be brought up to service reliability during the war forcing the continued use of the M-105 engine. Given the limited power and altitude capabilities of the M-105 the Russians "Tailored" their aircraft for performance by restricting the number of guns and the amount of ammo. Manufacturing ability also entered into it as a 12.7mm gun could be built with fewer man hours than the fast firing Rusian 7.62 gun. The 7.62 was an excellent gun on paper and in service but required too much effort to manufacture and service.
You can find small batches of aircraft that were manufactured during the war with these later model engines but in some cases they were rebuilt with M-105s before being issued for service. The Russians did get better V-12s into service post war. 

The Russians tended to like heavy armament if they could get it without sacrificeing too much else. The late model LA fighters went from 2 20mm guns to 3 guns when a new lighter weight gun was developed. The Russians wanted 3 or 4 cannon, they just knew their aircraft could not carry them without an unacceptable loss of performance. 

The Russian 20mm cannon was a rather pedestrian gun. Since the cartridge was basically a necked up 12.7mm machine gun case (not exactly the same one that saw wide spread service) it was in the lower 1/2 of 20mm cartridges in regards to power. The gun itself was on the light side and not particularly durable but it was rather easy to make and reliable. However it should not be a surprise that the Russians were looking at alternatives to it. Like the larger calibers, the late war lighter 20mm allowing more guns to be fitted, the 23mm guns, especially the short 23mm cartridge guns that showed up immediately post war ( development started during the war) so the Russians were persuing multiple avenues of improved gun performance.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe Ivan1GFP is close to the truth.
> The engines in most P-39s the Russians had gave as much or more power at 4000 meters and under than the M-105 engines in the Yaks and Lagg-3s. The build quality was better on the P-39 (as much of difference between the paper specs of the P-39 and the aluminum ones the difference between the paper specs of the Russian aircraft and the aluminium/wood ones was often greater.)
> Most Russian fighters were poorly armed by western standards. I say this because while there are certainly numbers of Russian fighters that were at least adequately armed (faint praise intended) a batch of several hundred planes is a mere handful in Russian terms.
> Range of missions tended to short on the Russian front so short range was not as big a problem. The low alittidues of the vast amjority of combat meant the P-39s poor perfroamce at 15,000ft (or 20,000ft for later ones) and above was not a problem.
> ...


I agree mostly with you and Ivan.

Analyzing the P-39 has always been difficult because detailed performance information on the later N and Q models wasn't available until 2012 as far as I know. 
Helps to analyze by timeline as well as theater. As with most planes performance increased over time.

In early '41 the first production P-39s were the C model without armor/self sealing tanks and the P-400 for the British that grossed an astonishing 7850# clean. It could not compete with the comtemporary SpitfireV that weighed 6500#. Astonishing, eh? The comtemporary C model weighed 7075# and would have weighed the same after the self sealing tanks and a reasonable amount of armor (140# vs 245# for the P-400) had been added because the new tanks reduced fuel by 300# and the nose .30s weren't needed. But nothing was done to the 20 C models except to use them as trainers/pilot familiarization. 
First combat was defending Port Moresby, NG. AAF was not really up to speed yet, losing 17 planes just ferrying them from Australia. May '42 saw two squadrons defending Moresby against mostly G4M Betty bomber attacks escorted by Zeros from Lae. Ineffective radar and coastwatchers meant the two squadrons had to fly standing patrols to intercept the bombers who came in at 18000-22000' with escort above. The early P-39D/F/K/L had a theoretical 40mph speed advantage over the early Zeros at all altitudes but could not climb above 20000' (at 1000 feet per minute) with the now ever present drop tank. Virtually all Zero attacks came from above so these P-39s were at a severe disadvantage. In hindsight the wing guns/nose armor should have been deleted as soon as the AAF realized that virtually all missions would carry drop tanks. Had this been done the lighter P-39s would climb over 23000' at normal power with drop tank and in clean condition (combat) would outclimb contemporary Zeros at all altitudes. Bell issued weight saving instructions in May but who knows if that information ever got to the front. Moresby was saved by the Coral Sea battle and the Australians pushing the Japanese back, but the green pilots in the overwweight P-39s held their own.
Then in February came Guadalcanal and the famous P-400s (like a P-39D-1) who couldn't climb above 12000' because they had no oxygen as their British oxygen system was different than the Navy's and there was no time to wait. But all you hear is they couldn't climb above 12000'. No F4F Wildcat would outclimb any P-39 (with oxygen) at any altitude up to 25000', but you never hear that from the Navy/Marines, and Guadalcanal was largely their show. 

On to North Africa in late '42 and a few squadrons of early P-39s and P-400s struggled along overweight as usual so their work was limited to mostly ground attack. 
By now the (late '42) early P-38s were coming into combat finally and with all their inherent problems. The P-47 would be in combat in England in May. The AAFs turbocharged fighters were finally coming online and the P-39 (and P-40) would move into second line duty. Their only purpose was to hold the line until the turbocharged P-38 and P-47 could get into action. Except the P-39 could have dome much better all this time by just removing some items thus reducing their weight. Almost criminal to send those men into combat equipped that way.

But now in November/December '42 Allison has finally widened the V-1710 supercharger gears so they would take the 9.6 gears and the P-39N is coming out the door. The extra 100HP above critical altitude resulted in improved speed and great climb, the only planes that would climb with the N in early '43 were the Me109G and of course the SpitfireIX which would outclimb anything. The N would definitely outclimb the early Lightnings and Thunderbolts. But by now the P-39 (and P-40) were relegated to training and lend lease to the Soviets. The N and Q were the main types sent to the USSR in spring '43 and they were the same plane after removal of the wing guns and the IFF radios. Even lighter than the already well performing N the Airacobra went on to glory in the east. Oh well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 29, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> I agree mostly with you and Ivan.
> 
> Analyzing the P-39 has always been difficult because detailed performance information on the later N and Q models wasn't available until 2012 as far as I know.
> Helps to analyze by timeline as well as theater. As with most planes performance increased over time.
> ...


Very interesting but are you sure the p39 outclimbs the p38, any p38. In americas 100,000 there is a chart( ive seen it and similar charts elsewhere) that shows i believe the p38G with the best climb of 4200 ft per min. and the other variants weren't far behind.
Didn't think anything except maybe the late Bf109 Gs could climb with a p38.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 29, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Not really an engine swap, same Allison just 8.1 internal supercharger gears. Second stage was just an add-on. Like the P-63 just move the coolant tank from behind the engine to the front, then put the second stage where the coolant tank was.



Hello P-39 Expert,

Just out of curiosity, WHERE in front of the engine do you see space to move the coolant tank? 
The attached schematic of a P-39K shows the internals to be a pretty tight fit.



P-39 Expert said:


> I don't know exactly what performance improvement the two stage P-39 would have. Probably a little better than the P-63 since it would have been 1000# lighter and have 35sqft less wing for the same HP. Climb should have been outstanding.
> The P-39N had 100HP more at altitude than the P-39K and was 20mph faster. 300 extra HP at an even higher altitude 22400' would have made quite a difference, certainly more than 400mph. Probably a little better than a P-63A.



One has to wonder if a simple engine swap would result in a better aircraft than the P-63, then why Bell even spent the effort to build the P-63. The numbers aren't quite that easy because there is still the difference in airfoils, but as a quick calculation, my numbers aren't disagreeing with yours.



P-39 Expert said:


> A P-39N was already about the same performance as the 109 and 190. A bit slower at altitude but better climb, turn and endurance. Add another 300HP at higher altitude and performance improves drastically.
> The 37mm and two .50s was plenty. One hit from the cannon and goodby opponent. Just my opinions.



Same performance depends on WHICH version of the 109 or 190 you are trying to compare. One of the issues with the Airacobra was that its roll rate was never particularly good which is somewhat surprising considering the size of the aircraft.
The 37 mm cannon was very powerful, but ballistics were lousy, it had a low cyclic rate and it had very little ammunition. It probably would work very well against a non-maneuvering target which was its intended target but may not be so effective against another fighter.



Schweik said:


> Anglo-American and ANZAC pilots did the same thing with their fighters in places like the Pacific and MTO... do you have any evidence the Soviets did more of these weight saving measures than anyone else?



Hello Schweik,

From what I have been able to find, there is very little mention of loading OVER 200 rounds per .50 cal cowl gun except in one flight test and in the Russian manual on the P-39. Other reports mentioning ammunition loads have stated 200 rounds as a full load.
I believe the reduction in fuel capacity in the late model Airacobra was at the request of the Soviets and not of anyone else though there is also mention that fuel capacity can be restored if needed.



Schweik said:


> I already pointed this out. 1 37mm and 2 nose mounted HMG was actually quite good armament unless you are trying to shoot down B-17s.



I believe the 37 mm would have been more useful against a big target such as a B-17 than in pulling a deflection shot against another fighter. It gets even worse when you consider that the ballistics of the cannon is so different from the two cowl guns that if one is one target, the other won't be.



Schweik said:


> Both the P-39 and say, Yak 1B or Yak 9 were quite fast for their era, assuming they were performing to spec. Faster than say, an A6M2, a Hurricane or an MC 200.



The problem with this statement is what "for their era" means. A Hurricane or Macchi C.200 wasn't really a competitive fighter past about 1940-1941 at the latest. The faster than a A6M2 is a probably but by how much. Combat reports suggest that the Airacobra's speed advantage in combat was VERY small.
In various places, the opposition was pretty low tech (Think Italian biplanes and Ki 27) and fighters that were not suitable for front line service elsewhere could still do the job well enough. That is probably why aircraft such as the P-40, Hurricane and even Gladiator were used effectively for a while. That does not mean that they were really up to standards.



Schweik said:


> I'm referring to the length from the propeller blade to the rudder tip. Which is I think the significant part.



This is a bit of a circular argument to state that an aircraft needed to be lengthened to compensate for increased power when the only part that was lengthened was the larger engine to give increased power....



Schweik said:


> Part of the issue with the P-40 was that it was routinely able to dive at speeds up to 500 mph and more, most aircraft didn't have to contend with controlling an aircraft going that fast (certainly I don't know of any Soviet planes which could). Lengthening the tail on the P-40 seemed to fix the torque problems substantially, although you did still have to use trim somewhat.



P-40N manual states maximum diving speed is 496 MPH IAS.
It also states that the aircraft will yaw to the right when diving. This suggests that the typical trim / offsets even on the P-40N are such that above a certain speed, aerodynamic effects will still cause a pull to the right and below that speed, there will be a pull to the left.
In comparison, this is not an extraordinarily high diving speed. I believe the Ki 84 manual lists 475 MPH IAS which isn't far off.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Russian aircraft were not tailored for the eastern front. Not in the sense that they were really what the Russians wanted/desired.
> They were what the Russians were able to build and they did the best the could with what they had a available and they were rather realistic about what could and could not be done with engines, fuel and guns they had available.



I disagree. I don't think you understand the Soviet war fighting mentality.



> The Russians would have loved to build fighters using the more powerful M-106 engine and they would have loved even more to use the M-107 engine but both engines (prototypes built before the german invasion) simply could not be brought up to service reliability during the war forcing the continued use of the M-105 engine. Given the limited power and altitude capabilities of the M-105 the Russians "Tailored" their aircraft for performance by restricting the number of guns and the amount of ammo.



As previously discussed in this thread, development of advanced features in aircraft - including and especially more powerful and effective engines - are often a tradeoff between production of existing models with new more advanced capabilities. The Soviets concentrated on huge numbers - there were over 30,000 Yak fighters produced during the war, under extremely difficult conditions (for example factories in the open air) during the early years of the war. They did not have a safe place to do long term R&D so they did only enough of that to keep up with enemy capabilities, which they did.

The Yak 1 & 7 could handle the Bf 109E, the Yak 1B and 7B could contend with the Bf 109F and early G models. The Yak 9 and La 5 could handle the Fw 190 and later G models. But only at low altitude, only at short range. They did not _need_ to defeat them at higher altitudes or at long range, only over the front so the Soviets did not put much effort into high altitude or long range capabilities until late in the war. All they needed was sufficient performance to protect Sturmoviks and Pe-2s and shoot down Ju 87s and Ju 88's, usually within sight of the tanks and troops on the ground.



> Manufacturing ability also entered into it as a 12.7mm gun could be built with fewer man hours than the fast firing Rusian 7.62 gun. The 7.62 was an excellent gun on paper and in service but required too much effort to manufacture and service. ... The Russians tended to like heavy armament if they could get it without sacrificeing too much else. The late model LA fighters went from 2 20mm guns to 3 guns when a new lighter weight gun was developed. The Russians wanted 3 or 4 cannon, they just knew their aircraft could not carry them without an unacceptable loss of performance.



The Soviet ShKas was an excellent 7.62mm machine gun, significantly better (more destructive / more throw weight) than any Anglo-American guns with up to three times the rate of fire, but it's still a .30 caliber weapon. The Soviets preferred the 12.7mm gun mainly due to heavier hitting power and better armor penetration. They made something like 150,000 ShKas machine guns so I don't think production was actually the issue.



> The Russian 20mm cannon was a rather pedestrian gun. Since the cartridge was basically a necked up 12.7mm machine gun case (not exactly the same one that saw wide spread service) it was in the lower 1/2 of 20mm cartridges in regards to power. The gun itself was on the light side and not particularly durable but it was rather easy to make and reliable. However it should not be a surprise that the Russians were looking at alternatives to it. Like the larger calibers, the late war lighter 20mm allowing more guns to be fitted, the 23mm guns, especially the short 23mm cartridge guns that showed up immediately post war ( development started during the war) so the Russians were persuing multiple avenues of improved gun performance.



You have often disparaged the ShVak 20mm but we know that while the Hispano-Suiza 20mm on the Spitfire and Hurricane (etc.) was more powerful it was also heavier and had serious issues with stoppages / jams particularly in the early to mid-war so it wasn't perfect either.

New capabilities with larger and more efficient guns (the ultra light Berezin B-20 and the more powerful VYa-23 or Nudelman Rikhter NR-23mm cannons) only when more difficult to destroy targets presented themselves, i.e. greater armor penetration was needed against both ground targets (heavier tanks i.e. Panther and Tiger etc.) and more heavily armored fighter bombers such as the Fw 190 and HS 129. But for most of the war the single 20mm was sufficient.

The point being was that the Soviet wartime design philosophy was based on the idea of "exactly enough", vs. the American mentality of "overkill". Both had their merits, both were tailored to the economic and Strategic realities faced by each nation. The Americans had a safe production base and more than sufficient supply / logistics. The Soviets had to move their factories over the Ural mountains and rebuild them in remote villages and forlorn Central Asian outposts. They did not have excess capabilities to spare but wanted to get as many machines into action as possible, of just good enough quality to impose steady attrition on the Germans and win battles when sufficient forces were concentrated.

Obviously there is a fine line - they could have stuck with I-15's, I-16's and LaGG-3s and made 2 or 3 times as many fighters, but they knew that would have been unsustainable in terms of losses. As it was they took horrific losses, but they did respond to realities on the Front by tailoring their aircraft to battlefield lessons, producing the ones which worked the best and continuously improving them. Again not the same way as in Anglo-American armies but with much more experimentation and incremental changes, with far more diverse variants actually seeing combat. This way cost them lives no doubt but it also meant their 'meritocratic' process produced the aircraft they actually needed. In the first year of the war they learned a great deal what worked and what didn't (the hard way), and by 1942 their designs were sound. The biggest problem with their aircraft was not with design in fact at all but with production quality, and that was beginning to clear up by the end of 1942.

It's the same with Soviet tanks and everything else they did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 29, 2019)




----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> From what I have been able to find, there is very little mention of loading OVER 200 rounds per .50 cal cowl gun except in one flight test and in the Russian manual on the P-39. Other reports mentioning ammunition loads have stated 200 rounds as a full load.
> I believe the reduction in fuel capacity in the late model Airacobra was at the request of the Soviets and not of anyone else though there is also mention that fuel capacity can be restored if needed.



I don't know anything about ammunition loadouts except that I know they tinkered with both guns and ammunition carried in the field generally speaking, including removing guns and adding or removing ammunition. With fuel I know for a fact that it was also routine for point defense (going back to Java in early 1942) to load aircraft with less than the normal fuel load before combat, mainly to increase rate of climb. This was done with Hurricanes, Buffaloes and P-40's. It was also done in New Guinea, in the MTO (including even with Spitfires) etc. It's a rather obvious expedient.



> I believe the 37 mm would have been more useful against a big target such as a B-17 than in pulling a deflection shot against another fighter. It gets even worse when you consider that the ballistics of the cannon is so different from the two cowl guns that if one is one target, the other won't be.



And yet, Soviet pilots reported that they liked the 37mm gun and they did not necessarily use deflection shots. They tried to hit with the first round or two (as the gun often, especially in the early days, jammed after 2 or 3 rounds anyway) and from very short range. They also liked it for the intimidation factor in face to face encounters, which the Germans learned to avoid against the P-39. I assume you already know this but if you really need me to I can pull down a book and transcribe some Soviet pilot accounts.



> The problem with this statement is what "for their era" means. A Hurricane or Macchi C.200 wasn't really a competitive fighter past about 1940-1941 at the latest. The faster than a A6M2 is a probably but by how much. Combat reports suggest that the Airacobra's speed advantage in combat was VERY small.
> In various places, the opposition was pretty low tech (Think Italian biplanes and Ki 27) and fighters that were not suitable for front line service elsewhere could still do the job well enough. That is probably why aircraft such as the P-40, Hurricane and even Gladiator were used effectively for a while. That does not mean that they were really up to standards.



Amusing invocation of an old cliche. As I have already pointed out, P-40's were still being used with considerable success on the front lines in not just Russia but also in Italy and throughout the CBI as late as 1944, whereas Gladiators were retired by then and Hurricanes were getting slaughtered wherever they were still used (mostly in the CBI). So bunching them together is absurd.

The late model P-39 on paper has speed considerably better than a P-40 though - P-39N could make just below 400 mph at 57" H (and at 10,000 ft), more than 20 mph faster than the P-40N and comparable to contemporaneous Bf 109s and Fw 190s at those altitudes. It also had an excellent rate of climb at that altitude. With the removal of the wing guns and other field mods, perhaps the Soviets actually achieved the rated performance.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_level-speeds.jpg



> P-40N manual states maximum diving speed is 496 MPH IAS.
> It also states that the aircraft will yaw to the right when diving. This suggests that the typical trim / offsets even on the P-40N are such that above a certain speed, aerodynamic effects will still cause a pull to the right and below that speed, there will be a pull to the left.



I have already pointed out several times, and I know you read it, that the number 1 Curtiss test pilot Herbert O. Fisher routinely dove the thousands of P-40s he did acceptance flights on at over 500 mph TAS. Here is the exact quote to refresh your memory:

"The standard procedure for an acceptance flight was a one-hour check of all major systems. Fisher had a specialty, he would take an aircraft up to "20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at 500mph+. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive, which was a HUGE advantage over the Zero. He knew the operating parameters of that airplane and almost every rivet."



> In comparison, this is not an extraordinarily high diving speed. I believe the Ki 84 manual lists 475 MPH IAS which isn't far off.



No the Ki 84 is quite fast too, but it's a very late war plane that didn't get into combat until for example fairly long after the introduction of Me 262 jets. My point however isn't that diving at 500 mph was unique - it certainly wasn't, but that the trim problems faced were mostly in those high speed dives and the P-40 which was in action from 1941 through 1945 was one of the first to routinely have to contend with control at such speeds. As you are no doubt aware many other aircraft such as the P-38 and P-47 faced compressibility problems in high speed dives and almost all the Soviet fighters had much lower dive speed limitations due to the way they were constructed.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Moresby was saved by the Coral Sea battle and the Australians pushing the Japanese back, but the green pilots in the overwweight P-39s held their own.
> Then in February came Guadalcanal and the famous P-400s (like a P-39D-1) who couldn't climb above 12000' because they had no oxygen as their British oxygen system was different than the Navy's and there was no time to wait. But all you hear is they couldn't climb above 12000'. No F4F Wildcat would outclimb any P-39 (with oxygen) at any altitude up to 25000', but you never hear that from the Navy/Marines, and Guadalcanal was largely their show.



Incorrect - Morseby was saved by P-40s from the US 49th FG and Australian 75th fighter squadron (and others). See the Battle of Milne Bay (August - September 1942) during which a Japanese invasion fleet was turned back by land based aircraft operating mostly from Pt. Moresby

Battle of Milne Bay - Wikipedia

The P-40 continued in use by the 49th FG until well into 1944. It also remained the main fighter in use by the 23rd, 51s and 80th FG's in the CBI, and was the fighter type with the most air to air victories for the RAAF in 1944 according to Pacific Victory roll. 



> On to North Africa in late '42 and a few squadrons of early P-39s and P-400s struggled along overweight as usual so their work was limited to mostly ground attack.
> By now the (late '42) early P-38s were coming into combat finally and with all their inherent problems. The P-47 would be in combat in England in May. The AAFs turbocharged fighters were finally coming online and the P-39 (and P-40) would move into second line duty. Their only purpose was to hold the line until the turbocharged P-38 and P-47 could get into action. Except the P-39 could have dome much better all this time by just removing some items thus reducing their weight. Almost criminal to send those men into combat equipped that way.



Again, I can't say about your theoretical narrative - I suspect you may be right that some adjustments to the P-39 would have made them viable. But your historical narrative is all wrong. By late 1942 the US were operating no less than five full fighter groups of P-40s which were their front line fighters, whereas the P-38 was doing mostly long range escorts of heavy bombers (primarily B-24s) and the P-39, after* one* big day of combat, losing 12 fighters on 13 March 1943 (despite top cover by Spitfires). After this slaughter they were relegated to 'coastal patrol' well away from any German fighters.

Some pilot comments on the P-39 in North Africa:

"Jerry Collingsworth, who flew as a Lieutenant with US 31st FG in Tunisia:

“_The P-39 [Airacobra] was a miserable fighter for Tunisia; we used to have to escort them because the Me 109 and Fw 190 outperformed them in every conceivable way; dive, climb, manoeuvre, speed - you name it!_” 

Wg.Cdr. M. G. F. Pedley, Wing Leader in 323 Wing in Tunisia:

“_P-39 Airacobra . . . Its rate of climb was poor, armament inefficient and engine unreliable_.” (p. 424)

John L. Bradley of US 33rd FG:

_“I flew a couple of escorts for P-39s during my tour. *Many of the pilots on these aircraft were afraid of them and figured they didn’t have a chance* if they were jumped by enemy aircraft without top cover_.” (p. 404) 

This comment about the P-39 pilots being afraid of them is partly what got me thinking about the difference between the Soviet and American experience with the plane.



> But now in November/December '42 Allison has finally widened the V-1710 supercharger gears so they would take the 9.6 gears and the P-39N is coming out the door. The extra 100HP above critical altitude resulted in improved speed and great climb, the only planes that would climb with the N in early '43 were the Me109G and of course the SpitfireIX which would outclimb anything. The N would definitely outclimb the early Lightnings and Thunderbolts. But by now the P-39 (and P-40) were relegated to training and lend lease to the Soviets. The N and Q were the main types sent to the USSR in spring '43 and they were the same plane after removal of the wing guns and the IFF radios. Even lighter than the already well performing N the Airacobra went on to glory in the east. Oh well.



I agree once more about the potential performance of the P-39N, but the P-40 was _not_ "_relegated to training and lend lease to the Soviets._" The P-40F/L was still the number one front line fighter in North Africa and Sicily / southern Italy through 1943 and was still a major part of the fighting force at Anzio in 1944.

In the CBI and Pacific again it remained in front line use through 1944. It was still dominating the Ki-43 through the end of it's service life there (much has been written on this subject).


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

33rd FG by the way from which the Jon Bradley quote, was a P-40 group - they were flying top cover for P-39s (and for Hurricanes also routinely)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And yet, Soviet pilots reported that they liked the 37mm gun and they did not necessarily use deflection shots. They tried to hit with the first round or two (as the gun often, especially in the early days, jammed after 2 or 3 rounds anyway) and from very short range. They also liked it for the intimidation factor in face to face encounters, which the Germans learned to avoid against the P-39. I assume you already know this but if you really need me to I can pull down a book and transcribe some Soviet pilot accounts.



Hello Schweik,

It seems a bit silly to have a gun that is so inflexible in its use as to REQUIRE short range, no deflection shots and even be limited to 2-3 rounds. Intimidation is an interesting thing. I would be VERY interested if you can find German pilot accounts that they were intimidated by Airacobras. As for a head-to-head showdown, accepting that kind of a match is just plain stupid regardless of what the other fellow is armed with. It would be a useful tactic if that is the ONLY shot you expect to be able to get.



Schweik said:


> Amusing invocation of an old cliche. As I have already pointed out, P-40's were still being used with considerable success on the front lines in not just Russia but also in Italy and throughout the CBI as late as 1944, whereas Gladiators were retired by then and Hurricanes were getting slaughtered wherever they were still used (mostly in the CBI). So bunching them together is absurd.



The P-40 WAS being used with reasonable success in various places, but those were places where the competition was not really first rate. The Soviets really didn't particularly like the P-40 but I suspect that some of that had to do with their philosophy for armament; They really didn't believe in wing guns.




Schweik said:


> The late model P-39 on paper has speed considerably better than a P-40 though - P-39N could make just below 400 mph at 57" H (and at 10,000 ft), more than 20 mph faster than the P-40N and comparable to contemporaneous Bf 109s and Fw 190s at those altitudes. It also had an excellent rate of climb at that altitude. With the removal of the wing guns and other field mods, perhaps the Soviets actually achieved the rated performance.



I suspect they were doing considerably BETTER because they were most likely overboosting their engines whenever they could.



Schweik said:


> I have already pointed out several times, and I know you read it, that the number 1 Curtiss test pilot Herbert O. Fisher routinely dove the thousands of P-40s he did acceptance flights on at over 500 mph TAS. Here is the exact quote to refresh your memory:
> 
> "The standard procedure for an acceptance flight was a one-hour check of all major systems. Fisher had a specialty, he would take an aircraft up to "20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at 500mph+. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive, which was a HUGE advantage over the Zero. He knew the operating parameters of that airplane and almost every rivet."



Why do you believe we are disagreeing here? Unless you are very close to Sea Level, 496 MPH Indicated Air Speed is probably going to be over 500 MPH True Air Speed. 
At 20,000 feet, 496 MPH IAS works out to 679 MPH TAS.
At 10,000 feet 496 MPH IAS works out to 577 MPH TAS.

Also regarding the Soviets designs, I would have to agree with Shortround6. I believe they built what they could with the resources they had but would have preferred to build better aircraft. They just didn't plan much for quality control or longevity which got to be interesting at the end of the war with their wooden aircraft that had been stored outdoors and were no longer airworthy because structures had weakened by exposure weather. They also had issues with structural failures for their wood laminates due to manufacturing faults. Their aircraft in the field often tested at well below performance levels expected from the documentation.

- Ivan.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 29, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Very interesting but are you sure the p39 outclimbs the p38, any p38. In americas 100,000 there is a chart( ive seen it and similar charts elsewhere) that shows i believe the p38G with the best climb of 4200 ft per min. and the other variants weren't far behind.
> Didn't think anything except maybe the late Bf109 Gs could climb with a p38.


I specified early P-38s, the F and G models in use about the same time as the P-39N. Later J and L models had great climb but they had higher rated later model engines.


Ivan1GFP said:


> View attachment 554556


Iv
I don't have AHT, but wwiiaircraftperformance.org has a test of a P-38G in Feb'43 that showed normal speed (400mph) but astounding climb rates. Turns out that particular P-38G weighed only 13900# when a normally equipped G weighed 15900#. The test plane was a FULL TON light, armed with the 20mm cannon and only two .50s when normal P-38s carried four .50s and none of the three guns carried normal ammo load. Only 180 gallons of fuel were carried but the normal internal load was 300 gallons. Needless to say I don't think normal P-38s were equipped/loaded that way and I can't imagine why that one was tested that way. Three or four other tests/charts show more normal climb rates.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Incorrect - Morseby was saved by P-40s from the US 49th FG and Australian 75th fighter squadron (and others). See the Battle of Milne Bay (August - September 1942) during which a Japanese invasion fleet was turned back by land based aircraft operating mostly from Pt. Moresby
> 
> Battle of Milne Bay - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Only thing I can tell you about the P-39 vs P-40 is that every single model of the P-39 was faster than every single contemporary P-40 model (except Merlins-they were about the same as early P-39s). Same with climb and ceiling, every P-39 is better. The P-40 had the same engine as the P-39 but weighed 700# more. Just no way to make that up in performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Only thing I can tell you about the P-39 vs P-40 is that every single model of the P-39 was faster than every single contemporary P-40 model (except Merlins-they were about the same as early P-39s). Same with climb and ceiling, every P-39 is better. The P-40 had the same engine as the P-39 but weighed 700# more. Just no way to make that up in performance.



I don't disagree, on paper the P-39 looks like it has a superb rate of climb and very good speed - and without a doubt better in both traits than the P-40. Better than a lot of Spitfires too for that matter. So it's a mystery why it performed fair to badly in everyone's hands _except_ the Soviets. The Soviets seemed to get out of it what the specs said it could do.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> It seems a bit silly to have a gun that is so inflexible in its use as to REQUIRE short range, no deflection shots and even be limited to 2-3 rounds. Intimidation is an interesting thing. I would be VERY interested if you can find German pilot accounts that they were intimidated by Airacobras. As for a head-to-head showdown, accepting that kind of a match is just plain stupid regardless of what the other fellow is armed with. It would be a useful tactic if that is the ONLY shot you expect to be able to get.



No doubt it is quite silly, let us not forget the P-39 came from the same wacky firm that gave us the "Airacuda" and other marvels. Who knows what kind of surreal Buck Rogers air war the designers were imagining when they put those designs down on the drafting table. But for all it's challenges, the 37mm gun was very popular with the Soviets, even before they got it shooting more reliably (which they did, from what I understand the 2-3 rounds thing was an issue in the early days). So popular in fact that they put 37mm guns into ~3,000 Yak-9T and at least another 1,000 other Yak fighters of various other variants deployed in combat, and ended up putting them onto MiG 15's etc. postwar. They had their reasons for that of course (wanting to shoot down Strategic bombers) but it didn't seem to hinder that aircraft as an air superiority fighter much either.

The short version though is I don't think it was 100% their (the Soviets) adapting tactics to the gun so much as their existing tactics (to get very close and shoot from 50-100 meters) suited the gun, and the P-39 more generally.



> The P-40 WAS being used with reasonable success in various places, but those were places where the competition was not really first rate. The Soviets really didn't particularly like the P-40 but I suspect that some of that had to do with their philosophy for armament; They really didn't believe in wing guns.



The first part of that statement I think isn't entirely correct, it's one of those summaries that tends to mislead in fact. The P-40s used in the Med and in Russia were fighting the same Axis aircraft, and especially the elite Luftwaffe units as everyone else. Just in a different Tactical situation.

In Burma or the CBI you could argue that the Japanese opposition wasn't as ferocious as the Germans but I'm not sure I agree- certainly the best British fighters, Spitfires and Hurricanes, Seafires and Fulmars, didn't fare so well against the Japanese.

As for the prejudice against wing guns I kind of agree, but the Soviet's did not actually dislike the P-40. They didn't love it, but it was their second favorite lend-lease fighter after the P-39. Most P-40 units became guards units and as you are no doubt aware, numerous double, triple and quadruple (etc.) P-40 aces became HSU and double HSU etc.



> I suspect they were doing considerably BETTER because they were most likely overboosting their engines whenever they could.



Overboosting seems to be pretty common, is there any reason to assume it wasn't done with P-39s in the South Pacific?



> Why do you believe we are disagreeing here? Unless you are very close to Sea Level, 496 MPH Indicated Air Speed is probably going to be over 500 MPH True Air Speed.
> At 20,000 feet, 496 MPH IAS works out to 679 MPH TAS.
> At 10,000 feet 496 MPH IAS works out to 577 MPH TAS.



I wouldn't insist it was that fast but who knows... there is one claim by another Curtiss test plot of 600 something mph in a dive in a Kittyhawk I



> Also regarding the Soviets designs, I would have to agree with Shortround6. I believe they built what they could with the resources they had but would have preferred to build better aircraft. They just didn't plan much for quality control or longevity which got to be interesting at the end of the war with their wooden aircraft that had been stored outdoors and were no longer airworthy because structures had weakened by exposure weather. They also had issues with structural failures for their wood laminates due to manufacturing faults. Their aircraft in the field often tested at well below performance levels expected from the documentation.
> 
> - Ivan.



I'm sure they would prefer to have MiG-15s or Su-27s but I believe from the point of view of Soviet planning, in the logistical and industrial reality they were in, I believe they made _exactly _what they needed. To the Soviets, a two-stage supercharger and full metal stressed skin and 5 or 6 guns is a waste. For the same amount of strategic materials you can make two fighters each with a single stage supercharger and two guns with half as much metal, and both of them can shoot down a Bf 109 just as easily down at 2,000 feet where the Sturmoviks are flying. In fact Yak-1Bs and 7s and La-5s performed better against the German fighters than the Spit V did as we know.

The Russian Front was fought at BoB intensity for four strait years. Those planes often had a life expectancy of 20 or 30 missions at the most, why make them out of two tons of Duralumin from nose to tail? They only need to last 3 months. There will be an improved version by then anyway. I suspect in fact that the construction materials of wood and so on are in part why Soviet fighters tend to get an unfair bad rep, too few of them survived to impress us at Air Shows and museums.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't disagree, on paper the P-39 looks like it has a superb rate of climb and very good speed - and without a doubt better in both traits than the P-40. Better than a lot of Spitfires too for that matter. So it's a mystery why it performed fair to badly in everyone's hands _except_ the Soviets. The Soviets seemed to get out of it what the specs said it could do.


Just wonder if this is a case of handling characteristics trumping performance stats. Some planes like the F6f don't look all that impressive on paper but performed outstanding in actual combat. Near as ive been able to glean from what pilots had to say seems like this was largely due to good stable handling characteristics.
I'm guessing the reverse could also be true, that is a plane with squirly handling characteristics might fair worse than its performance stats might lead one to believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Just wonder if this is a case of handling characteristics trumping performance stats. Some planes like the F6f don't look all that impressive on paper but performed outstanding in actual combat. Near as ive been able to glean from what pilots had to say seems like this was largely due to good stable handling characteristics.
> I'm guessing the reverse could also be true, that is a plane with squirly handling characteristics might fair worse than its performance stats might lead one to believe.



Yes I think the P-40 is kind of an extreme example of that, in many respects on paper it looks like a dog but it almost always overperformed in the operational histories.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes I think the P-40 is kind of an extreme example of that, in many respects on paper it looks like a dog but it almost always overperformed in the operational histories.


The British used the P-40 and didn't want the P-39, with very sound reasons, it wasn't very good and was behind the curve.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> a plane with *squirly* handling characteristics


If I owned a P39 I think I'd name it "Rocky" with nose art to match.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> No doubt it is quite silly, let us not forget the P-39 came from the same wacky firm that gave us the "Airacuda" and other marvels. Who knows what kind of surreal Buck Rogers air war the designers were imagining when they put those designs down on the drafting table. But for all it's challenges, the 37mm gun was very popular with the Soviets, even before they got it shooting more reliably (which they did, from what I understand the 2-3 rounds thing was an issue in the early days). So popular in fact that they put 37mm guns into ~3,000 Yak-9T and at least another 1,000 other Yak fighters of various other variants deployed in combat, and ended up putting them onto MiG 15's etc. postwar. They had their reasons for that of course (wanting to shoot down Strategic bombers) but it didn't seem to hinder that aircraft as an air superiority fighter much either.
> 
> The short version though is I don't think it was 100% their (the Soviets) adapting tactics to the gun so much as their existing tactics (to get very close and shoot from 50-100 meters) suited the gun, and the P-39 more generally.



Hello Schweik,

Regarding silly: I believe it was just a poor combination of armament and engine power and required airframe size to even have a CHANCE at achieving required "interceptor" performance. The P-38 got around it with two engines. The P-39 did not.
As for the 37 mm gun being popular and mounted in many Soviet fighters, it ISN'T the same 37 mm cannon as in the Airacobra.
The NS-37 had a muzzle velocity about 50% higher than the M4 cannon and a cyclic rate of about 260 RPM as compared to 150 RPM.
The post war guns mounted in the MiG-15 were probably N-37 which had a lot less muzzle velocity to reduce recoil but had a firing rate of about 400 RPM. The only similarity between these three guns is the bore diameter.



Schweik said:


> The first part of that statement I think isn't entirely correct, it's one of those summaries that tends to mislead in fact. The P-40s used in the Med and in Russia were fighting the same Axis aircraft, and especially the elite Luftwaffe units as everyone else. Just in a different Tactical situation.



Not all the opposition was elite Luftwaffe units. The Italians had a pretty good assortment of aircraft and many of them were not modern types. Even some of their best were somewhat limited by the engines that the Germans allowed to be license built. The C.205 for example didn't appear in significant numbers before Italy surrendered.
The tactical situation was perfect for the Allison powered P-40 which had some pretty decent power at low altitude. 



Schweik said:


> In Burma or the CBI you could argue that the Japanese opposition wasn't as ferocious as the Germans but I'm not sure I agree- certainly the best British fighters, Spitfires and Hurricanes, Seafires and Fulmars, didn't fare so well against the Japanese.



From accounts I have seen, the "didn't fare so well" was mostly because the British tried the wrong tactics against the lightweight Japanese fighters. A Spitfire may turn pretty well, but a Hayabusa turns better.



Schweik said:


> As for the prejudice against wing guns I kind of agree, but the Soviet's did not actually dislike the P-40. They didn't love it, but it was their second favorite lend-lease fighter after the P-39. Most P-40 units became guards units and as you are no doubt aware, numerous double, triple and quadruple (etc.) P-40 aces became HSU and double HSU etc.



I forget who made the comment that the P-40 was really not up to modern standards when discussing lend-lease aircraft to the Soviets.
The success I believe is more indicative of relative pilot quality than of aircraft superiority.



Schweik said:


> Overboosting seems to be pretty common, is there any reason to assume it wasn't done with P-39s in the South Pacific?



Golodnikov stated that typically after 3-4 combats, the engine was changed. That kind of time between overhauls would have been commented upon if it were by American units.



Schweik said:


> I'm sure they would prefer to have MiG-15s or Su-27s but I believe from the point of view of Soviet planning, in the logistical and industrial reality they were in, I believe they made _exactly _what they needed. To the Soviets, a two-stage supercharger and full metal stressed skin and 5 or 6 guns is a waste. For the same amount of strategic materials you can make two fighters each with a single stage supercharger and two guns with half as much metal, and both of them can shoot down a Bf 109 just as easily down at 2,000 feet where the Sturmoviks are flying. In fact Yak-1Bs and 7s and La-5s performed better against the German fighters than the Spit V did as we know.



I believe the "exactly what was needed" is a conclusion based on hindsight. My Son calls that "hindsight bias".
The problem with non-strategic materials / wood construction is that it is labor intensive, the result is not particularly strong and is relatively heavy for its strength. The engine itself is probably the single biggest piece of strategic materials and manufacturing in the entire aircraft, so the savings isn't that great. Of course if engine power is limited, one has to choose and it seems pretty silly to carry around more airframe and less payload because of wood construction. On many of their aircraft wooden structural parts were gradually replaced with aluminum pieces as production went on. Now that would be pretty silly if the wooden pieces were the optimal choice.
The lack of engine power was an issue that the Soviets tried to address for quite some time especially with the VK-107 but it simply was not successful until near the end of the war.
It also isn't true that the Soviets were satisfied with low altitude fighters. The MiG-1 and MiG-3 were good examples of attempts at high altitude aircraft, but still without a lot of engine power. The same can be said for quite a few of their experimental designs.

The Spitfire Mk.V wasn't particularly fast at low altitude and many Spitfires that were shipped to Russia were pretty well used before they were sent.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm sure they would prefer to have MiG-15s or Su-27s but I believe from the point of view of Soviet planning, in the logistical and industrial reality they were in, I believe they made _exactly _what they needed. To the Soviets, a two-stage supercharger and full metal stressed skin and 5 or 6 guns is a waste. For the same amount of strategic materials you can make two fighters each with a single stage supercharger and two guns with half as much metal, and both of them can shoot down a Bf 109 just as easily down at 2,000 feet where the Sturmoviks are flying. In fact Yak-1Bs and 7s and La-5s performed better against the German fighters than the Spit V did as we know.


Spitfires over the Kuban – Lend-Lease

Well, this theory flies in the face of what we know about Soviet engine development.
We know the M-106 engine was in development from 1938 on. compared to the M-105 it used modified pistons and cylinder blocks, a strengthened crankshaft and reduction gear pinions; It used the same attachment points as the M-105. In March of 1939 two prototypes with 2 speed superchargers were built. Development was long (in part due to the war) and first flight tests were done in in the winter of 1942/43 in Yak 1s and Yak 9s. All the problems had NOT been solved and facorty No 26 in Ufa phased the M-106 out of production in May of 1943 after over 150 had been built, however this was not the end. in late 1943 an M-106 with a two stage supercharger (M-106PV) was tested in a Yak-9PD and by 1944 the engine had the supercharger RPM increased, water/alcohol fitted and a new ignition system. This was tested in a Yak-9PD and over 50 such engines were built.
Back in 1940 there was a project for the M-106TK with two TK-1 turbo superchargers. The Soviets tried to put turbochargers on just about everything short of a T-34 tank. However their metallurgy/manufacturing failed them and none of the turbo installations saw


service during the war.
The Soviets also were working on the M-107 engine from March of 1940. This was a much modified M-105 and included such things as 4 valves per cylinder instead of three. 29 were built in 1941 (instead of the planned 2000) and production of the series engines started in 1942 (slowly). 
You also have the whole Mig-1/3 saga which morphed into the I-230 and I-220 aircraft, some of which had pressure cabins and turbo superchargers on AM-39 engines.
I would also note that early Lagg fighters were supposed to have a 23mm cannon and two 12.7mm machine guns but the 23mm cannon didn't meet expectations and was replaced by the smaller 20mm gun, Some early Lagg-3s were 5 gun fighters. The single 20mm, two 12.7mm guns above the engine and two 7.62 ShKAS machine guns under the engine. As with many Soviet aircraft production examples showed a much decreased performance from prototypes and drastic measures had to be taken to restore performance. Like taking out guns and restricting ammo. 



> The Russian Front was fought at BoB intensity for four strait years. Those planes often had a life expectancy of 20 or 30 missions at the most, why make them out of two tons of Duralumin from nose to tail? They only need to last 3 months. There will be an improved version by then anyway. I suspect in fact that the construction materials of wood and so on are in part why Soviet fighters tend to get an unfair bad rep, too few of them survived to impress us at Air Shows and museums.



The Russians were designing mostly wooden fighters (and mixed construction larger aircraft) well before the Germans invaded to due a lack of Aluminum in peace time. This was not a brilliant decision made by the Russians during the war but rather a situation forced on them by the supply situation well before the war.


----------



## Stig1207 (Sep 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yet somehow more 'overly optimistic' than everyone else. For some reason we ignore huge rates of overclaiming by say, the Germans in these contexts.... which is odd



I would say that overclaiming by the Germans is pretty much accepted as an established fact, not ignored; but German overclaiming is not really relevant to how the P-39 performed in Soviet service.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't disagree, on paper the P-39 looks like it has a superb rate of climb and very good speed - and without a doubt better in both traits than the P-40. Better than a lot of Spitfires too for that matter. So it's a mystery why it performed fair to badly in everyone's hands _except_ the Soviets. The Soviets seemed to get out of it what the specs said it could do.


Soviet P-39s were lightened by removal of the .30 wing guns and some (not all) radio equipment that was incompatible with Soviet wavelengths. This amounted to around 250 pounds which would have increased climb rates by about 300 feet per minute.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 30, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I would say that overclaiming by the Germans is pretty much accepted as an established fact, not ignored; but German overclaiming is not really relevant to how the P-39 performed in Soviet service.


I think what German overclaiming has to do with the performance of the p39 in Soviet service and the point he was trying to make is that overclaiming was universal to all airforces during the war and usually by similar percentages so would not be a factor in comparative performance evaluation as you have to knock off the same say 50% off every type in every airforce.
At least that's what I got from it.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 30, 2019)

Another thought about Shweiks post that I never thought about before is that, at least in my experience, I've read/ heard alot more people throw shade on Russians, Americans, and to a lesser extent the Japanese for overclaiming but rarely the Germans. From the limited number of actual loss vs claim reports I've read the Germans certainly didn't overclaim more than anyone else and perhaps a case could be made for slightly less but the numbers were indeed similar.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 30, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> View attachment 554556


Ivan,

The coolant tank #11 was moved up above and ahead of the engine,




and the auxiliary stage supercharger was installed in the space vacated by the coolant tank. This drawing is from the P-63 pilots manual.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Incorrect - Morseby was saved by P-40s from the US 49th FG and Australian 75th fighter squadron (and others). See the Battle of Milne Bay (August - September 1942) during which a Japanese invasion fleet was turned back by land based aircraft operating mostly from Pt. Moresby
> 
> Battle of Milne Bay - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Schweik,

Regarding Moresby being saved from invasion, I didn't mean to imply that the P-39 had anything to do with the Battle of the Coral Sea in May '42. That was of course the Navy that turned back the invasion force at Coral Sea. But the Japanese mission in that battle was to invade Moresby. The later battle of Milne Bay was an attempt by the Japanese to invade Milne Bay, not Moresby. Make sense?

Thanks.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think what German overclaiming has to do with the performance of the p39 in Soviet service and the point he was trying to make is that overclaiming was universal to all airforces during the war and usually by similar percentages so would not be a factor in comparative performance evaluation as you have to knock off the same say 50% off every type in every airforce.
> At least that's what I got from it.



Yes, exactly. But there is another facet too which makes it more directly relevant:
*
Quite a few of the claims by German pilots that didn't actually turn out to be real were against Soviet P-39s. * 

Overclaiming was not a constant and varied by region and by time period, and even by individual unit. For the Germans, initially their processes and procedures were better and their claim rate was more accurate. By the mid war this was slipping, and by the later part of the war their overclaiming got worse. For example at Bodenplate the Germans claimed 79 aerial victories but apparently only shot down 31 Allied aircraft*, a 2-1 ratio. Earlier in the war about 1.5-1 was more common for the Luftwaffe (though it varied widely). In the MTO as I have pointed out Luftwaffe overclaiming sometimes reached 3-1.

For the Soviets, it was the opposite pattern. Initially overclaiming was wild - up to 4-1 in the first year of the war, and this was a problem for the Soviet administration. They needed to know what was actually going on so they could plan accordingly. Strict rules and often draconian policies (sometimes including courts-martial) were imposed in a hamfisted manner through 1942, including the requirement to recover the identity plate of a claimed aircraft for it to be confirmed (so no victories over enemy territory counted). Later they also started using gun cameras. The result was that overclaiming rates had declined by mid 1943 to around 2-1 and later (by my estimate) to around 1.5-1.

For the Anglo-Americans the fairly early widespread adoption of gun cameras helped with overclaiming - though it was not a panacea. You could have gun camera footage of several planes shooting up the same doomed target. Rates were similar to the Luftwaffe initially and gradually got better through the course of the war.


* per Wikipedia - 6 x Typhoons, 13 x Spitfires, 2 x P-51s, 6 x P-47s, and 4 x artillery spotter / liaison planes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Schweik,
> 
> Regarding Moresby being saved from invasion, I didn't mean to imply that the P-39 had anything to do with the Battle of the Coral Sea in May '42. That was of course the Navy that turned back the invasion force at Coral Sea. But the Japanese mission in that battle was to invade Moresby. The later battle of Milne Bay was an attempt by the Japanese to invade Milne Bay, not Moresby. Make sense?
> 
> Thanks.



Coral Sea did save Morseby, but Morseby remained under threat.

New Guinea is a very mountainous jungle island. The knife like ridges of the Owen Stanley range proved an insurmountable barrier to Japanese ground forces, who were based on the north side of the Island (see Buna and Lae on the map below) whereas Port Morseby was really the only viable port for the Allies on the South side. Milne Bay was a tiny undeveloped outpost with a small landing strip on the Eastern tip of the Island and the battle there was an attempt by the Japanese forces to do an end-run around the edge of the island (using invasion barges) _so as to get to Port Morseby_. See the map:







Had the landing succeeded, the Japanese Army was to continue up the coast to Port Morseby. The Australian and American aircraft which sunk the invasion barges and strafed the Japanese troops were based mainly in Port Morseby. Only after the battle was Milne Bay developed into a proper base.


Make sense?


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> Regarding silly: I believe it was just a poor combination of armament and engine power and required airframe size to even have a CHANCE at achieving required "interceptor" performance. The P-38 got around it with two engines. The P-39 did not.



Well, while I agree the operational history of the P-39 in "Western" hands looks poor, it certainly did well for the Russians, and on paper at least later model P-39s look pretty good. WWIIaircraftperformance.org shows an initial climb rate for the P-39Q of 3,470 dropping down to 3,307 by 10,000 ft. That is quite good. Top speed was 385 mph with the two .50 cal wing gun pods. P-39N shows a top speed of 398 mph at standard WEP of 57" Hg. That again is pretty good. And again, probably attainable in the field when removing wing guns and front armor.



> As for the 37 mm gun being popular and mounted in many Soviet fighters, it ISN'T the same 37 mm cannon as in the Airacobra.


And that is news? I don't believe I ever made the claim that the Soviets adopted the Oldsmobile M4 autocannon. However, I do see a link to the Soviets designing their own, slightly better 37mm guns, on the theory that one 37mm aircraft mounted cannon is much more similar to another 37mm aircraft mounted cannon, vs. say a 12.7mm machine gun or a 20mm.

Why did the Soviets adopt that specific caliber instead of going to say, 30mm like the Germans and Japanese did or just packing on more HMG or light 20mm cannon like the British and Americans.



> Not all the opposition was elite Luftwaffe units. The Italians had a pretty good assortment of aircraft and many of them were not modern types. Even some of their best were somewhat limited by the engines that the Germans allowed to be license built. The C.205 for example didn't appear in significant numbers before Italy surrendered.
> The tactical situation was perfect for the Allison powered P-40 which had some pretty decent power at low altitude.



This is again part of the long established postwar myth. The shorthand is that P-40s racked up claims against obsolete Italian biplanes and open cockpit Macchi 200 and Fiat G.50 fighters. The reality is that those aircraft contended first with Gladiators and later Hurricanes. The arrival of the Tomahawk at the end of 1941 hastened the rapid removal of those types of planes from the Italian TO&E. The British Tomahawk pilots of units like 112 Sqn enjoyed a short period of 2-3 months of engaging obsolete Italian fighters and German Bf 110, which were replaced by the far more capable Macchi 202, which was roughly equivalent to a Bf 109F according to almost all of the pilots on both sides and every country.

By the time the first Kittyhawks arrived in early 1942 the older Italian fighters, as well as the similarly vulnerable German Bf 110 were relegated to fighter bomber, coastal patrol and night time duties while the Macchi 202 took the forefront. JG 27 also demanded that their Bf 109E be phased out and replaced by far more capable Bf 109F2. So this is what the RAF had to contend with in their Kittyhawk I and Ia for six months and they took a beating. It only ended with until the arrival of US Merlin (not Allison) powered P-40Fs as well souped up P-40K's and a few Spitfires and P-38s all starting in mid-1942. None of the previously listed Allied fighter units found the MC 202 an easy mark, incidentally.

The greatest success by P-40s in the MTO were by American fighter groups flying Merlin powered P-40F and L, as well as two British squadrons with the same aircraft. *Their victories were almost all against Bf 109F and G model and Macchi 202 (and later 205*). *For example as you can see here the US 325th FG claimed 133 aircraft while flying P-40's - which broke down to 95 Bf 109, 26 Macchi MC 202, and the other 12 being miscellaneous transports etc. The only claim for one of those obsolete Italian fighter types was for one (1) MC 200 damaged. I hope that helps clear this persistent myth up a little bit at least in your mind.



> From accounts I have seen, the "didn't fare so well" was mostly because the British tried the wrong tactics against the lightweight Japanese fighters. A Spitfire may turn pretty well, but a Hayabusa turns better.



Bad tactics and poor training on type were very common among all the Allies in the early days of the war. It may indeed be part of the problem with the P-39, maybe some of the other types lent themselves better to relatively unseasoned pilots.



> Golodnikov stated that typically after 3-4 combats, the engine was changed. That kind of time between overhauls would have been commented upon if it were by American units.



If you read the interview Golodnikov also talked a lot about the problems they were having with what he called "oil culture" and keeping dust and dirt out of the engines, and with winterization which required them to drill holes and add drain plugs to every fluid reservoir in the aircraft, sometimes using silver spoons confiscated from regional villages to use as solder. Most of the early P-40 units were worn down by maintenance problems particularly during the winter. 

In other words there were several other reasons why engines would rapidly wear out on a P-40 in Soviet use particularly in the early days. I still do not believe overboosting was any more widely practiced among the Soviets than the Americans, Australians or British (per the famous Allison memo)



> I believe the "exactly what was needed" is a conclusion based on hindsight. My Son calls that "hindsight bias".



Interesting concept, and I understand the point. But I think my explanation is a bit misunderstood. I'll get into that more in my reply to Shortround6



> The problem with non-strategic materials / wood construction is that it is labor intensive, the result is not particularly strong and is relatively heavy for its strength.



Lets not forget the many great successes with laminated wood construction the most famous being the Mosquito, arguably the best and most effective aircraft in it's class in the entire war. I would also add to that the later more mature versions of the Yak series. Making plywood was more labor intensive but it took advantage of a material (birch etc.) that the Soviets had in abundance and with skilled labor techniques which had a long tradition in Russia. Sophisticated processing of birch bark goes back centuries in Russia, it was used for paper in Veliky Novgorod. So they had people who could do that work which was a great benefit. And ultimately, the early problems with things like defective paint eating through wing coverings and plywood delaminating due to moisture and so on were fixed just like the severe engine, landing gear, canopy opening and various other problems they had which I suggest were largely due to having to move all their factories.

One expedient they eventually settled on was to put a thin layer of bakelite over the skin of the Yak-9 as climate protection, which is pretty clever.



> gradually replaced with aluminum pieces as production went on. Now that would be pretty silly if the wooden pieces were the optimal choice.



Wood was an expedient for several reasons - the decision to make the Mosquito out of wood was originally to save on strategic materials. Sometimes it works out better to keep the wood, sometimes it was better to replace it depending on availability, production capacity and other factors. Wood certainly had it's downside particularly in certain types of environments (Mosquito apparently wasn't so good in Burma for example).

Engine is the biggest expense and probably weight for an aircraft but superchargers aren't a simple or cheap part of an engine and impellers in particular can require special and rare materials.



> It also isn't true that the Soviets were satisfied with low altitude fighters. The MiG-1 and MiG-3 were good examples of attempts at high altitude aircraft, but still without a lot of engine power. The same can be said for quite a few of their experimental designs.



The MiG 3, which performed pretty well above 15,000 ft, proved that high altitude capability wasn't necessary and was a waste of resources, particularly since the Mikulin engine was so heavy.



> The Spitfire Mk.V wasn't particularly fast at low altitude and many Spitfires that were shipped to Russia were pretty well used before they were sent.
> 
> - Ivan.



Quite a few of the early P-40s and P-39s were also clapped out.

S

*The Macchi 205 looked almost exactly like a 202 and was often claimed as such.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2019)

I think the Soviet outlook is kind of typified by the Ak-47. You could have another rifle with a lighter or heavier caliber which was more accurate or had a longer range, but from the Soviet point of view they want a weapon which works 99% of the time so that they can be sure it's available when needed. If your platoon of 50 men has 99% of their rifles which have (just to make up a number randomly) a 200 meter effective range working effectively, that is better than than the enemy who has 60% of their rifles which have a 300 meter effective range functioning because they are prone to stoppages and are hard to maintain in field conditions.

Soviet planners needed to make fighters which not only performed well in the flight envelope they needed them to (basically low altitude) they also needed them to function in the winter and be maintainable in very rough field airstrips by peasant mechanics working out in the elements and who may not have a long history of working on cars like an American kid might have had.

An early model Yak-7 may not have been quite as good on paper as a Spitfire V or a Kittyhawk III, but if the former has an 80% availability in February while the latter have a 30% availability the Yak-7 is definitely superior for Soviet purposes.

There is a bit of a mystery here related to the P-39 which in spite of being foreign with an American engine that required very clean oil and fuel, and had the same Winterization challenges at least in theory, but seemed to hold up better in the Winter than the other lend-lease types. One reason may be the location of the engine. Another probable reason is the 4 month workup they did before deployment. Another reason with later models is that Bell incorporated some Winterization mods in the factory.

Whatever the reason the P-39 didn't have the same problems with Winter serviceability that the other lend-lease planes had and that was another major reason why the Soviets liked it.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 30, 2019)

Yes, the p40s were only successful because they faced sub par oposition wherever they were narrative just never dies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, while I agree the operational history of the P-39 in "Western" hands looks poor, it certainly did well for the Russians, and on paper at least later model P-39s look pretty good. WWIIaircraftperformance.org shows an initial climb rate for the P-39Q of 3,470 dropping down to 3,307 by 10,000 ft. That is quite good. Top speed was 385 mph with the two .50 cal wing gun pods. P-39N shows a top speed of 398 mph at standard WEP of 57" Hg. That again is pretty good. And again, probably attainable in the field when removing wing guns and front armor.



Hello Schweik,

We are in agreement with the performance numbers of Airacobras. Not bad for a 1942 aircraft. Pretty mediocre for 1944.
I will ask you the same question you asked me earlier: Where did you get the information for what armor was removed by the Soviets?
I find that to be very odd because the Soviets appeared to be very conscious about the CoG problems with the aircraft.



Schweik said:


> And that is news? I don't believe I ever made the claim that the Soviets adopted the Oldsmobile M4 autocannon. However, I do see a link to the Soviets designing their own, slightly better 37mm guns, on the theory that one 37mm aircraft mounted cannon is much more similar to another 37mm aircraft mounted cannon, vs. say a 12.7mm machine gun or a 20mm.
> 
> Why did the Soviets adopt that specific caliber instead of going to say, 30mm like the Germans and Japanese did or just packing on more HMG or light 20mm cannon like the British and Americans.



As I commented earlier, the ONLY similarity is bore diameter. It is like comparing the 12.7 mm Breda HMG to a .50 BMG. The power level is pretty different. The Soviets had the high powered 37 mm cartridge in service in the Sh-37 as the not-quite-successful predecessor to the NS-37.
As for choice of caliber, The probably chose 37 mm for the same reason they chose 23 mm and 45 mm for calibers for their aircraft cannon. I haven't looked for it, but I would guess there was probably a 30 mm in development as well.
As for why the Soviets DIDN'T pack on more HMG or 20 mm, The simple answer is that they DID.
Note that aircraft that could support that kind of armament such as the Lavochkin La-5/La-7 eventually were armed with 3 x 20 mm B-20 guns. Those probably had to wait until a lighter alternative to the ShVAK came along because the weight of their armament package was limited for performance reasons.
As for the Yakovlev fighters, they simply didn't have the room for more guns. Eventually they pretty much settled for a single 20 mm and a single 12.7 mm. The 37 mm and later the 45 mm guns were mounted only on their "Heavy" fighters.



Schweik said:


> By the time the first Kittyhawks arrived in early 1942 the older Italian fighters, as well as the similarly vulnerable German Bf 110 were relegated to fighter bomber, coastal patrol and night time duties while the Macchi 202 took the forefront. JG 27 also demanded that their Bf 109E be phased out and replaced by far more capable Bf 109F2. So this is what the RAF had to contend with in their Kittyhawk I and Ia for six months and they took a beating. It only ended with until the arrival of US Merlin (not Allison) powered P-40Fs as well souped up P-40K's and a few Spitfires and P-38s all starting in mid-1942. None of the previously listed Allied fighter units found the MC 202 an easy mark, incidentally.
> 
> The greatest success by P-40s in the MTO were by American fighter groups flying Merlin powered P-40F and L, as well as two British squadrons with the same aircraft. *Their victories were almost all against Bf 109F and G model and Macchi 202 (and later 205*). *For example as you can see here the US 325th FG claimed 133 aircraft while flying P-40's - which broke down to 95 Bf 109, 26 Macchi MC 202, and the other 12 being miscellaneous transports etc. The only claim for one of those obsolete Italian fighter types was for one (1) MC 200 damaged. I hope that helps clear this persistent myth up a little bit at least in your mind.



You can figure out the performance figures as easily as I can and what you just stated says quite a lot.
First of all, I would say that from a performance standpoint, the C.202 was inferior to a Me 109F. Speed was similar to F, but engine power was identical to a low altitude rated Me 109E.
The C.202 also generally has pretty low firepower. Typical is a couple Breda 12.7 mm and MAYBE a couple rifle caliber wing guns.
The fact that the P-40K was considered "souped up" is a clear indication that the battles were happening down near ground level. At altitude (12,000 feet or so and above), the P-40K had no advantage over the earlier Kitthawk Mk.IA. / P-40E.



Schweik said:


> If you read the interview Golodnikov also talked a lot about the problems they were having with what he called "oil culture" and keeping dust and dirt out of the engines, and with winterization which required them to drill holes and add drain plugs to every fluid reservoir in the aircraft, sometimes using silver spoons confiscated from regional villages to use as solder. Most of the early P-40 units were worn down by maintenance problems particularly during the winter.
> 
> In other words there were several other reasons why engines would rapidly wear out on a P-40 in Soviet use particularly in the early days. I still do not believe overboosting was any more widely practiced among the Soviets than the Americans, Australians or British (per the famous Allison memo)



You are totally ignoring evidence in this case. Regarding clean oil, note that late model P-40 had built in dust filters for the carb intake.
Also note that Golodnikov states 3-4 COMBATS, not 20 or so flights. In other words, it was the need to operate at absolute maximum power levels that was wearing out the engines and not exposure to the harsh environment.
He also stated very early on that the P-40 had poor acceleration and climb, so they would over-rev it and "take what the aircraft could give" rather than what the manual stated.
Another side note is that from general accounts, the same kind of thing was happening to the Airacobra. I don't know about P-40, but Airacobra has a built in heater in its oil reservoir, so congealing oil should not be a problem.

Note also what the Allison memo was stating: They were agreeing to new Emergency Power limitations knowing that they would still be held accountable for a reasonable time between overhauls. 3-4 Combats is NOT a reasonable time between overhauls.



Schweik said:


> Lets not forget the many great successes with laminated wood construction the most famous being the Mosquito, arguably the best and most effective aircraft in it's class in the entire war. I would also add to that the later more mature versions of the Yak series. Making plywood was more labor intensive but it took advantage of a material (birch etc.) that the Soviets had in abundance and with skilled labor techniques which had a long tradition in Russia. Sophisticated processing of birch bark goes back centuries in Russia, it was used for paper in Veliky Novgorod. So they had people who could do that work which was a great benefit. And ultimately, the early problems with things like defective paint eating through wing coverings and plywood delaminating due to moisture and so on were fixed just like the severe engine, landing gear, canopy opening and various other problems they had which I suggest were largely due to having to move all their factories.
> 
> One expedient they eventually settled on was to put a thin layer of bakelite over the skin of the Yak-9 as climate protection, which is pretty clever.



First of all, the Mosquito is an entirely different kind of beast. It is a bomber. It is not stressed to the same strength level as a fighter.
The technology used to manufacture material for aircraft construction isn't really comparable to the historical techniques used to make furniture grade plywood. It isn't even close.
Regarding a thin layer of bakelite, what do you suppose the weight penalty was for something like that?
As for weather and moisture resistance, their construction was not as was shown at the end of the war as I mentioned earlier.



Schweik said:


> The MiG 3, which performed pretty well above 15,000 ft, proved that high altitude capability wasn't necessary and was a waste of resources, particularly since the Mikulin engine was so heavy.



How do you conclude that the MiG 3 was a waste of resources because the engine was so heavy? The aircraft offered a capability that other aircraft didn't have. The Soviets obviously didn't come to the same conclusions you have regarding their need for high altitude aircraft because they continued to experiment with them throughout the war.



Schweik said:


> Quite a few of the early P-40s and P-39s were also clapped out.



I don't know about the P-40s, but as far as the early P-39s, many were newly built in batches that never served with US forces and were already rejected by the British by that time.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> We are in agreement with the performance numbers of Airacobras. Not bad for a 1942 aircraft. Pretty mediocre for 1944.
> I will ask you the same question you asked me earlier: Where did you get the information for what armor was removed by the Soviets?
> I find that to be very odd because the Soviets appeared to be very conscious about the CoG problems with the aircraft.



My only source is really various translated interviews on that Lend-Lease website which I think you are familiar with, plus a little bit in books like Black Cross Red Star and so on. No hard evidence like government documents or anything. You can see in some photos etc. that they have removed the wing guns, I don't claim to know about the armor definitively.



> As I commented earlier, the ONLY similarity is bore diameter. It is like comparing the 12.7 mm Breda HMG to a .50 BMG. The power level is pretty different. The Soviets had the high powered 37 mm cartridge in service in the Sh-37 as the not-quite-successful predecessor to the NS-37.



The NS-37 was the widely used one.



> As for the Yakovlev fighters, they simply didn't have the room for more guns. Eventually they pretty much settled for a single 20 mm and a single 12.7 mm. The 37 mm and later the 45 mm guns were mounted only on their "Heavy" fighters.



Actually, that is far from the truth. Yet another cliche. I had myself been told this many times including on this site until I learned differently. The *Yak-9T *was a major early variant with the 37mm NS-37, and *2,748 were produced*. They were given to the squadron and later flight leaders of nearly every Yak-9 squadron at one point in the mid-war. There was also the *Yak-9TD* and a (to me) unknown number of the Yak-9U (some had the 23mm VYa + two 12.7mm mg instead), plus the *Yak-9UT* which had the Nudelmen N-37 again.

So quite a few of them actually had powerful 37mm guns. As for whether a 37mm cannon is just like any other gun I disagree wholeheartedly but don't care debate it forever. I think the P-39 armament and the subsequent ubiquity of the 37mm on Soviet fighters is not a coincidence. I admit that would be hard to prove but so is the reverse.



> You can figure out the performance figures as easily as I can and what you just stated says quite a lot.



Right back at you!



> First of all, I would say that from a performance standpoint, the C.202 was inferior to a Me 109F. Speed was similar to F, but engine power was identical to a low altitude rated Me 109E. The C.202 also generally has pretty low firepower. Typical is a couple Breda 12.7 mm and MAYBE a couple rifle caliber wing guns.



This is yet another canard that has already been put to bed on this board multiple times. Standard armament for most of the active variants of the MC 202 was 2 x 12.7mm HMG and 2 x 7.7mm LMG. Compare that to it's original Luftwaffe contemporary the oft praised Bf 109 F2 with 1 x 15mm MG151 HMG (or 'cannon') and 2 x 7.92 LMG. They were comparable in performance (370 mph for the MC 202, with 3,560 ft / min climb, ceiling 37,700 ft) vs according to his 371 mph for the Bf 109F-2 with initial climb 3,320 ft per minute, ceiling 37,000 ft) and the 202 was said to be slightly more agile.

Again, almost every pilot in action at that time was in agreement that the 202 and the 109 were roughly equivalent in North Africa, Germans, Brits, Aussies, and of course the Italians all said the same thing. The MC 202 was respected and feared, it certainly was not considered an easy kill for a Spit V or a P-38.

The Bf 109F-4 trop, which didn't arrive in the Middle East until mid 1942, was a bit faster yet (~ 380 mph), and G-2 trop by fall a bit more (385-390), but the MC 205s were arriving by the Battle of Pantelleria in Feb of 1943 so that is not too far behind.

The only 'inferior' aspect of the Axis planes fighting in the MTO was that they had to have tropical filters, but all fighters on every side had that problem. The British planes probably suffered worst of all with their dreadful Vokes filter.



> The fact that the P-40K was considered "souped up" is a clear indication that the battles were happening down near ground level. At altitude (12,000 feet or so and above), the P-40K had no advantage over the earlier Kitthawk Mk.IA. / P-40E.



The P-40K was definitely a low altitude bird but it was able to pull 1,580 hp at lower altitude ranges (and not quite so low as Shortround6 sometimes implies) at normal by the manual WEP, (not overboosted) down around 5,000 ft or below, so even if you started a fight at 20-25,000 ft a Split-S and a full power dive could put you into a _very _comfortable zone for the K in about 90 seconds, which was convenient in case you got in any trouble. Also made it very difficult for Axis aircraft to escape in a dive.

But to be clear - the F/L were considered the front line weapon against the Bf 109 & MC 202 because they were comfortable above 20- 25,000 ft., which was about the top of most of the fights.



> You are totally ignoring evidence in this case. Regarding clean oil, note that late model P-40 had built in dust filters for the carb intake.
> Also note that Golodnikov states 3-4 COMBATS, not 20 or so flights. In other words, it was the need to operate at absolute maximum power levels that was wearing out the engines and (snip)
> Note also what the Allison memo was stating: They were agreeing to new Emergency Power limitations knowing that they would still be held accountable for a reasonable time between overhauls. 3-4 Combats is NOT a reasonable time between overhauls.



Golodnikov actually contradicted himself because he indicated a longer engine life later in the interview, I always assumed he was referring initially to the early days of using Kittyhawks and later to the later days. The other issue they faced in Russia is that many of the Lend Lease planes they got in the first year and a half were already clapped out from fighting in the Middle East etc.

We can pick that Golodnikov interview apart in detail if you want, we clearly read it differently, but the bottom line is I don't agree there is any evidence of the Soviets overboosting more than anyone else was. They were just less familiar with the engines and operating with an even more precarious logistics tail.



> First of all, the Mosquito is an entirely different kind of beast. It is a bomber. It is not stressed to the same strength level as a fighter.
> The technology used to manufacture material for aircraft construction isn't really comparable to the historical techniques used to make furniture grade plywood. It isn't even close.



Again, to me the Mosquito was a fighter, albeit not in the same category as a single engined bird, but it did maneuver and did high G turns and so on. As for the industry and training aspect of the wood, again I disagree, I have actually read academic papers about this.



> How do you conclude that the MiG 3 was a waste of resources because the engine was so heavy? The aircraft offered a capability that other aircraft didn't have. The Soviets obviously didn't come to the same conclusions you have regarding their need for high altitude aircraft because they continued to experiment with them throughout the war.



They ditched the MiG 3 as soon as they had enough other fighters to replace it on the front line and the heavy engine contributed to it's lousy (almost useless) performance and dangerous handling traits at low altitude. Of course they experimented with everything, including long range four engined bombers, just in case. But that doesn't mean they really intended to use them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2019)

Maybe there is quite a bit of bad information about Soviet aircraft and guns but sometimes explanations are actually rather simple. 

The reason the 37mm was so popular around the world dates back to the 1890s and very early 1900s when in the same treaties that banned the Dumdum bullets they prohibited shells smaller that 1lb (or the metric equivalent) from containing high explosive. It turns out that 37mm was about the right bore size for 1lb hollow ( space for explosive) shells given the fuses and High explosives of the day. 
Once a country (or gun/ammunition factory) is tooled up to make a caliber they are usually very resistant to change. It is also easier to experiment with new projectiles in an existing caliber/bore size, or make test barrels even if the rate of twist is different. The Russian use of the 45mm caliber also dates back many years when for some reason they adopted it for a 3pdr naval cannon instead of the more common 47mm diameter that most of the worlds 3 pdr guns were. This _may_ have started out as a different way of measuring things. Like bore diameter vs diameter including depth of grooves? Or diameter of shell body vs diameter of driving band? 
In any case the Russian (pre soviet) 45mm naval gun provided the basis for the 45mm Soviet army anti-tank and tank and tank guns and they in turn provided the basis for the 45mm aircraft gun/s. You could use some of the same barrel making machinery and shell making machinery even if the barrels were different lengths and thickness or the shells were different lengths/shape. 

The Soviets were particularly constrained as their machine tool industry was very limited. 

Soviet multi gun fighters include around eight hundred 5 gun Mig 3s but the underwing 12.7mm guns were often removed before combat to improve performance. 

From Wiki so take it as you will. on the Lagg-3

"The I-301 airframe was partially made of _delta wood_ (a _resin-wood multi-ply veneer__ composed of very thin, 0.35 to 0.55 mm, _birch or pine wood veneer and VIAM-B-3 a _phenol-formaldehyde resin__, baked at high temperature and pressure_) used for the crucial parts. An unpleasant surprise encountered during the production of the prototype was the adhesive used in the delta wood caused skin irritation and safety procedures needed to be devised for workers.[2] This novel construction material had tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloys and only 30% lower than that of precipitation hardened D-1A grade duralumin. It was also_ incombustible and completely invulnerable to rot, with service life measured in decades in adverse conditions_. "

Italics by me. This is most definitely NOT furniture grade construction no matter how skilled the local woodworker/cabinet maker is unless he had access to special veneer lathes, the resin and the curing oven and method of applying pressure he cold not make any replacement parts. (of course no British aircraft fitter/wood worker could make replacement parts for a Mosquito either with common woodworking tools)
I would note that the calms for the longevity/durability of the material strongly echo the claims made for at least one wood veneer/composite resin form of construction used in the US. Which turned out to be as true as the Russian claims. In other words a fair degree of overclaiming. 


BTW.......Bakelite is a _phenol-formaldehyde resin. _So putting a layer of it on the outside surface of the wing should have been not much of trick. 



Schweik said:


> As for the industry and training aspect of the wood, again I disagree, I have actually read academic papers about this.



Well, the vast majority of furniture in the 1930s (or earlier) was not impregnated with resins or baked in autoclaves. 



Schweik said:


> 1,580 hp at lower altitude ranges (and not quite so low as Shortround6 sometimes implies)



Allison's suggested limits for the -73 engine was 1580hp at 2500ft using 60in of MAP. this may not include RAM which might add several thousand feet in level flight but at what altitude could the P-40K hold 60in of MAP when climbing or after pulling a high G turn? 

The tales of 1700hp require *very* low altitudes, straight and level flight and/or over revving the engine. 
Please note that the 8.80 supercharger gear engines were also rated at 1490hp at 4300ft at 56in of MAP. At both altitudes that is all the supercharger will supply without the Help of RAM. 





The *Yak-9UT* is a bit of misdirection. It was supposed to take the 23mm gun, the 37mm gun and the 45mm gun pretty much interchangeable. About 282 were built(?), However the question is timing, how many were built before the war ended? the N-37 is supposed to be a post war gun going into service in 1946. Obviously since it takes a number of years to get an aircraft gun into service more than a handful could very well have been installed in several different Yak 9s for testing. There are claims that YAK-9UTs did fly over Berlin in the closing days of the war but one source makes no mention of _which_ gun they were equipped with.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Soviet multi gun fighters include around eight hundred 5 gun Mig 3s but the underwing 12.7mm guns were often removed before combat to improve performance.



Is that supposed to be news?

And yes, the early aircraft grade resin-plywood laminates they made were quite sophisticated, though it took them a year or two to perfect. The Russian version of this was quite unique and made extensive use of local materials, like birch which they had in vast acerage. I don't think they were able to get any balsa though...



> Italics by me. This is most definitely NOT furniture grade construction no matter how skilled the local woodworker/cabinet maker is unless he had access to special veneer lathes, the



Making things out of laminated wood veneers goes back to the Bronze Age (in that specific region and well beyond). Mechanized lathes go back to the 14th Century. Various forms of plywood construction were a major industry in Russia since Czar Alexander II. You should quit while you are ahead.



> BTW.......Bakelite is a _phenol-formaldehyde resin. _So putting a layer of it on the outside surface of the wing should have been not much of trick.



Shortround, I get the feeling sometimes when you are moving a little beyond your areas of expertise, you just fill in the gaps with pure fluff...

Yes bakelite is a resin. What it is not is plywood. It essentially an early, nearly indestructible form of plastic, which was particularly popular in the 50's. The precise properties vary depending on what they put into the mix, but generally speaking it's quite sturdy. Here are a few artifacts made out of it:






I don't know if you have ever handled one of these old bakelite Ak-47 magazines but they are hella tough. Bakelite made a very useful protective coating for the Yak 9.



> Allison's suggested limits for the -73 engine was 1580hp at 2500ft using 60in of MAP. this may not include RAM which might add several thousand feet in level flight but at what altitude could the P-40K hold 60in of MAP when climbing or after pulling a high G turn?
> 
> The tales of 1700hp require *very* low altitudes, straight and level flight and/or over revving the engine.



This is rather predictable... please note *I made no mention of 1,700 hp *and didn't make any performance claims based on overboosting. Whether it's 1580 at 57" or 1550 at 60" is not a sufficient variance to be worthy of yet another side debate - but lets just say I find your insinuations of P-40K falling out of the sky if they attempted a high G turn at either throttle setting quite unlikely. Please note this Oct 1942 AAF test of a P-40K (lightened to simulate a P-40N) shows *an estimated b.h.p. of 1480 hp* (and 378 mph) *at 10,550 feet *which it says was critical altitude for W.E.P. of 57" (critical altitude for climbing -at 3,720 feet per minute- was at 8,000 ft also at 1480 hp, by 10,000 that was slowed to 3,440 feet per minute... definitely with no ram whatsoever by the way). So no Shortround I don't think they would have any trouble putting out another 100 hp at 5,000 feet, and I remain quite comfortable with my previous assertion, your every effort to obfuscate the issue notwithstanding.



> The *Yak-9UT* is a bit of misdirection. It was supposed to take the 23mm gun, the 37mm gun and the 45mm gun pretty much interchangeable. About 282 were built(?), However the question is timing, how many were built before the war ended? the N-37 is supposed to be a post war gun going into service in 1946. Obviously since it takes a number of years to get an aircraft gun into service more than a handful could very well have been installed in several different Yak 9s for testing. There are claims that YAK-9UTs did fly over Berlin in the closing days of the war but one source makes no mention of _which_ gun they were equipped with.



Yes old bean but you seem to have glossed right over the Yak-9T, built in 1942 and put into the field in early 1943, of which over 2,700 were built! And which, I apparently wasted my time to point out, were issued to almost every Yak squadron commander in the VVS at one point. Hardly a token experimental effort.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think what German overclaiming has to do with the performance of the p39 in Soviet service and the point he was trying to make is that overclaiming was universal to all airforces during the war and usually by similar percentages so would not be a factor in comparative performance evaluation as you have to knock off the same say 50% off every type in every airforce.
> At least that's what I got from it.



Yes, overclaiming was universal, but how much other airforces were overclaiming has no bearing on the P-39 i Soviet service. The success of the P-39 on the the Eastern Front is based on the claims of the Soviet pilots, i.e. how well they _thought _they were doing; that is what overclaiming does, distorting the perception of what was really achieved. What makes it so difficult to evaluate is the seeming lack of data; how many enemy aircraft did Soviet P-39 pilots actually claim?


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For the Soviets, it was the opposite pattern. Initially overclaiming was wild - up to 4-1 in the first year of the war, and this was a problem for the Soviet administration. They needed to know what was actually going on so they could plan accordingly. Strict rules and often draconian policies (sometimes including courts-martial) were imposed in a hamfisted manner through 1942, including the requirement to recover the identity plate of a claimed aircraft for it to be confirmed (so no victories over enemy territory counted). Later they also started using gun cameras. The result was that overclaiming rates had declined by mid 1943 to around 2-1 and later (by my estimate) to around 1.5-1.



So how many enemy aircraft did the Soviets claim to have shotdown after these strict rules were imposed, say from mid 1943 on?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually, that is far from the truth. Yet another cliche. I had myself been told this many times including on this site until I learned differently. The *Yak-9T *was a major early variant with the 37mm NS-37, and *2,748 were produced*. They were given to the squadron and later flight leaders of nearly every Yak-9 squadron at one point in the mid-war. There was also the *Yak-9TD* and a (to me) unknown number of the Yak-9U (some had the 23mm VYa + two 12.7mm mg instead), plus the *Yak-9UT* which had the Nudelmen N-37 again.
> 
> So quite a few of them actually had powerful 37mm guns. As for whether a 37mm cannon is just like any other gun I disagree wholeheartedly but don't care debate it forever. I think the P-39 armament and the subsequent ubiquity of the 37mm on Soviet fighters is not a coincidence. I admit that would be hard to prove but so is the reverse.



Hello Schweik,
The model suffixes are a pretty good indication. T is Russian abbreviation for "Heavy", D is typically a Long Range version, U is an improved version.



Schweik said:


> This is yet another canard that has already been put to bed on this board multiple times. Standard armament for most of the active variants of the MC 202 was 2 x 12.7mm HMG and 2 x 7.7mm LMG. Compare that to it's original Luftwaffe contemporary the oft praised Bf 109 F2 with 1 x 15mm MG151 HMG (or 'cannon') and 2 x 7.92 LMG. They were comparable in performance (370 mph for the MC 202, with 3,560 ft / min climb, ceiling 37,700 ft) vs according to his 371 mph for the Bf 109F-2 with initial climb 3,320 ft per minute, ceiling 37,000 ft) and the 202 was said to be slightly more agile.



There is actually a pretty big difference in power level between a MG 151/15 and a Breda 12.7 mm....
Here is a little bit of background on the Macchi C.202 and its production 'standard':

Serie I – Breda 100 Aircraft 2 x 12.7 mm – same as prototype
Serie II – Macchi 10 Aircraft 2 x 12.7 mm – same as prototype
Serie III – Macchi 140 Aircraft
Serie IV – SAI Ambrosini 50 Aircraft
Serie V – SAI Ambrosini 50 Aircraft
Serie VI – Breda 50 Aircraft
Serie VII – Macchi 100 Aircraft 2 x 12.7 mm & 2 x 7.7 mm – April 1942
Serie VIII – Breda 50 Aircraft
Serie IX – Macchi 100 Aircraft – Sep 1941
Serie X – Breda 100 Aircraft
Serie XI – Breda 150 Aircraft
Serie XII – Breda 150 Aircraft
Serie XIII – Macchi 50 Aircraft
Serie XIV and later not built due to surrender.

The Serie VII and "later" were the only versions to come from the factory with wing armament.
Some earlier versions were retrofitted, but many factory wing guns were removed for the simple reason that they were determined to be ineffective and adversely affected the aircraft's flying characteristics. Loaded weight increased from 2930 KG to 3069 KG (!).
That is the choice when there isn't sufficient engine power.
So, total production of 1150 aircraft only had 600 equipped with the wing guns from the factory although some had them added and some had them removed,



Schweik said:


> The P-40K was definitely a low altitude bird but it was able to pull 1,580 hp at lower altitude ranges (and not quite so low as Shortround6 sometimes implies) at normal by the manual WEP, (not overboosted) down around 5,000 ft or below, so even if you started a fight at 20-25,000 ft a Split-S and a full power dive could put you into a _very _comfortable zone for the K in about 90 seconds, which was convenient in case you got in any trouble. Also made it very difficult for Axis aircraft to escape in a dive.



If you are really discussing tactics, all that proves is that the P-40K can lose altitude fast and get down to its comfort zone.
An opponent would be stupid to follow when the P-40 has gone completely defensive and can be BnZ'ed at will.
Even a short zoom climb would take it out of its best performance altitude.



Schweik said:


> Golodnikov actually contradicted himself because he indicated a longer engine life later in the interview....



We are mostly in agreement. Golodnikov contradicts himself quite a lot. The key point to take early in the interview is his mention of over-revving the engine. Can't hardly take that one back.



Schweik said:


> They ditched the MiG 3 as soon as they had enough other fighters to replace it on the front line and the heavy engine contributed to it's lousy (almost useless) performance and dangerous handling traits at low altitude. Of course they experimented with everything, including long range four engined bombers, just in case. But that doesn't mean they really intended to use them.



Lousy performance is relative. It was easily the fastest aircraft in Soviet service until pretty late in the war.
As for its quirky handling, there are plenty of reasons such as the aircraft's configuration, but I don't believe the heavy engine was such a big deal if the designers balanced things correctly.
I am very curious as to your source for the Soviet's "intentions" for equipment. They certainly were not going to be using equipment if they could not get it working right., but that doesn't mean they quit trying.



Schweik said:


> And yes, the early aircraft grade resin-plywood laminates they made were quite sophisticated, though it took them a year or two to perfect. The Russian version of this was quite unique and made extensive use of local materials, like birch which they had in vast acerage. I don't think they were able to get any balsa though...
> .....
> Making things out of laminated wood veneers goes back to the Bronze Age (in that specific region and well beyond). Mechanized lathes go back to the 14th Century. Various forms of plywood construction were a major industry in Russia since Czar Alexander II. You should quit while you are ahead.



As I understand it, the thickness of the sheets and the impregnation of the resin make the actual type of wood being used not terribly important.
This materials is for all intents and purposes a solid block of resin with some wood fibers in it, so it really doesn't have much to do with centuries old techniques of working plywood.



Schweik said:


> I don't know if you have ever handled one of these old bakelite Ak-47 magazines but they are hella tough. Bakelite made a very useful protective coating for the Yak 9.



How many really THIN items made of Bakelite have you seen? One of the things worth mentioning is that those AK-74 magazines are HEAVY but then again, so are the AK steel magazines.



Schweik said:


> This is rather predictable... please note *I made no mention of 1,700 hp *and didn't make any performance claims based on overboosting. Whether it's 1580 at 57" or 1550 at 60" is not a sufficient variance to be worthy of yet another side debate - but lets just say I find your insinuations of P-40K falling out of the sky if they attempted a high G turn at either throttle setting quite unlikely. Please note this Oct 1942 AAF test of a P-40K (lightened to simulate a P-40N) shows *an estimated b.h.p. of 1480 hp* (and 378 mph) *at 10,550 feet *which it says was critical altitude for W.E.P. of 57" (critical altitude for climbing -at 3,720 feet per minute- was at 8,000 ft also at 1480 hp, by 10,000 that was slowed to 3,440 feet per minute... definitely with no ram whatsoever by the way). So no Shortround I don't think they would have any trouble putting out another 100 hp at 5,000 feet, and I remain quite comfortable with my previous assertion, your every effort to obfuscate the issue notwithstanding.



This test aircraft may have started life as a P-40K, but if you actually read the report, you will find that it has had the engine replaced with a V-1710-81. This is NOT the V-1710-73 as normally installed in P-40K.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Is that supposed to be news?
> 
> You should quit while you are ahead.
> 
> ...


Is there any need for this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> There is actually a pretty big difference in power level between a MG 151/15 and a Breda 12.7 mm....
> Here is a little bit of background on the Macchi C.202 and its production 'standard':
> 
> Serie I – Breda 100 Aircraft 2 x 12.7 mm – same as prototype
> ...



As the kids would sometimes tell me: "Dad, you can't math!"
The total from Serie VII to Serie XIII SHOULD be 700 aircraft though there is no guarantee that every aircraft in the "later" production runs actually was built with wing guns either. Different factories pretty much did their own thing and also a numerically later aircraft MAY have an earlier production date even if it is the same company running the show. Thus the Serie IX production is chronologically earlier than Serie VII.
There is also the problem that some of the later production batches may not have been completed due to Italy's surrender.
Some sources list total production as only 1070 aircraft.

Relevant statements regarding wing armament removal are actually, "Therefore the wing-mounted machine guns were usually removed in combat units." "It was difficult to down heavy bombers with just four machine guns (and more often it was only two)." "The Folgore displayed marked superiority over the Hurricane IIs, but its main shortcoming, the weak armament, was a problem."

The effect of the Folgore seems to be all out of proportion to the numbers involved.
In the summer of 1942, there were only 100 aircraft in service in North Africa. They were reinforced by an additional 30 aircraft in late October1942, but by early 1943, they were down to 54 serviceable aircraft.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Is that supposed to be news?



Not news but counters your argument that the Soviets built what they wanted to (or needed). There were also (and not new information) I-16s with four guns and two of them were cannon. However there was always a performance penalty and and later planes often reverted to 4 machine guns. 



> And yes, the early aircraft grade resin-plywood laminates they made were quite sophisticated, though it took them a year or two to perfect. The Russian version of this was quite unique and made extensive use of local materials, like birch which they had in vast acerage. I don't think they were able to get any balsa though...



AS has been pointed out already it didn't really matter if it was Birch or not although Birch was probably a very good wood to use for this purpose. The Balsa issue is a bit of a misdirection. Just because several airplanes are made of wood (or use wood for a large part of their structure) does not mean they use the same woods (or substitute one wood for another with similar construction) 

A US aircraft using laminated veneer construction.




The prototype was left uncovered to emphasis the type of construction. The 2nd and 3rd(?) aircraft were fabric covered. 
The "veneer" (which was actually the structural shell of the aircraft) was Honduran mahogany. The Fuselage skin was 1/8 in thick and and the wing skin (it used laminated wooden spars, wood not given in the description I have but the ribs were mahogany plywood) was 1/16 in thick. 

The fuselage was made using a mold and the vinyl-resins were cured in an oven for one hour. 

Now can someone explain to me how Ivan, now matter how skilled he was at making tables or dressers was going to repair such a structure in field using wood working techniques passed down to him for generations? 

there was also the Timm "Aeromold"





"triple cross sheets of spruce plywood impregnated with phenol-formaldehyde (similar to bakelite)" quote from US Civil aircraft vol 8.
Again the plane's parts were constructed on molds and baked in ovens to cure the resin. In fact the first prototype was delayed for months while waiting for the delivery of the oven. 



> Making things out of laminated wood veneers goes back to the Bronze Age (in that specific region and well beyond). Mechanized lathes go back to the 14th Century. Various forms of plywood construction were a major industry in Russia since Czar Alexander II. You should quit while you are ahead.



A veneer lathe is a special lathe built to "peel" a log in uniform sheets of wood. While you might be able to adapt a regular wood turning lathe or even metal lathe to such use (with a lot of work) they are both pretty useless as they stand. You need the special cutters/blades to do the 'peeling" and you need a lathe of the right size to get the sheets you want and you need a lathe capable of turing at the right speed to allow the cutter/blade to do it's thing. Too fast is going to give you a lot of splinters. Moden machines with modern cutters can be very fast. Many older lathes had a range of fixed speeds as they were driven by belts or gears. 







> Shortround, I get the feeling sometimes when you are moving a little beyond your areas of expertise, you just fill in the gaps with pure fluff...
> 
> Yes bakelite is a resin. What it is not is plywood. It essentially an early, nearly indestructible form of plastic, which was particularly popular in the 50's. The precise properties vary depending on what they put into the mix, but generally speaking it's quite sturdy. Here are a few artifacts made out of it:
> 
> ...



Hmmm. pot meet kettle.
Bakelite dates to before WW I, it was very popular in the 1920s and 30s and by 1950s was actually fading from use. Bakelite as used in the products you show was still a composite material as it used some sort of filler material in the Resin. Usually wood but it could be cotton fiber or even glass fiber. Bakelite by itself is not very flexible, it does tend to crack rather than bend but that may depend on temperature? 





> This is rather predictable... please note *I made no mention of 1,700 hp *and didn't make any performance claims based on overboosting. Whether it's 1580 at 57" or 1550 at 60" is not a sufficient variance to be worthy of yet another side debate - but lets just say I find your insinuations of P-40K falling out of the sky if they attempted a high G turn at either throttle setting quite unlikely. Please note this Oct 1942 AAF test of a P-40K (lightened to simulate a P-40N) shows *an estimated b.h.p. of 1480 hp* (and 378 mph) *at 10,550 feet *which it says was critical altitude for W.E.P. of 57" (critical altitude for climbing -at 3,720 feet per minute- was at 8,000 ft also at 1480 hp, by 10,000 that was slowed to 3,440 feet per minute... definitely with no ram whatsoever by the way). So no Shortround I don't think they would have any trouble putting out another 100 hp at 5,000 feet, and I remain quite comfortable with my previous assertion, your every effort to obfuscate the issue notwithstanding.



Hmm, you quote a test using the wrong engine (supercharger gear) and I get accused of obfuscating the issue?





> Yes old bean but you seem to have glossed right over the Yak-9T, built in 1942 and put into the field in early 1943, of which over 2,700 were built! And which, I apparently wasted my time to point out, were issued to almost every Yak squadron commander in the VVS at one point. Hardly a token experimental effort.



Well old bean, then list your Yak-9T and leave the Yak-9UT out of it unless your intention is to obfuscate the issue?

Please note that your listing of the use of the Yak-9T _may _point to one of the problems with it. It seems to have been issued to the most experienced pilots for the most part and not general run of the mill VVS pilots? If this armament combination was so great why didn't they issue the Yak -9Ts to average pilots (like an entire squadron or group ) to simplify logistics/ammo supply? I am sure that some squadrons/ groups were fully equipped (or nearly so) with Yak-9Ts but scattering scores of them across many squadrons with only 1 or 2 planes per squadron was not ideal from a logistics or maintenance standpoint. 

This is a generalization but gun combinations that were good for experienced pilots (or experts) were often not good for pilots of lesser experience or skill. Germans with the Bf-109F and Early Gs may have suffered from this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 1, 2019)

I think most of the difference between the P40 and the P39 in the Pacific simply comes from engine location. No matter how awesome your fighter is, eventually you are going to take hits. A P40 or Wildcat running from a Zero can get riddled pretty good from the back of the seat to the end of the tail and still come home. In fact I think the Wildcat was nearly impossible to shoot down from directly behind if the Zero was out of cannon ammunition unless he hit the oil cooler in the wing. The P39, even though it had a speed advantage over the P40 and a huge speed advantage over the Wildcat, could simply not take many rounds from behind because that’s where the engine was located. 

On the other hand, if the P39 would have had a turbocharger, it would have been great at intercepting bombers because the engine was behind the pilot and not susceptible to bombers defensive guns. Too bad it didn’t....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2019)

pinsog said:


> On the other hand, if the P39 would have had a turbocharger, it would have been great at intercepting bombers because the engine was behind the pilot and not susceptible to bombers defensive guns. Too bad it didn’t....



Too bad it didn't have the extra several feet of fuselage space to accommodate the turbo and intercooler.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Too bad it didn't have the extra several feet of fuselage space to accommodate the turbo and intercooler.


Ooohh, my aching stretchmarks!


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not news but counters your argument that the Soviets built what they wanted to (or needed). There were also (and not new information) I-16s with four guns and two of them were cannon. However there was always a performance penalty and and later planes often reverted to 4 machine guns.



Again I think you are missing the point about how the Soviets adapted to their circumstances. The I-16 which eventually got 20mm wing guns was developed based on experiences in conflicts like Manchuria and in the Spanish Civil War. The MiG-3 was developed in response to theoretical high altiude bomber capabilities going back to Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchel based on the notion that "the bomber will always get through" and the intention to completely annihilate cities (which did happen later in the war though more to the Axis). The miscalculation on the part of nearly everyone was the notion that bombers could hit anything of Tactical importance from high altitude - the high altitude bombing rarely accomplished more than terror bombing of civilians. This was what the billions put into the Norden Bombsight (a far bigger investment than the Soviets put into the MiG 3).

Once Operation Barbarossa started it was clear they they had a different type of problem to cope with and began to adapt their designs accordingly (and ditch the dead wood pun intended). Much early Soviet war kit was essentially experimental - it's the same down on the ground with armor for light 'cruiser style' BT-7 tanks and the land battleships like the T-35 and T-28, all of which fell by the wayside to be replaced by what worked, mainly T-34s and Su-85s (plus some KVs).

The Germans went through a similar fighter development cycle initially - downrading the heavily armed but ponderous Bf 110 and eliminating wing guns on the Bf 109 in the upgrade from E to F, then later adding them back again in the later G models due to the need to knock down big heavy bombers and the heavily armored Il-2. But for the pure fighter role against single and twin engined aircraft, the single heavy-ish nose gun with a couple of LMG were sufficient.



> AS has been pointed out already it didn't really matter if it was Birch or not although Birch was probably a very good wood to use for this purpose. The Balsa issue is a bit of a misdirection. Just because several airplanes are made of wood (or use wood for a large part of their structure) does not mean they use the same woods (or substitute one wood for another with similar construction)



Disagree, the type of wood definitely did matter, you needed a certain type of strength and flexibility, and light weight which is where the Balsa came into play (as the middle layer in a 'sandwich' between stronger veneers for planes like the Mosquito).



> A US aircraft using laminated veneer construction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It may help to look at an actual soviet plane. It was not pure plastic or fiberglass. For example, this is part of a MiG-3






You'll notice it's not just plywood, the internal structure is partly of wood. This is also true for most of the earlier LaGG / La and Yak fighters. There is a lot of old fashioned woodwork going into the construction of these parts. No welding, and not just mechanical forming (though the plywood was formed and baked). Actually the earliest Yaks had parts of the wing and rear fuselage covered in cloth initially which was gradually replaced with plywood and finally duralimin or whatever alloy.






This is a scale model of a Yak 3. You'll notice the mix of wood and plywood construction. Later model planes like the -3 had internal metal spars which gradually took over from the wood. But the traditional skills of a wood factory worker, a wooden shipbuiler or even a joiner would not be completely out of place working on these aircraft. 





Here is a scale model of the Mig-3 with the wood showing





Even the Il-2 had a considerable amount of wood



> a veneer lathe is a special lathe built to "peel" a log in uniform sheets of wood. While you might be able to adapt a regular wood turning lathe or even metal lathe to such use (with a lot of work) they are both pretty useless as they stand. You need the special cutters/blades to do the 'peeling" and you need a lathe of the right size to get the sheets you want and you need a lathe capable of turing at the right speed to allow the cutter/blade to do it's thing. Too fast is going to give you a lot of splinters. Moden machines with modern cutters can be very fast. Many older lathes had a range of fixed speeds as they were driven by belts or gears.



They were doing this both by hand and with water wheel powered machinery going back centuries. More modern factory based production started in Russia in the 1870's.



> Hmm, you quote a test using the wrong engine (supercharger gear) and I get accused of obfuscating the issue?



Mea culpa - I was looking for an entry on the P-40K in WWIIAircraftPerformance.org for convenience rather than transcribe something from one of my books that you wouldn't be able to verify, and that is the only entry I could find for the K on there. I read the report but missed the part about the engine swap.



> Well old bean, then list your Yak-9T and leave the Yak-9UT out of it unless your intention is to obfuscate the issue?



Quite to the contrary, I listed both as my understanding is that the majority of Yak-9UT were actually fitted with the 37mm gun. I think all of them are relevant though there were more, the -9T was the single most ubiquitous subtype with 2,700 made but there were also others in the Yak family with the big guns, and if you add them all together it adds up to quite a few flying guns out there on the battlefield. Probably 4,000 or 5,000 all told.



> Please note that your listing of the use of the Yak-9T _may _point to one of the problems with it. It seems to have been issued to the most experienced pilots for the most part and not general run of the mill VVS pilots? If this armament combination was so great why didn't they issue the Yak -9Ts to average pilots (like an entire squadron or group ) to simplify logistics/ammo supply? I am sure that some squadrons/ groups were fully equipped (or nearly so) with Yak-9Ts but scattering scores of them across many squadrons with only 1 or 2 planes per squadron was not ideal from a logistics or maintenance standpoint.



No it wasn't but that was the Soviet way. They built a lot of Yak-9T and of all the big gun conversions, it was probably the single most successful (quite a few internal changes had to be done to make this work). But distributions of new aircraft was quite haphazard in Soviet use. There were units operating Yak 1, Yak 7 and Yak 9's together, and later on Yak-1B, Yak-9 and Yak 3 together. Or P-40s and P-39s at the same time too. 

Why this happened is subject to different interpretations but I think the guiding principle of the Soviets was mainly expediency. They wanted to get their best stuff out as quickly as possible. Brand new fighter types were also often given to Aces, HSU recipients and squadron or group leaders for similar reasons (because better pilots were less likely to get shot down). By the time the Yak-9T appeared, the Soviets were flying proper flight leader / wingman formations of 4 planes, and the wingman often didn't even get to shoot their guns - their job wasn't so much to score victories as to chase enemies away from their section leaders tail.



> This is a generalization but gun combinations that were good for experienced pilots (or experts) were often not good for pilots of lesser experience or skill. Germans with the Bf-109F and Early Gs may have suffered from this.



Quite true, no doubt. But the reverse is also true, better pilots often couldn't reach their potential with 'easy' planes.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Too bad it didn't have the extra several feet of fuselage space to accommodate the turbo and intercooler.


Or they could have just glued the turbocharger to the side like they did on the prototype


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 1, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I think most of the difference between the P40 and the P39 in the Pacific simply comes from engine location. No matter how awesome your fighter is, eventually you are going to take hits. A P40 or Wildcat running from a Zero can get riddled pretty good from the back of the seat to the end of the tail and still come home. In fact I think the Wildcat was nearly impossible to shoot down from directly behind if the Zero was out of cannon ammunition unless he hit the oil cooler in the wing. The P39, even though it had a speed advantage over the P40 and a huge speed advantage over the Wildcat, could simply not take many rounds from behind because that’s where the engine was located.



Hello Pinsog,

The really vulnerable stuff in the back of the Airacobra is more like the Oil and Coolant tanks. There is a pretty heavy piece of armor plate behind the Oil Tank which can't have helped the aft CoG problem very much, but removing it would make the aircraft VERY vulnerable from the rear.
This CoG issue is why I asked when Schweik suggested that the Russians were removing the Nose armor.
Presumably he meant the piece that protects the reduction gear from the front.

Looking at the differences in weights between armor in the same location in different models of the Airacobra is quite interesting.
The thicknesses and weights vary by quite a lot. Also some armor such as that in the nose seems pretty worthless.
I believe that adjusting armor weights in different locations was the way that the designers were able to keep the CoG in a "reasonable" location despite equipment changes between models. In other words, it was really a form of permanent ballast.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Or they could have just glued the turbocharger to the side like they did on the prototype


Prototype had the turbo on the bottom. Those lumpy, bumpy side scoops held the oil cooler and the intercooler, niether of which worked as desired.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Yes, overclaiming was universal, but how much other airforces were overclaiming has no bearing on the P-39 i Soviet service. The success of the P-39 on the the Eastern Front is based on the claims of the Soviet pilots, i.e. how well they _thought _they were doing; that is what overclaiming does, distorting the perception of what was really achieved. What makes it so difficult to evaluate is the seeming lack of data; how many enemy aircraft did Soviet P-39 pilots actually claim?



Well there are two logical flaws in this argument:

An assessment of how well a fighter aircraft did in combat is based on a combination of how many enemy aircraft were destroyed vs. how many friendly aircraft lost. German claims (and overclaiming) are relevant to the latter.
The downplaying of Soviet victory rates is based on the notion that they overclaimed far more than anyone else. This is subject to interpretation but is probably substantially overstated. And the ratio of German overclaiming is relevant to the claim.
Because Soviet claims with the P-39 are probably two orders of magnitude higher than any other nation (bBased on Soviet records and claims they were at least on par with German fighters) to believe that the Soviet P-39s really didn't do so well, we have to assume that their overclaiming, particularly with P-39 units, was _far in excess _of anyone else. In other words, if for example there was one (1) US P-39 Ace, vs. hundreds for the Soviets, we can assume the ratio of total victories is at least in that ballpark (I do not know the total number of claims by type in Soviet use in WW2, I would love to see that if anyone has it).

The truth is while they did overclaim significantly more in the first year or so of the war, by the time the P-39s were in action on a large scale this was coming under control. Though about 150 Airacobras donated by Britain were operating in the North and a few dozen in the Central Front zone around mid 1942, most of the Airacobras (I believe all of the American ones) went into action in the South and Central Fronts in early 1943.

*Southern Front*
The first unit to convert to P-39s in the South was 298 IAP (later became a 'Guards' unit 104 GIAP) went to action in January 1943. They claimed 167 victories for 30 aircraft lost.
45 IAP (later 100 GIAP) went into action in March 1943,
16 GIAP began transitioning from Yak-1s to _Kobras_ in January of 43 and fought their first action with P-39s on March 11, 1943 (another source says 9 April 1943). They became one of the top 3 regiments in the VVS. They were also the first of the three to convert to pairs instead of flights of 3. Their ranks included 15 HSU and two double HSU including Aleksandr Pokryshkin (who scored 48 individual victories in his _Kobra_), Grigorii Rechkalov (56 individual victories mostly in P-39), and Vadem Fedaev (17 individual victories before being shot down in 1943) and Alexandr Klubov (31 individual victories). During their fighing in the Kuban the Soviets had instituted the practice of only verifying victories by recovery of the identity plates* (this invalided 17 victories for Pokryshkin for example).

*Central Front*
153 IAP was briefly in action in June 1942 as a test, (claiming 64 German aircraft for 8 loses) was pulled out of the line and put back in as 28 GIAP during Dec 1942. They claimed a further 63 victories for 19 aircraft lost in combat.
30 GIAP (previously 180 IAP) started in November 1942 and fought over Kursk. THey claimed 581 victories during the war and had more than ten HSU.
185 IAP and 494 IAP also went into action in mid 1942 but did poorly and were pulled out, 185 IAP becoming a ferry squadron (probably a very lucky development for their pilots!)
9 GIAP which used P-39s from August 1943 through July 1944.
27 IAP went into action in March 1943.

*So the majority of the Soviet P-39s were actually in action from 1943 by which time overclaiming had significantly diminished.* Even if you assume that they were overclaiming at an unusually high rate of say 3-1, and even taking into consideration some units like 185 and 494 IAP didn't do well, overall the Soviet units still had an extraordinary rate of success compared to all other Allied units flying the P-39. So there is something there to figure out.

Some links:

Bell P-39 Airacobra in Soviet Service
P-39 Airacobras related to G.A. Rechkalov, 16 GIAP
Early Versions of Airacobra Aircraft in Soviet Aviation. Part 2 – Lend-Lease

* During the Kuban operation 16 GIAP claimed 71 x Bf 109s, 2 x Fw 190s, 4 x Ju 88s, 1 x Do-17 and 1 x Ju 87, for a total of 77 victory claims. During the same operation they lost 13 airacobras shot down on missions or 'failed to return', plus 2 in accidents, and lost 11 pilots. Most of their earlier model P-39D were lost in the battle. Just because they recovered identity plates does not necessarily ensure that all of their claims were valid but they did probably do better than even against the Germans in this battle.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, this theory flies in the face of what we know about Soviet engine development.
> (snip)
> Back in 1940 there was a project for the M-106TK with two TK-1 turbo superchargers. The Soviets tried to put turbochargers on just about everything short of a T-34 tank. However their metallurgy/manufacturing failed them and none of the turbo installations saw service during the war.



Because they concentrated on the low altitude aircraft, does not mean that they completely ignored high altitude or long range planes. They knew eventually they might need them and as you have so often pointed out, if you do suddenly need to put a lot more money and effort into a fundamentally new type of warplane, you need to have some preliminary work already done.

But as an analogy - both the Germans and the Soviets spent some time and money developing four engine long range heavy bombers, (the Amerika bomber project - initially planned in 1938, serious development from 1942 - and the Pe-8 - first flight 1936 - as examples) but neither really followed up on this because for both the Tactical fighting on the front between them became the most important problem they faced. By 1943 the Germans had the added motivation of contending with high flying four engined bombers which is why they continued to develop their high altitude fighters and tried to arm them as heavily as they could (more heavily than the Soviets needed to.



> You also have the whole Mig-1/3 saga which morphed into the I-230 and I-220 aircraft, some of which had pressure cabins and turbo superchargers on AM-39 engines.
> I would also note that early Lagg fighters were supposed to have a 23mm cannon and two 12.7mm machine guns but the 23mm cannon didn't meet expectations and was replaced by the smaller 20mm gun, Some early Lagg-3s were 5 gun fighters. The single 20mm, two 12.7mm guns above the engine and two 7.62 ShKAS machine guns under the engine. As with many Soviet aircraft production examples showed a much decreased performance from prototypes and drastic measures had to be taken to restore performance. Like taking out guns and restricting ammo.



Drastic measures also because at the top of their opponents arsenal they faced one of the swiftest aircraft in the war in the Bf 109. Speed became a major priority, far more than heavy armament.



> The Russians were designing mostly wooden fighters (and mixed construction larger aircraft) well before the Germans invaded to due a lack of Aluminum in peace time. This was not a brilliant decision made by the Russians during the war but rather a situation forced on them by the supply situation well before the war.



I never claimed brilliance let alone prescience, but expediency and pragmatism. The Soviets followed a very tight schedule of the allocation of their resources at least in aircraft development. No more than needed for the mission. A longer ranged, high altitude, heavily armed fighter would have been beyond their needs, (otherwise they would have liked the P-478 a lot more than they did, and perhaps emulated it).

Lets not forget, if their engines were really so cripplingly weak they could have A) spent a lot more time and effort developing more powerful and higher flying engines, or B) taken thousands of Merlin and Allison (and even Wright 2600) engines out of Lend Lease planes they had received and put them in their own, or C) reverse engineered the Lend Lease engines the way they did with the B-29. I think it's far more likely that they just decided they had what they needed with the Klimov M-105 and were satisfied with the pace of development of their engines, compared to the need to produce huge numbers of Yak-1s and 7s in the early war, and later their Yak-9s and La 5s.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 1, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Yes, overclaiming was universal, but how much other airforces were overclaiming has no bearing on the P-39 i Soviet service. The success of the P-39 on the the Eastern Front is based on the claims of the Soviet pilots, i.e. how well they _thought _they were doing; that is what overclaiming does, distorting the perception of what was really achieved. What makes it so difficult to evaluate is the seeming lack of data; how many enemy aircraft did Soviet P-39 pilots actually claim?


Shurley you're correct that overclaiming distorts the picture of what's really happened.
No disagreement from me there but the discussion was, at least as I understood it, how effective was the p39 compaired to other aircraft, largely the p40 but also various Russian types. Unless there is a great disparity in the overclaiming rates of Russian pilots and those of other nations( and if an average is taken throughout the war they seem to have been similar) then shweiks statement that the Germans overclaimed also meant, at least to me, that in a comparative sense( the only sense that in my mind at least is valid as aircraft did not oparate in a vacuum) the claims cannot just be dismissed as overclaiming and the p39, or any other aircraft concluded as ineffective to whatever degree as one would have to then do the same to every aircraft and you just end right back where you started. Imho

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

(surely)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> There is actually a pretty big difference in power level between a MG 151/15 and a Breda 12.7 mm....
> Here is a little bit of background on the Macchi C.202 and its production 'standard':
> 
> Serie I – Breda 100 Aircraft 2 x 12.7 mm – same as prototype
> ...



I know there is a difference between MG 151 and Breda, but I don't think it's so much that if an MC 202 is behind you, you are safe. Nor do I think it's more than twice the difference (i.e. one Mg 151 is better than two Breda 12.7mm) because each bullet from either gun can kill a pilot, destroy and engine or cripple an aircraft. Mg 151 shoots 650-750 rpm or roughly 11 rounds per second, Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm shoots 575 rpm (synchronized), which for two guns works out to 1,150 rounds per minute, 19 rounds per second. I know the Mg 151 shoots a better round, but any aircraft struck by 10 or 20 HMG bullets is in danger of destruction. Nose guns are more accurate than wing guns.

Whether or not MC 202 had wing guns could be decided in the field and really depended on the mission profile (what kind of enemies were they contending with). For example against P-38s they might remove wing guns for better high altitude performance. Against Boston or Baltimore bombers they might add them back in.

The precise number of guns notwithstanding, if your assertion is indeed that the MC 202 was an inferior aircraft below the capability of contemporaneous Bf 109s and more comparable with say CR 42, Fiat G.50 or MC 200 you would be taking an outlier position very much at odds with most (if not all) of the pilots who flew with and against them. Most Spitfire pilots operating in the MTO certainly didn't feel that way, and the ratio of victories (as verified by books which show losses on both sides) indicates they were at parity.



> If you are really discussing tactics, all that proves is that the P-40K can lose altitude fast and get down to its comfort zone.
> An opponent would be stupid to follow when the P-40 has gone completely defensive and can be BnZ'ed at will.
> Even a short zoom climb would take it out of its best performance altitude.



And this was the tradeoff. Bf 109 could disengage with a swift climb, but the P-40 could disengage with a dive (especially after mid 1942 by which time it had become dangerous to engage them at low altitude). Being able to disengage was key to survival in a fighter in WW2 (I think the reason Hurricanes did so poorly in air to air combat against the Bf 109 was because while they could turn to avoid a given pass, they really had no way to disengage).

Attacking from above gave the Germans the intitiative, but this was not the same as saying guarantee of victory. For one thing, the Anglo-Americans developed tactics (the whole squadron making a high power turn guns blazing into all attacks from above as an initial response) which effectively dissuaded the previously successful Axis "snipe and climb" tactics (so long as they were spotted in time). Second, whether the Germans could retain their advantage at high altitude all depended on what they were fighting over which usually meant bombers.

If the situation was that the P-40s were escorting B-25 or Baltimore bombers or fighter bombers, and the Germans needed to stop the latter (for example if they were attacking their own airfield) then the Axis fighters had to little choice but to get down to altitude and mix it up. They could still often disengage with a climb but it wasn't as easy or safe well within the performance envelope of the Allied fighters. As *General Benjamin O. Davis* of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee") who flew the P-40F/L (and P-39s, P-47s and P-51s) in WW2 and also flew F-86s in Korea, said this about the P-40s:

_“The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."_

Based on pilot anecdotes Allied (particularly Commonwealth) pilots also routinely used the extra power in the P-40K specifically to catch overflying Bf 109s. For example this anecdote from Aussie Ace Bobby Gibbes shows the P-40K had more power avaialble at lower altitudes than the (merlin powerted) Kittyhawk II:

"_Well I was a poor shot. Air to ground I think I was a very good shot. I could group my bullets and make sure they didn't run through. I could hold them on target while I went in and strafed. But air to air I certainly missed an awful lot of aeroplanes I fired at. I think the classic example was one day when I had a Kitty Mark III - I had acquired it illegally, I might say - and I had to give it back to the RAF later - but I had a little bit more horsepower than the rest of the squadron and when three 109s passed overhead or ahead of us, if I had waited to take the squadron with me, which normally I would have done, they would have got away._

_But seeing them and knowing I had that bit more power I opened the taps and went after them. I had a look at the three of them and I thought, if I pull a lead on the number one, number three could probably get a deflection shot at me, so I thought, well, I'll get number two first. So I fired at number two. I must have misjudged their speed completely because the one behind, probably fifty yards behind, flicked over and went down smoking like hell. I looked round to see who else had shot at it but I was the only one in the sky. I then decided, well, I'll go after the number one and number two but, of course, they didn't wait for me. The one, incidentally, number three, did go in._

_Yes, it was a successful mission. We had a big celebration that night in the squadron and a few of the 'Yanks' came over and they thought the shooting was quite brilliant and I had only fired very few rounds. However, during the night I managed to get quite a few grogs on board and I decided that I'd confess that I hadn't even aimed at that one, I'd aimed at the one ahead of it. And, of course, when I did tell them of course no one believed me, but it was true._"



> We are mostly in agreement. Golodnikov contradicts himself quite a lot. The key point to take early in the interview is his mention of over-revving the engine. Can't hardly take that one back.



Lets remember Golodnikov only mentions over revving, I think he said 3,200 RPM? He didn't specifically mentioning higher boost (though like you I assume he also meant that). And he's not the only source we have, the other big article on the lend lease site about the P-40 mentions a lot of engine trouble especially with the first few squadrons, but doesn't suggest quite so dismal of a life span for the engines later in the war. Nor did they have this kind of trouble wearing out engines on the P-39s.



> This test aircraft may have started life as a P-40K, but if you actually read the report, you will find that it has had the engine replaced with a V-1710-81. This is NOT the V-1710-73 as normally installed in P-40K.
> 
> - Ivan.



You are right I made a mistake there, I missed the part about the engine swap. But I still stand by the notion that the P-40K was 'souped up'. I'll transcribe something else later when I have the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Drastic measures also because at the top of their opponents arsenal they faced one of the swiftest aircraft in the war in the Bf 109. Speed became a major priority, far more than heavy armament.



Hello Schweik,

I believe you were more correct earlier. The Soviets were working close support for their ground forces for the most part and were stuck on the "Quantity has a quality all its own" mentality. I was reading through some of your links and the statement that the Airacobra Mk.I a speed of 306 MPH at Sea Level and 363 MPH @ 13,800 feet "making it as good as the Yak-3 and MiG-3 then in Russian production" also says a lot about those other two aircraft that are supposed to be about 35-40 MPH faster but apparently are not in actual service.
Note that these numbers for Airacobra Mk.I are pretty much in agreement with other well documented tests and at Sea Level is barely faster than the A6M2 on overboost.
If this was how well their best aircraft actually performed in the field, then later versions of the Airacobra must have been superstars in comparison.



Schweik said:


> I never claimed brilliance let alone prescience, but expediency and pragmatism. The Soviets followed a very tight schedule of the allocation of their resources at least in aircraft development. No more than needed for the mission. A longer ranged, high altitude, heavily armed fighter would have been beyond their needs, (otherwise they would have liked the P-478 a lot more than they did, and perhaps emulated it).



A service that is installing 37 mm and 45 mm cannon in single engine fighters is hardly one that is satisfied with "lightly armed" fighters.
As for copying the P-47, I don't believe they had the technology to manufacture the turbocharger and the aircraft really didn't suite their style of fighting. Soviet fighters tend to be small and agile with relatively good power to weight ratios and at least fair acceleration. The Thunderbolt was none of those. Even the hotrod P-47M was being outrun by P-51D in the initial acceleration as was described by the pilot of "Wonderful Winnie". In other words, the Thunderbolt would have had what they called a low "combat speed".



Schweik said:


> Lets not forget, if their engines were really so cripplingly weak they could have A) spent a lot more time and effort developing more powerful and higher flying engines, or B) taken thousands of Merlin and Allison (and even Wright 2600) engines out of Lend Lease planes they had received and put them in their own, or C) reverse engineered the Lend Lease engines the way they did with the B-29. I think it's far more likely that they just decided they had what they needed with the Klimov M-105 and were satisfied with the pace of development of their engines, compared to the need to produce huge numbers of Yak-1s and 7s in the early war, and later their Yak-9s and La 5s.



A) First of all, the Soviets DID spend a lot of time and effort in an attempt to get a more powerful inline into service. They just didn't have much success at it until late in the war.
B) Why spend the effort pulling an engine off a Lend-Lease aircraft when the whole aircraft is being supplied to you and the net result IF you are successful is that you get ONE aircraft instead of two. We have already discussed the short life spans of their engines in service, so it wasn't like there were going to be a lot of spares in good condition.
C) Remember the Soviet preference for Motor Cannon. None of the Lend-Lease engines could accept that setup except Airacobra but that required a remote mounted engine.... The copying of a B-29 was in a different time with different priorities and by that time, technology probably had improved a bit from its state during the war.
The fact that the Soviets kept trying to increase the power of the M-105 and kept trying the M-107 in tests throughout the war pretty much tells us that they were not satisfied with the performance of M-105.



Schweik said:


> I know there is a difference between MG 151 and Breda, but I don't think it's so much that if an MC 202 is behind you, you are safe. Nor do I think it's more than twice the difference (i.e. one Mg 151 is better than two Breda 12.7mm) because each bullet from either gun can kill a pilot, destroy and engine or cripple an aircraft. Mg 151 shoots 650-750 rpm or roughly 11 rounds per second, Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm shoots 575 rpm (synchronized), which for two guns works out to 1,150 rounds per minute, 19 rounds per second. I know the Mg 151 shoots a better round, but any aircraft struck by 10 or 20 HMG bullets is in danger of destruction. Nose guns are more accurate than wing guns.



The gun power isn't just a matter of rate of fire. The MG 151 has a MV of 960 M/S as compared to Breda 12.7 at 760 M/S.
The typical projectile also weighs about 75% more.... If it isn't twice as powerful, it is pretty close to that.



Schweik said:


> Whether or not MC 202 had wing guns could be decided in the field and really depended on the mission profile (what kind of enemies were they contending with). For example against P-38s they might remove wing guns for better high altitude performance. Against Boston or Baltimore bombers they might add them back in.



The passage I quoted about intercepting heavy bombers with usually just two machine guns was about killing B-24 Liberators which are obviously much easier to destroy. (?)



Schweik said:


> The precise number of guns notwithstanding, if your assertion is indeed that the MC 202 was an inferior aircraft below the capability of contemporaneous Bf 109s and more comparable with say CR 42, Fiat G.50 or MC 200 you would be taking an outlier position very much at odds with most (if not all) of the pilots who flew with and against them. Most Spitfire pilots operating in the MTO certainly didn't feel that way, and the ratio of victories (as verified by books which show losses on both sides) indicates they were at parity.



I never made that statement. My comment was although from performance numbers, it was pretty close to the 109F, its engine power was identical to the 109E, and no, I do not believe it was better than a 109F though the airframe had more potential for development.

As mentioned earlier, its reputation seems to me to be amazing considering how few aircraft there actually were in theater.
From January to December 1942, Italian fighters flew 23,555 sorties. About 30 percent were by Folgores.
There were only 30-70 Folgore as a monthly average in service in North Africa during this time.
This brings up the point I was getting at earlier: If THIS was the most plentiful modern fighter, then WHAT ELSE was flying all those sorties? 



Schweik said:


> And this was the tradeoff. Bf 109 could disengage with a swift climb, but the P-40 could disengage with a dive (especially after mid 1942 by which time it had become dangerous to engage them at low altitude). Being able to disengage was key to survival in a fighter in WW2 (I think the reason Hurricanes did so poorly in air to air combat against the Bf 109 was because while they could turn to avoid a given pass, they really had no way to disengage).



That "disengage" is only temporary if the other fellow really wants you. The idea of maintaining energy is trading altitude for speed and converting that back to altitude, not bleeding it off puttering around near the ground. The fellow with the altitude can make high speed passes all day (or at least until he runs out of fuel) and keep the advantage.
I also don't believe the 109 could get away that easily with a simple swift climb. The P-40 probably also has a pretty decent zoom climb or at least close enough to get a shot if they start in similar states.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Prototype had the turbo on the bottom. Those lumpy, bumpy side scoops held the oil cooler and the intercooler, niether of which worked as desired.


I know, I was just joking around a bit. 

Being serious now, when I look at the P39D on up, it had the lowest drag of any fighter besides the P51. Looks to me like you could put the turbocharger in the belly and add the 2 side scoops back in for the intercooler and oil cooler, give it 1150 HP at 25,000 feet and it should have been fine. The P38 had 4 of those big scoops, 2 on each boom, and it was still fast. Looks like keeping the turbocharger and side scoops while doing some wind tunnel work to get them right would have been the way to go. Didn’t the prototype only make 1050 hp or so even with the turbocharger?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Was there any reason for the mid-engine besides the giant 37mm gun? Maybe you could take that out and put the turbo in the nose...


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Was there any reason for the mid-engine besides the giant 37mm gun?


Nope.

There was some claim about improving maneuverability by having the largest weight right on the CG but since it doesn't really affect roll and pretty much only affects pitch change and initial pitch change (or acceleration of pitch change) at that that seems a pretty dubious reason. 

Early Spitfires had too much elevator response (pitch change) as it was with the engine in nose and the Hawk 75 seemed to have very good elevator response (in British tests) so having to stick the engine in the middle of plane seems an awful lot of work for little result if you are looking for other benefits (more streamline nose?) beside the big gun.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> I believe you were more correct earlier. The Soviets were working close support for their ground forces for the most part and were stuck on the "Quantity has a quality all its own" mentality. I was reading through some of your links and the statement that the Airacobra Mk.I a speed of 306 MPH at Sea Level and 363 MPH @ 13,800 feet "making it as good as the Yak-3 and MiG-3 then in Russian production" also says a lot about those other two aircraft that are supposed to be about 35-40 MPH faster but apparently are not in actual service.
> Note that these numbers for Airacobra Mk.I are pretty much in agreement with other well documented tests and at Sea Level is barely faster than the A6M2 on overboost.
> If this was how well their best aircraft actually performed in the field, then later versions of the Airacobra must have been superstars in comparison.



If you think the P-39D was on par with the Yak-3 or that the Yak-3 only made 363 mph you are a bit off the mark. Either you made a typo or whoever you are quoting did I would assume they meant the Yak-1. P-39D was probably on par with the early Yak-1 which some units switched from to the P-39 as you can read in those articles I linked. It was certainly better than the MiG-3 which was considered below even the I-16 or LaGG-3. Most of the P-39s they used from 1943 were the later model variants, which had quite good performance (on paper at least).



> A service that is installing 37 mm and 45 mm cannon in single engine fighters is hardly one that is satisfied with "lightly armed" fighters.


Ah, you are trying to get me coming and going eh? The 37mm is a big gun, but i think the reason they put it in was mostly for strafing tanks and as a quick way to put down something a little sturdier than usual like a Fw 190 fighter bomber variant or a Hs 129. But it was still (typically) only armed with 1 or 2 other guns.

The point is, they put exactly as much armament as they needed, no more no less. For shooting down fighters a hub mounted 20mm and one or two nose mounted HMG was plenty. Probably about the equivalent in effectiveness to the oft used four wing guns in so many US fighters, or the much maligned armament of the much maligned (but highly effective) Macchi 202, or the armament of (nearly identical but) highly praised Bf 109F series.



> As for copying the P-47, I don't believe they had the technology to manufacture the turbocharger and the aircraft really didn't suite their style of fighting. *Soviet fighters tend to be small and agile with relatively good power to weight ratios and at least fair acceleration.* The Thunderbolt was none of those.



Well mate that is exactly my point. All the extra capability of the P-47 in terms of range, high altitude performance, payload etc. was basically useless from the Soviet point of view. How well can it cover our ground troops? How well can it escort the Sturmoviks? How well can it handle Bf 109G2 at 3,000 feet?



> A) First of all, the Soviets DID spend a lot of time and effort in an attempt to get a more powerful inline into service. They just didn't have much success at it until late in the war.
> B) Why spend the effort pulling an engine off a Lend-Lease aircraft when the whole aircraft is being supplied to you and the net result IF you are successful is that you get ONE aircraft instead of two. We have already discussed the short life spans of their engines in service, so it wasn't like there were going to be a lot of spares in good condition.
> C) Remember the Soviet preference for Motor Cannon. None of the Lend-Lease engines could accept that setup except Airacobra but that required a remote mounted engine.... The copying of a B-29 was in a different time with different priorities and by that time, technology probably had improved a bit from its state during the war.
> The fact that the Soviets kept trying to increase the power of the M-105 and kept trying the M-107 in tests throughout the war pretty much tells us that they were not satisfied with the performance of M-105.



Well, "a lot of time and effort" is a subjective concept. Are you really suggesting that they couldn't have reorganized priorities and got stronger engines in action more quickly if they had put enough emphasis on it? My argument is that the pace it moved was good enough as long as a Yak-1B can still shoot down Bf 109s.



> The gun power isn't just a matter of rate of fire. The MG 151 has a MV of 960 M/S as compared to Breda 12.7 at 760 M/S.
> The typical projectile also weighs about 75% more.... If it isn't twice as powerful, it is pretty close to that.



Right. Which adds up to their being roughly equal.



> I never made that statement. My comment was although from performance numbers, it was pretty close to the 109F, its engine power was identical to the 109E, and no, I do not believe it was better than a 109F though the airframe had more potential for development.



I never said it was 'better', I said it was 'roughly equal'. Performance was clearly similar, armament was at most slightly inferior, agility was slightly superior and the 202 had slightly better wing loading. It probably came out even. Almost the same speed, climb rate, ceiling, range etc. etc.



> As mentioned earlier, its reputation seems to me to be amazing considering how few aircraft there actually were in theater.
> From January to December 1942, Italian fighters flew 23,555 sorties. About 30 percent were by Folgores.
> There were only 30-70 Folgore as a monthly average in service in North Africa during this time.
> This brings up the point I was getting at earlier: If THIS was the most plentiful modern fighter, then WHAT ELSE was flying all those sorties?



Maybe Pinnochio flying some Macchi M.14s? 

Ok since you keep bringing it up, per Shores on November 1942, at the end of El Alamein, the actual (as in on-hand strength) TO&E for Italian fighters in the MTO Theater was:

*Italians
Macchi 202 *

54° Stormo - 2
51° Stormo - 23
17° Gruppo CT - 33
153° Gruppo CT - 21
20° Gruppo CT - 11
4° Stormo CT - 28
3° Stormo CT - 20

*RE 2001*
22° Gruppo Aut CT - 21

*Macchi 200*
2° Stormo CT was listed as mixed MC 202 and 200 but doesn't list how many
54° stormo CT - 6

*G.50bis *
24° Gruppo Autonomo CT - 26
160° Gruppo Autonomo CT -7

So that is 138 x MC 202 on hand at that time, 21 x Re 2001, about 15 x MC 200, and 33 x G.50bis for a total of 207 fighters, 75% of which were top quality (MC 202 and Re 2001).

There were also 76 Cr 42s available but at that point they were only used as bombers and mostly flew at night. Very few were ever claimed by 1942 nor did they make any claims.

All this is from Meditteranean Air War Vol III pp 43-46. I think I have an earlier TO&E for them somewhere before the battle in which they had considerably more fighters but I'm having trouble finding it, Shores books lack sorely in useful chapter headings or a real index and being 600+ pages thick are a nuisance to search through trying to find anything.



> That "disengage" is only temporary if the other fellow really wants you. The idea of maintaining energy is trading altitude for speed and converting that back to altitude, not bleeding it off puttering around near the ground. The fellow with the altitude can make high speed passes all day (or at least until he runs out of fuel) and keep the advantage.
> I also don't believe the 109 could get away that easily with a simple swift climb. The P-40 probably also has a pretty decent zoom climb or at least close enough to get a shot if they start in similar states.
> 
> - Ivan.



The thing is if the P-40 dives and is chased by another pilot who really wants him, then at low altitude so long as it can extend sufficiently in the dive to turn around, you now have a new dogfight where the P-40 has a 200 hp advantage, turns better and may be a little faster. This is where a lot of Bf 109s and 202s got shot down. They were better off keeping the fight up above 20k if they could. Sometimes they couldn't such as when their own airbase was attacked.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If you think the P-39D was on par with the Yak-3 or that the Yak-3 only made 363 mph you are a bit off the mark. Either you made a typo or whoever you are quoting did I would assume they meant the Yak-1. P-39D was probably on par with the early Yak-1 which some units switched from to the P-39 as you can read in those articles I linked. It was certainly better than the MiG-3 which was considered below even the I-16 or LaGG-3. Most of the P-39s they used from 1943 were the later model variants, which had quite good performance (on paper at least).
> 
> 
> Ah, you are trying to get me coming and going eh? The 37mm is a big gun, but i think the reason they put it in was mostly for strafing tanks and as a quick way to put down something a little sturdier than usual like a Fw 190 fighter bomber variant or a Hs 129. But it was still (typically) only armed with 1 or 2 other guns.
> ...


I think your point about how the Soviets viewed the p47 points out that what is commonly viewed as the "better" fighter
actually often depends on where and who your fighting and how your fighting them.
Pretty sure most people would be quick to say the p47 is vastly superior to an aircobra but maybe not so in all circumstances.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 1, 2019)

Bingo


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 2, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Looks to me like you could put the turbocharger in the belly and add the 2 side scoops back in for the intercooler and oil cooler, give it 1150 HP at 25,000 feet and it should have been fine. The P38 had 4 of those big scoops, 2 on each boom, and it was still fast.


"Turbocharger in the belly." Where? Forward of the instrument panel, behind the cannon ammo, and above the nose gear well? In a wart grafted onto the belly under the wing? Where are you going to route all the ducting? Under the cockpit floor is already taken up with the driveshaft and lots of plumbing. Now you're going to add exhaust going forward and compressed intake air going aft, plus oil, coolant, and intercooler ducting, and you'll have a profile as "pregnant" as a P47, except ninth month rather than sixth. Where are you going to put those cheek cowls? About the only place they'd work would be forward of the cockpit doors in a high pressure, high drag area. That didn't work for the YP, and the laws of physics haven't changed much in the intervening half decade. If you move them aft, they'd have to go behind the engine, generating CG and tailplane aerodynamics problems. The P38 got away with its draggy cheek cowls by placing them aft in a lower pressure area, and then applying LOTS of horsepower.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, "a lot of time and effort" is a subjective concept. Are you really suggesting that they couldn't have reorganized priorities and got stronger engines in action more quickly if they had put enough emphasis on it? My argument is that the pace it moved was good enough as long as a Yak-1B can still shoot down Bf 109s.



The engine situation was not quite as easy to solve as you seem to think.
The M-105 was derived from the M-100 which was a licenced Hispano back in 1934 or so. Unfortunately a 1933-34 Hispano is a legacy engine from even earlier and in fact shares some dimension/features of the Hispano V-8s of the 1920s.

The Russians had strengthened the engine considerably over the French originals including make the bore 2mm smaller to get thicker cylinder walls. Practically every model in the M-100 to M-105PF-2 series saw them strengthening _something_.
Something to consider is that before the summer of 1941 the Soviets ability to get 100 octane or better fuel was pretty limited, as was the likelihood of getting such fuel in the future.
At least getting it in the quantities needed for an air force of thousands of planes. This tended to affect engine development.

The M-105 was 35.08 liter engine (2140 cu in) and was bigger than the DB 601 let alone the Allison or Merlin yet they were lighter than those engines. The M-105PF went about 600kg or 1323lbs (the earlier M-105s were 20-30 kg lighter). You would have to beef up quite a few parts to get it to stand up to higher power very well and since it's overhaul life wasn't that good to begin with ( inpart due to the design itself and not due to Soviet workmanship or materials) higher power often shortened the engine life even more. 
The fact that the M-105 used a 170mm stroke meant a high piston speed even at a relatively low RPM. The crappy cylinder head (improved over the original French one but not enough) didn't help.
This is why the Soviets were working on the M-106 from 1938 and the M-107 from 1939 and both the Yak 1 and Lagg 1/3 were intended to use these engines from the start. The Engine factories could not bring them to a suitable level of reliability until much later in the war. The M-105PA and the M-105PF were both strengthened and a shorter engine life accepted despite the modified parts. In no way did they simply adjust the boost limit screws and fly on to do battle with the Germans.
The M-105PF got stronger cylinder pins and supercharger drive, the crankshaft was modified, the diameter of the reduction gear;s elastic coupling was changed and it got a new carburetor. on later M-105PFs the crankshaft was further strengthened. 

It has been mentioned before, 2000 M-107s were on order and scheduled for completion by the end of 1941. However it took months to get the engine to pass a 50 hour test and only 29 were built in 1941. The engine was problematic for most of it's life and production in peacetime after the war was stopped twice while problems were sorted out. About 7,900 of M-107 wound up being built, the vast majority after the war. Saying that if they had put enough emphasis on it during the war would have solved it's problems seems a little too pat.
In 1946 to get the engine life to hit or exceed 100 hours they changed the propeller reduction ratio, limited the RPM (no mention of what that did to power) and fitted an extra oil pump.
The Russians were also working on the VK-108 engine with two prototypes built in 1943/44 and factory No 26 built a total of 49 prototypes in 1944-46. Work stopped to concentrate on turbo jets.

This is just the engines in one development path, no radials and nothing to do with the AM-35 engines.

Throwing out the M-100/M-105 and starting over would have taken years and might have meant throwing out a lot of the tooling used to make the engines.

Stalin's Idea of motivation did not always produce good results, shooting the two designers of the original 23mm cannon that was to be used by the Lagg and Yak 1 may have provided some motivation to other gun designers but it also may have kept some engineers from taking any big risks and trying for large improvements rather than small increments.

The Germans stumbled too on the later DB 601s and 605s and had to limit their power for months while problems were sorted out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The P38 got away with its draggy cheek cowls by placing them aft in a lower pressure area, and then applying LOTS of horsepower.



On the early P-38s The _draggy cheek cowls covered the radiators_. the intercoolers were in the wing leading edge (not an option for the P-39 because that is where the fuel was) and the oil cooler was under the engine.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> An assessment of how well a fighter aircraft did in combat is based on a combination of how many enemy aircraft were destroyed vs. *how many friendly aircraft lost*. German claims (and overclaiming) are relevant to the latter.
> The downplaying of Soviet victory rates is based on the notion that they overclaimed far more than anyone else. *This is subject to interpretation but is probably substantially overstated*. And the ratio of German overclaiming is relevant to the claim.



1. So how many Soviet P-39's were lost based on German claims ?!?
2. So you don't actually know what the Soviet rate off overclaiming was?


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Shurley you're correct that overclaiming distorts the picture of what's really happened.
> No disagreement from me there but the discussion was, at least as I understood it, how effective was the p39 compaired to other aircraft, largely the p40 but also various Russian types. Unless there is a great disparity in the overclaiming rates of Russian pilots and those of other nations( and if an average is taken throughout the war they seem to have been similar) then shweiks statement that the Germans overclaimed also meant, at least to me, that in a comparative sense( the only sense that in my mind at least is valid as aircraft did not oparate in a vacuum) the claims cannot just be dismissed as overclaiming and the p39, or any other aircraft concluded as ineffective to whatever degree as one would have to then do the same to every aircraft and you just end right back where you started. Imho



The rate of overclaiming varied by theatre and time period considerably, so I think don't you can assume that they were necessarily similar. 

Now let's test your argument; I will readily admit to not knowing how many Hellcats Japanese pilots claimed to have shotdown, but I assume that it was considerably more than the 270 (iirc) the USN reported lost to enemy aircraft. Compared to Japanese claims of Hellcats, I would say that the Hellcat 's 19-1 kill ratio is going to be cosiderably lower and it's wartime record less spectacular.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 2, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The rate of overclaiming varied by theatre and time period considerably, so I think don't you can assume that they were necessarily similar.
> 
> Now let's test your argument; I will readily admit to not knowing how many Hellcats Japanese pilots claimed to have shotdown, but I assume that it was considerably more than the 270 (iirc) the USN reported lost to enemy aircraft. Compared to Japanese claims of Hellcats, I would say that the Hellcat 's 19-1 kill ratio is going to be cosiderably lower and it's wartime record less spectacular.


Yes.............. If you only adjust one side for overclaiming it will indeed tilt the picture.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 2, 2019)

If Japanese claims of Hellcats were indeed greater than 19 to 1 of actual Hellcat losses (270) that would mean they claimed close to 6000 Hellcats shot down. I'm thinking probably not.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Yes.............. If you only adjust one side for overclaiming it will indeed tilt the picture.



Sure, but that's not what's being argued.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> If Japanese claims of Hellcats were indeed greater than 19 to 1 of actual Hellcat losses (270) that would mean they claimed close to 6000 Hellcats shot down. I'm thinking probably not.



Huh?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 2, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Only thing I can tell you about the P-39 vs P-40 is that every single model of the P-39 was faster than every single contemporary P-40 model (except Merlins-they were about the same as early P-39s). Same with climb and ceiling, every P-39 is better. The P-40 had the same engine as the P-39 but weighed 700# more. Just no way to make that up in performance.



Most of that 700 lbs was carrying fuel.
P39 never had the range of a P40..like the Spitfire..
Russia used the P40 for escorting Bombers because of that longer range capability.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If you think the P-39D was on par with the Yak-3 or that the Yak-3 only made 363 mph you are a bit off the mark. Either you made a typo or whoever you are quoting did I would assume they meant the Yak-1. P-39D was probably on par with the early Yak-1 which some units switched from to the P-39 as you can read in those articles I linked. It was certainly better than the MiG-3 which was considered below even the I-16 or LaGG-3. Most of the P-39s they used from 1943 were the later model variants, which had quite good performance (on paper at least).



Hello Schweik,

This is from one of the links you posted.
Bell P-39 Airacobra in Soviet Service



Schweik said:


> Ah, you are trying to get me coming and going eh? The 37mm is a big gun, but i think the reason they put it in was mostly for strafing tanks and as a quick way to put down something a little sturdier than usual like a Fw 190 fighter bomber variant or a Hs 129. But it was still (typically) only armed with 1 or 2 other guns.
> 
> The point is, they put exactly as much armament as they needed, no more no less. For shooting down fighters a hub mounted 20mm and one or two nose mounted HMG was plenty. Probably about the equivalent in effectiveness to the oft used four wing guns in so many US fighters, or the much maligned armament of the much maligned (but highly effective) Macchi 202, or the armament of (nearly identical but) highly praised Bf 109F series.



YOUR comment earlier was that it was issued typically to squadron commanders. This would be an interesting sight for the Squadron commander to go tank busting while everyone else provides cover???
The FW 190 fighter bomber variants weren't significantly sturdier than the fighter variants in any case.

The evidence is not supporting your argument.
If La-5FN mounts two cannon and then goes to three when a lighter variant becomes available, is that an indication that armament needed some improvement? If not, why not substitute the B-20 for ShVAK one for one and still end up with a two gun fighter but with less weight?
If the typical Yak fighter carried two synchro MG and a cannon and later deleted a MG , do you suppose it was because opposition started using aircraft that were easier to kill or simply they didn't have the room?

Regarding "nearly identical" Me 109F, we will get into that later....



Schweik said:


> Well mate that is exactly my point. All the extra capability of the P-47 in terms of range, high altitude performance, payload etc. was basically useless from the Soviet point of view. How well can it cover our ground troops? How well can it escort the Sturmoviks? How well can it handle Bf 109G2 at 3,000 feet?



FWIW, a P-47 actually worked pretty well as a mud mover by itself and wasn't that bad even at low altitude IF the correct tactics were used.
The problem was that it really didn't match the Soviet philosophy for fighters and their tactics.
This is similar to having an early war Japanese pilot trained on a Ki 27 or Ki 43 evaluate the Thunderbolt. It doesn't suit his fighting style but that doesn't mean it isn't the better fighter.



Schweik said:


> Well, "a lot of time and effort" is a subjective concept. Are you really suggesting that they couldn't have reorganized priorities and got stronger engines in action more quickly if they had put enough emphasis on it? My argument is that the pace it moved was good enough as long as a Yak-1B can still shoot down Bf 109s.



Even at the end of the war, a well flown A6M5 COULD give a F6F a pretty good fight. The problem is that they didn't have the pilot quality and didn't have the numbers. Are you saying that if the Japanese like the Russians had the huge superiority of numbers, they should continue to use inferior aircraft when they CAN shoot down the enemy???



Schweik said:


> Right. Which adds up to their being roughly equal.
> .....
> I never said it was 'better', I said it was 'roughly equal'. Performance was clearly similar, armament was at most slightly inferior, agility was slightly superior and the 202 had slightly better wing loading. It probably came out even. Almost the same speed, climb rate, ceiling, range etc. etc.



The straight line performance was similar. That doesn't mean they were equal. Engine power also has a pretty big influence as I have already commented on. Also, the performance figures you have been quoting for C.202 are WITHOUT the wing guns according to the loaded weights as stated in "Ali d'Italia 02". Adding about 140 KG probably won't help the numbers much.

As for armament, if you count weight of fire, then the typical Folgore is already behind a Me 109F with a MG 151 HMG. Weight of fire isn't really the whole story though. It helps to have the ballistics to be able to go through structure and armor instead of just chipping paint. On that count, the 15 mm gun is quite a bit more powerful than the two Breda 12.7 mm. There were also the 2 x 7.92 mm MG which were on the 109 while the wing mounted 7.7 mm MG were not even factory installed in a good portion of the C.202 and usually removed in the field.
As soon as the 20 mm cannon replaced the 15 mm MG, the power levels are vastly different.



Schweik said:


> So that is 138 x MC 202 on hand at that time, 21 x Re 2001, about 15 x MC 200, and 33 x G.50bis for a total of 207 fighters, 75% of which were top quality (MC 202 and Re 2001).
> 
> There were also 76 Cr 42s available but at that point they were only used as bombers and mostly flew at night. Very few were ever claimed by 1942 nor did they make any claims.
> 
> All this is from Meditteranean Air War Vol III pp 43-46. I think I have an earlier TO&E for them somewhere before the battle in which they had considerably more fighters but I'm having trouble finding it, Shores books lack sorely in useful chapter headings or a real index and being 600+ pages thick are a nuisance to search through trying to find anything.



The numbers I gave were for sorties in North Africa where the actual fighting was.
How many of these Macchi C.202 units were actually in action and how many were working up in Italy?
When an aircraft only accounts for 30% of all fighter sorties, it ISN'T the one that is being used the most.
You also picked the absolute peak of numbers for the C.202 because 30 were delivered to North Africa at the end of October.



Schweik said:


> The thing is if the P-40 dives and is chased by another pilot who really wants him, then at low altitude so long as it can extend sufficiently in the dive to turn around, you now have a new dogfight where the P-40 has a 200 hp advantage, turns better and may be a little faster. This is where a lot of Bf 109s and 202s got shot down. They were better off keeping the fight up above 20k if they could. Sometimes they couldn't such as when their own airbase was attacked.



The solution as I mentioned earlier is to follow the P-40 in direction but don't go down to the same altitude. Keep about a 5000 foot altitude advantage. That will keep your speed higher and if you were both coming down from 20,000 feet, then pursue in a shallow dive. At low altitude the P-40 won't be able to carry all the speed it gained for the altitude it lost, so he has a choice of converting that speed back to altitude at which point nothing is different from the initial fight or he bleeds it all off at low altitude.
If he tries to go as fast as possible at low altitude, then you are completely safe but in for a tail chase.
This would be the smart choice for him.
If he turns, he bleeds off speed and loses the ability to attack in a zoom climb and setting up an attack should be no problem with the altitude advantage.
If he loses too much initial speed, the only way to gain it back is to go straight and level and without altitude, there is no more ability to dive to gain speed. If he flies straight and level, he becomes a pretty easy target.
Reality is probably not going to be quite that simple, but the low-altitude hotrod does not have the advantage here unless you fight his fight.

Remember, there is always the possibility that you just ran into Swede Vejtasa and he will drill your bird full of holes in a vertical climb right before he stalls out and spins.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2019)

A general note about guns.

High velocity guns were easier to hit with as there is less time between the bullet leaving the barrel and reaching the target. At 6 O'clock (or 12 O'clock) this is less important but the bigger the deflection angle the more important this becomes. 

This aspect of velocity may actually be more important than the improved hitting power of the high velocity bullet? 

2nd note.

The Italian 12,7mm HE ammo contained 0.8 grams of Penthrite wax and the German 15mm MG 151 HE ammo contained 2.8 grams of Penthrite wax.

20mm shells (German mine shell excluded) held 3.7 grams to 11.3 grams of HE/incendiary material for the more common guns. The German mine shell held 20 grams (mostly) 

Ammo belts (or magazines) were mixed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Oct 2, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Most of that 700 lbs was carrying fuel.
> P39 never had the range of a P40..like the Spitfire..
> Russia used the P40 for escorting Bombers because of that longer range capability.


P-39 and P-40 range and endurance was about the same. 

The P-40 carried only 30 gallons of internal fuel (180 pounds) more than the P-39. Ten gallons were eaten up in the takeoff and climb to 5000' allowance. The remaining 20 gallons would get you an extra half hour at economical cruise (41gph) or 12 minutes at normal power (100gph) at 15000'. That's clean with no drop tank. Almost all missions carried drop tanks.

The P-39 normally carried a drop tank of 75-110gal where the P-40 normally carried a 50gal drop tank. Same fuel for both planes if the P-39 carried a 75gal tank (120 internal + 75gal drop = 195gal for P-39 vs 150 internal + 50 drop = 200 for P-40). Any range advantage for the P-40 was negated by the P-39 better cruising speeds.

Regarding engine life in Soviet service, the reason the Soviets burned up their ingines so quickly is they ran them wide open for the entire mission. Yep, combat power (3000rpm) from takeoff to landing. Early Allisons had a 5 minute limit that was later increased to 15 minutes at combat power, so you can imagine the abuse that engine is taking over a one hour mission. As Goludnikov said "Do you want long engine life or do you want to fight the Germans?"


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 2, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Sure, but that's not what's being argued.


Sure it is. Originaly Scwiek posted that The Luftwaffe overclaimed also in response to an assertion that that the p39 was really not that effective in Russian hands as it appeared because of overclaiming. Don't think I need to re- hash why if your going to ding one planes effectiveness for overclaiming you have to do it for all and then the asertion about the one plane being less effective is mute unless there is good evidence that one side overclaimed substantially more than the other as efficacy can only be done in a comparative maner as in war aircraft do not oparate in a vacuum..... .i guess I did just re- hash it........Oh well


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 2, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Huh?


On this one my bad. I thought you were using the 19 to 1 of the F6f as a multiple for what if the Japanese pilots claimed this ratio. Should have read it more carefully.
However,even so I'm sure your correct that Japanese pilots did claim more than 270 Hellcats but this doesn't mean, to me least it would be valid to say the A6m was not effective because it's pilots overclaimed or ditto for the F6f or any other plane for that matter.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> YOUR comment earlier was that it was issued typically to squadron commanders. This would be an interesting sight for the Squadron commander to go tank busting while everyone else provides cover???



From what I have read this indeed did happen. The Yak-9T were new and comparatively rare and were distributed to squadron and then section leaders, because they were usually the ones meant to do the killing while their wingmen protected them. They were also usually better pilots (based on their approved victory claims) and therefore less likely to lose the more expensive aircraft.



> The FW 190 fighter bomber variants weren't significantly sturdier than the fighter variants in any case.



I could be wrong but I understood that the F had a bit more armor. Anyway increasing numbers of Fw 190s - which were considered a little more sturdy than Bf 109s- was mentioned in one book I read recently as the reason why they started adopting heavier guns. The other reason frequently mentioned (including I believe in some of the links I posted) was strafing armored vehicles which Soviet fighters apparently did a lot of .



> The evidence is not supporting your argument.



It does, we just see the same evidence differently.



> If La-5FN mounts two cannon and then goes to three when a lighter variant becomes available, is that an indication that armament needed some improvement? If not, why not substitute the B-20 for ShVAK one for one and still end up with a two gun fighter but with less weight?
> If the typical Yak fighter carried two synchro MG and a cannon and later deleted a MG , do you suppose it was because opposition started using aircraft that were easier to kill or simply they didn't have the room?


Actually I think it was a matter of the needs of the mission and pilot choice, as just as many had 3 guns as two. The Yak-3 in fact typically had 1 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7mm.



> FWIW, a P-47 actually worked pretty well as a mud mover by itself and wasn't that bad even at low altitude IF the correct tactics were used.
> The problem was that it really didn't match the Soviet philosophy for fighters and their tactics.
> This is similar to having an early war Japanese pilot trained on a Ki 27 or Ki 43 evaluate the Thunderbolt. It doesn't suit his fighting style but that doesn't mean it isn't the better fighter.



No, I don't think that is the case. A Yak-9 is not equivalent to a Ki-27 or even a Ki-43. It's 100 mph faster than the former and 60 mph faster than the latter, lets keep that in mind before we go too far off the rails. You don't want to acknowledge it for some reason but the P-47 is the perfect example. For the Soviets it was basically useless. They didn't perceive bombers as 'mud movers' and sacrificed thousands of lives to do low altitude pinpoint strikes against enemy Tactical forces. If they thought the P-47 would have been good at that job by their standards and in the conditions they fought in, I'm sure they would have used it since they could have had them.

But the P-47 was not particularly fast at low altitude, was not agile or maneuverable at low altitude, was as big of a target as an Il-2 but not as well armored, did not climb all that well, wasn't as easy to fly for less trained pilots and required a long runway to use. It was good at high altitude but the Soviets had very little need for that capability (what little they did require was handled by Spitfire IX's in the PVO and later by high altitude Yak-9 variants). The Western concept of what made a good plane is not the only concept with any meaning. The Soviet fighters were ideal for the environment they were operating in.



> Even at the end of the war, a well flown A6M5 COULD give a F6F a pretty good fight. The problem is that they didn't have the pilot quality and didn't have the numbers. Are you saying that if the Japanese like the Russians had the huge superiority of numbers, they should continue to use inferior aircraft when they CAN shoot down the enemy???



Again, comparing a Yak-3 and an A6M is inaccurate. The Germans _feared_ the Yak-3, whereas you'll find few Hellcat pilots who feared the A6M. The F6F had significant advantages over the A6M in combat speed, dive speed etc. The Yak 3 or late model Yak 9 or La 7 did not have any major disadvantages against a Fw 190 or late model Bf 109.




> The straight line performance was similar. That doesn't mean they were equal. Engine power also has a pretty big influence as I have already commented on.



Apparently you don't take my word for it so I'll dig up some quotes from actual combat pilots who either flew it or faced it when their life was on the line.



> The numbers I gave were for sorties in North Africa where the actual fighting was.
> How many of these Macchi C.202 units were actually in action and how many were working up in Italy?
> When an aircraft only accounts for 30% of all fighter sorties, it ISN'T the one that is being used the most.
> You also picked the absolute peak of numbers for the C.202 because 30 were delivered to North Africa at the end of October.



All the units / aircraft I listed were in North Africa or in nearby Islands and all were engaged with the DAF and USAAF.

I don't know what your source is for the above claims but I resent the suggestion that I cherry picked anything. In fact - it's the opposite! That was the only Italian order of battle I could find in MAW last night. I have previously posted another Axis Order of Battle on this forum at least twice from earlier in 1942 which showed more MC 202 active but couldn't find it last night. The Shores books are very poorly organized for finding things and I have four of them. I'm sure, by the way, that you saw these previously because these were in threads where you were active. But I'll track them down again and post them.

Regarding the MC 202 and this narrative that the Regia Aeronautica didn't have modern planes in North Africa, I assume you just aren't that familiar with the history. Apparently you have some kind of source why don't you read a little more about it I think you will find that I am right. By mid -1942 almost all the fighter sorties flown by the Italians were with MC 202 or other modern types (Re 2001, and later MC 205). Their main problem was with fuel, they didn't fly as many sorties (or more precisely, they didn't fly sorties on as many days) as the Germans and the ones they flew were mostly with the MC 202s and SM.79 Torpedo bombers attacking shipping in the Med. Most other planes were grounded most of the time.



> The solution as I mentioned earlier is to follow the P-40 in direction but don't go down to the same altitude. Keep about a 5000 foot altitude advantage. That will keep your speed higher and if you were both coming down from 20,000 feet, then pursue in a shallow dive. At low altitude the P-40 won't be able to carry all the speed it gained for the altitude it lost, so he has a choice of converting that speed back to altitude at which point nothing is different from the initial fight or he bleeds it all off at low altitude.
> If he tries to go as fast as possible at low altitude, then you are completely safe but in for a tail chase.
> This would be the smart choice for him.
> If he turns, he bleeds off speed and loses the ability to attack in a zoom climb and setting up an attack should be no problem with the altitude advantage.
> ...



This sounds nice but it's not the reality according to numerous pilot anecdotes. If you tried to chase an enemy pilot for a long way by following 5,000 feet above, one thing that can and did happen is that their wingman or squadron mates notice you doing that and swoop down to get you. He may even call for help on the radio . After say a half an hour chase he may be nearing his own base. All of these things actually happened historically.

More importantly, as soon as you make any attempt to shoot at the fleeing aircraft you are going to be at the same altitude (within 300 meters or so) and therefore close to Co-E. Assuming he has any of the momentum from his dive, in a P-40K he's going to be able to turn much more sharply, will have a better roll rate, and 200 more horsepower to call on. Therefore such chases often did not end well for Luftwaffe pilots, based on numerous surviving pilot accounts which I have already transcribed & posted in other threads on this forum.

If / when I have the time I'll dig up a few of these already posted and link them since I don't want to bog down this thread with that side argument on a side argument.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> 1. So how many Soviet P-39's were lost based on German claims ?!?
> 2. So you don't actually know what the Soviet rate off overclaiming was?



No, I don't have a breakdown of victories by type for the whole war like we do with American fighters. Nor total losses by type.

Nor did I ever claim to do. If anyone has it I would love to see it posted.

However, as I have previously pointed out to you and posted some data from on this forum, publications are now emerging which compare claims on both sides to actual losses. Black Cross Red Star is probably the single most comprehensive source for the Russian front but it's not the only one. Books like this give you snapshots on particular battles and campaigns. So you can see (and count) actual claims vs. losses on a given day or sometimes for an entire operation across several weeks or months. Black Cross Red Star also lists the total claims and losses by year in the appendix for certain years. It is enough to deduce a pattern. There was far more overclaiming in the first year of the war than later for example. Also overclaiming while real and constant, was never at the astronomical levels claimed in years gone by.

However I never claimed anything I said about overclaiming rates to be definitive or anything more than an estimate.

If you have data contradicting my estimates please post them.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Sure it is. Originaly Scwiek posted that The Luftwaffe overclaimed also in response to an assertion that that the p39 was really not that effective in Russian hands as it appeared because of overclaiming. Don't think I need to re- hash why if your going to ding one planes effectiveness for overclaiming you have to do it for all and then the asertion about the one plane being less effective is mute unless there is good evidence that one side overclaimed substantially more than the other as efficacy can only be done in a comparative many as in war aircraft do not oparate in a vacuum..... .i guess I did just re- hash it........Oh well



No Michael, that is not what it is about; back to Hellcat analogy, because I may have made a hash of explaining it.

It doesn't matter whether the Japanese pilots claimed to have shotdown 500 or 1000 or 2000 Hellcats, because the USN reported losing 270 to enemy aircraft and that is what the Hellcats combat is record based on.

Back to the Soviets and the P-39:

It doesn't matter whether the German pilots claimed to have shotdown 500 or 1000 or 2000 P-39's, because the Soviets knew how many they lost, and that is what the P-39's combat record in Soviet service is based on, so from the Soviet viewpoint XXXX enemy aircraft claimed for YYY P-39's lost to enemy aircraft.

However, know one seems to know what to put in place of the X or Y so it is not as easy to evaluate the P-39 as the Hellcat; but in both cases overclaiming has to be taken in to account.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 2, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> No Michael, that is not what it is about; back to Hellcat analogy, because I may have made a hash of explaining it.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether the Japanese pilots claimed to have shotdown 500 or 1000 or 2000 Hellcats, because the USN reported losing 270 to enemy aircraft and that is what the Hellcats combat is record based on.
> 
> ...


No you didn't make a hash of explaining it. I made a hash of reading it
That being said, what it's about is at this point is subject to some individual perception and thread drift.
Going back to the beginning of this" segment" if I may one more time then I'm walking away from this. One can't say that a plane is ineffective because it's pilots overclaimed because that is universal.
Yes the degrees of overclaiming may be different in some instances( although over time they seem to be generally in a balpark for everyone) and if they are substantially different then it would be incumbent on the asserter of lesser efacacy of a type due to overclaiming to list those rates of actual losses in comparison to claims and there differance from their oposition. Then the assertion that a type was not as effective as it would appear would be valid. You can't just say" well the pilots of that type overclaimed therefore that plane is not nearly effective as the other party( in this case Schweik) has asserted. imho..............I think I feel a headache comming on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

This isn't the one I was looking for but Axis Order of Battle in June 1943 (just before the invasion of Sicily) included. This is from MAW IV pages 158-159.

*Germans*
Bf 109 - 165 (mostly G-2 and G-4 with some F-4)
Bf 109 - 7 (recon units)
Fw 190 - 54 (these were jabo units)
Fw 190 - 60 (these were attack 'schlacht') units, stationed in Sardinia)
Me 110 - 44 ('zerstorer' units)

Total 165 front line fighters, plus another 125 assigned to fighter bomber, attack or recon

*Italians*
Bf 109 - 6 (all G model, another 40 unservicable)
MC 205 - 11 (another 20 unserviceable)
Re 2005 - 10
MC 202 - 32 (another 80 or so unserviceable)
MC 200 - (4 all unserviceable)
Dewoitine D.520 - 4 (9 unserviceable)
CR 42 - 17 (used as fighter bombers)

All of the above were in Sicily by the time of operation Husky unless otherwise stated

In reserve in Italy they also had another 13 MC 200

Total 59 front line fighters, 8 second line fighters, 17 fighter bombers, with 13 more second-line fighters (MC 200) in reserve in Italy.

Altogether for the Axis 224 front line fighters, plus the 114 Fw 190s which are no slouch, and 61 obsolescent fighters.

Against this the US had 100 Spitfires, 182 P-38s (three fighter groups plus recon), and 266 P-40F/L s, plus 120 P-51 dive bombers or recon planes, 116 P-39s, and 48 Beaufighters. (this is from pages 156-157 in the same book.) So roughly double the number of fighters. Plus the RAF was involved.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> No, I don't have a breakdown of victories by type for the whole war like we do with American fighters. Nor total losses by type.
> 
> Nor did I ever claim to do. If anyone has it I would love to see it posted.
> 
> ...



Still, the estimates you posted earlier


Schweik said:


> The result was that overclaiming rates had declined by mid 1943 to around 2-1 and later (by my estimate) to around 1.5-1.


are quite favourable; 2-1 is not bad and 1.5-1 is quite good, by WWII standards. So if you would post a link to the data you have posted earlier, that would be helpful and interesting.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Too bad it didn't have the extra several feet of fuselage space to accommodate the turbo and intercooler.



and a C.G. conveniently placed...


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> No you didn't make a hash of explaining it. I made a hash of reading it
> That being said, what it's about is at this point is subject to some individual perception and thread drift.
> Going back to the beginning of this" segment" if I may one more time then I'm walking away from this. One can't say that a plane is ineffective because it's pilots overclaimed because that is universal.
> Yes the degrees of overclaiming may be different in some instances( although over time they seem to be generally in a balpark for everyone) and if they are substantially different then it would be incumbent on the asserter of lesser efacacy of a type due to overclaiming to list those rates of actual losses in comparison to claims and there differance from their oposition. Then the assertion that a type was not as effective as it would appear would be valid. You can't just say" well the pilots of that type overclaimed therefore that plane is not nearly effective as the other party( in this case Schweik) has asserted..............I think I feel a headache comming on.



I am not saying it was ineffective, I am saying that it's record may not be quite as spectacular as it's purported to be, as a consequence of overclaiming.......if you have aspirins would you mind PM'ing me one?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Still, the estimates you posted earlier
> are quite favourable; 2-1 is not bad and 1.5-1 is quite good, by WWII standards. So if you would post a link to the data you have posted earlier, that would be helpful and interesting.



Well, I don't know how much time I want to spend hunting a bunch of books & taking them down from the shelf, pouring over them to find specific incidents relevant to the conversation, transcribing them here and posting, only to be told it doesn't count for some reason (this has been the pattern for me on here in the past).

But I can meet you half way. For example you can look at the well documented careers of some of the top P-39 Aces, whose successes are often given an eye roll because "Commies!" or "Slavs!" or some such. Alexander Pokryshkin was, I believe (I could be wrong if so correct me) the top scoring Soviet P-39 Ace (and therefore the top scoring P-39 ace period) with 54 or 59 victories depending on whose count you believe, of which ~45 were with the Airacobra. Many of his victory claims have been carefully examined. Among other things he seems to have shot down and killed numerous _experte_ such as Uffz. Hans Ellendt, Lt HGelmut Haberda and others.

One one famous occasion on Sept 21 1943, right over the front lines and in view of numerous journalists and high ranking officers who were present, Pokryshkin (who was angry upon learning his mechanics family had been killed by the SS) shot down three Ju 88s in a single pass. All three wrecks landed on the battlefield and were later recovered. He was only credited with 2 of the 3 because one was determined to have gone down due to the explosion of the second one. Late that day he claimed two Ju 87s (which were confirmed in Axis records as Ju87D-5s of 6./StG-1)*. So that is an overclaiming rate of 5 for 4 actual victories, or 1.2-1 for that pilot on that day.

Going through his victories and those of the other top scoring P-39 aces, it seems like many of them were similarly plausible based on Axis losses.

In Black Cross / Red Star Volume 2, Bergstrom notes that the Soviets claimed 3,012 German aircraft shot down in aerial combat in the first half of 1942. Actual German losses are listed there as 1046 in the air and another 124 on the ground. It is from this figure that I get the early Soviet claim rate as roughly 3-1 overall. This is on page 210. While it's true 3-1 is a fairly high rate, it is not the astronomical level that seems to so often be assumed. Even, for example if we assumed some of the Soviet P-39 units actually overclaimed at that rate most of them would still have had positive kill / loss ratios. But my contention is indeed that the Soviet overclaiming rate improved substantially in 1943 due to changes in policy, and then again 1944 largely due to gun cameras.

It's worth noting here that as 'losses', Bergstrom only counts aircraft listed as destroyed, MIA, or with at least 60% damage. That is a very tight net, I personally would count any aircraft that made a forced landing caused by gun damage as a victory since it went down due to enemy action. But for sake of argument I am willing to use his numbers. If a fighter crash-lands due to a single bullet in the radiator and is two days later given a new propeller and the radiator is patched and refilled and it's put back into action, it may not mean a major setback for the enemy but from the point of view of the pilot making the claim that he (or in the Soviet case sometimes she) shot down an enemy aircraft, he (or she) is basically correct. That plane was no longer able to bomb troops or attack friendly bombers on that particular mission as the result of being hit. Attrition is a separate (though still of course relevant) issue from victories / losses.

* source is listed as "LW Loss Report (microfilm roll #11)-Vol. 21 "

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 2, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-39 and P-40 range and endurance was about the same.
> 
> The P-40 carried only 30 gallons of internal fuel (180 pounds) more than the P-39. Ten gallons were eaten up in the takeoff and climb to 5000' allowance. The remaining 20 gallons would get you an extra half hour at economical cruise (41gph) or 12 minutes at normal power (100gph) at 15000'. That's clean with no drop tank. Almost all missions carried drop tanks.
> 
> ...



Most P-39's carried 87 Gallons.
Largest the P-39 ever carried was 120 gallons.
Various models had 100, 110, then 120 in all in the Q series

The lowest the P-40 carried in the F/L models was 120 gallons.
Most P-40's carried 157 gallons making them more tractable with an external Fuel Tank.
Range was enough to keep the P-40 relevant hitting the Axis/Japan Targets.
The Allies flew out to hit them. 
By the time the P-40s got to their targets they were a good bit lighter.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

I just checked volume 3 of Black Cross Red Star which covers the chaotic battle of Stalingrad, and the Soviet overclaim rate (for the second half of 1942) actually went up a little to 4.5-1, the German rate also rose slightly from 1.5-1 to roughly 2-1. I have Vol IV but currently not in my grasp, will post when I get my hands on it.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Oct 2, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Most P-39's carried 87 Gallons.
> Largest the P-39 ever carried was 120 gallons.
> Various models had 100, 110, then 120 in all in the Q series
> 
> ...


Just to quibble, all P-39s carried 120gal internal except the later N models and the earlier Q models. Kits were available to restore the full 120gal in the field if needed. Same wing, same internal capacity on all P-39s. Reductions were normally removal of the outer two tanks in each wing.

Regarding the P-40, biggest problem was rate of climb/combat ceiling defined as that altitude where the P-40 would still climb at at least 1000 feet per minute. The P-40E's combat ceiling was about 17000' clean. With the ubiquitous drop tank that fell to a little over 15000'. Now any plane can certainly climb over their combat ceiling, but it was a long and laborious process with rate of climb declining with every foot climbed. Not conducive to combat at all. 

So let's just say that the P-40's combat ceiling was substantially lower than any enemy fighter plane it was likely to encounter. That means every combat starts with the P-40's opponent above. The opponent will simply bounce the P-40 until the P-40 is shot down. Luring the opponent down to the P-40's level takes an awfully stupid opponent. They were literally sitting ducks. 

The P-40N with the higher rated 9.6 geared engine had much better combat ceiling, around 23000' clean and 20000' with drop tank per wwiiaircraftperformance.org. But at 23000' the N's top speed was less than 320mph clean. Great plane, just too darn heavy at around 8400# clean to be competitive.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

lol


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 2, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> The P-40 carried only 30 gallons of internal fuel (180 pounds) more than the P-39. Ten gallons were eaten up in the takeoff and climb to 5000' allowance. The remaining 20 gallons would get you an extra half hour at economical cruise (41gph) or 12 minutes at normal power (100gph) at 15000'. That's clean with no drop tank. Almost all missions carried drop tanks.



Hello P-39 Expert,
It sounds like you are stating that ONLY the P-40 uses 10 Gallons of fuel for takeoff and climb to 5000 feet.
Wouldn't you expect the Airacobra to burn about the same amount of fuel in a climb?
The actual internal fuel difference is a bit more than you are listing here except for the P-40L and P-40N-1, but I will get into that a little later.



P-39 Expert said:


> The P-39 normally carried a drop tank of 75-110gal where the P-40 normally carried a 50gal drop tank. Same fuel for both planes if the P-39 carried a 75gal tank (120 internal + 75gal drop = 195gal for P-39 vs 150 internal + 50 drop = 200 for P-40). Any range advantage for the P-40 was negated by the P-39 better cruising speeds.



While the P-40 did use 52 gallon drop tanks early in the war, later a 75 gallon drop tank was more common.
In fact the P-40 had the capability to carry a 150 Gallon Belly tank ALONG WITH two Wing Drop tanks at the same time.

As for internal fuel capacity, with the Airacobra it is pretty simple:
After the P-39C, no Airacobra carried more than 120 Gallons split between two Wing Root tanks.
With the last Airacobras, the internal fuel was dropped to 87 Gallons.

With the P-40, there is a bit more variation.
There were usually three tanks, two (front and rear) in the Wing Center section and a Fuselage tank behind the pilot. The problem here is that depending on the model, the naming convention and capacities changed a bit so I will try to be consistent and NOT use the term "Reserve tank" because different tanks were considered to be reserve depending on the model.
As noted earlier, with the P-40L and early P-40N I believe, the Front Wing tank was deleted.

P-40 "Tomahawk" from AVG manual
Front Wing 41.25 US Gallons
Rear Wing 62.5 US Gallons
Fuselage 57.75 US Gallons
Total 162.5 US Gallons (130 Imperial Gallons)
Other sources list total at 132.5 Imperial Gallons.

P-40E Warhawk
Front Wing 32.0 Gallons
Rear Wing 51.0 Gallons
Fuselage 62.5 Gallons
Total 145.5 Gallons

P-40N Warhawk
Front Wing 34 Gallons
Rear Wing 56 Gallons
Fuselage 66 Gallons
Total 156 Gallons

Of course drop tanks would vary a bit as needed but the attached diagrams show what could be done.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

Range for the P-39 always seemed to be a problem operationally in American use.
Range for the P-40 not as much.
P-40s had to fly escort for P-39s in the MTO
As for speed, I guess it depended on the machine. Some P-40N were configuring for bombing, some (and not just the -1 or -5) were configured for air to air combat.

According to this chart the P-40N, while nowhere near as fast as the zippy P-39N, managed 378 mph at 11,000 ft and still 344 mph at 30,000 ft.
This test showed 348 mph at 29,700 ft (with bomb shackles but only four guns). It also showed it still making 1400 ft per minute at 25,000 ft

That said I think the realistic combat ceiling for a P-40N was really more like 18-22,000 ft at the most. In the second test it still made 371 mph at 17,000 ft which isn't bad for early 1943.

Both of those tests were done at high boost (57" Hg) where available. Other tests done at lower power levels (and perhaps different weights, drag inducing extras etc.) give less spectacular results.

The P-39, particularly the later models, was certainly faster than the P-40 but with almost the same engine is there any reason to assume a P-39 would have better altitude performance?

As for weight, the P-40 was lighter than most P-51s. So to me performance wasn't so much a matter of weight as horsepower. And at medium and lower altitudes the P-40N had pretty good horsepower, like most other P-40 models (and P-39s I assume).


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 2, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> So let's just say that the P-40's combat ceiling was substantially lower than any enemy fighter plane it was likely to encounter. That means every combat starts with the P-40's opponent above. The opponent will simply bounce the P-40 until the P-40 is shot down. Luring the opponent down to the P-40's level takes an awfully stupid opponent. They were literally sitting ducks.


.
P39E,

In a perfect world with absolute situational awareness (SA) this might happen. 

Every combat did not start with P40 opponents holding the high ground. And if they did, and you are sitting there in your 109 wanting to shoot down a P40 you would need to go down to his altitude to nail him. P40 dives to the heart of its envelope and then turns to meet the inbound 109. Simple, just takes keeping your head on a swivel and understanding both your and your opponents strengths and weaknesses.

If the 109 climbs back up then no one gets shot down it’s another stalemate. I would have kept P40s in reserve and once the engagement starts scramble them to the 109s home airfield, to catch them low on gas and in the pattern.

There are more than one way to skin a cat and you have to get into a fight in order to shoot someone down.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> .
> P39E,
> 
> In a perfect world with absolute situational awareness (SA) this might happen.
> ...



This basically is what *General Benjamin O. Davis* of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee"), who also flew F-86s in Korea, said about P-40s:

_“The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea*. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's**. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."_

Whether or not the Luftwaffe fighters could hit and run depended on the circumstances and the tactics of the Allied fighters. If they caught some fighters on their own they could try staying above them and bouncing or doing hit and runs. This was especially true when the DAF wasn't using wingmen and didn't have an official tactic to fight against it. Once the DAF adopted guidelines to contend with attack from above, it was less effective.

But the bigger problem came into play if the Germans needed to get at some bombers flying below the escorts. Then they basically had to get down to that altitude where the P-40s (or other Allied fighters, all of which seemed to have this problem of German fighters above them) and then they were mixing it up on a much more even basis.

If they followed down further below where the P-40s engines could be opened up, then they were potentially at a disadvantage. Some German pilots were very good and highly aggressive and went after them anyway. Others decided not to push their luck and did not chase. Those that did sometimes paid the price.

Many combats that started over a German base made it all the way back to an Allied base where re-enforcements or returning fighters could gang up on pursuers, just as you alluded.


* I am not saying I agree with the 11-1 victory ratio, I'm just quoting what he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> From what I have read this indeed did happen. The Yak-9T were new and comparatively rare and were distributed to squadron and then section leaders, because they were usually the ones meant to do the killing while their wingmen protected them. They were also usually better pilots (based on their approved victory claims) and therefore less likely to lose the more expensive aircraft.



Hello Schweik,

From what I have read, the fighters with the heavy cannon were a bit heavier (obviously), had relatively little ammunition and also were less agile. The combination probably needed a bit more piloting skill as did the coping with recoil from the gun's recoil as shown in testing the Yak-9TK.



Schweik said:


> I could be wrong but I understood that the F had a bit more armor. Anyway increasing numbers of Fw 190s - which were considered a little more sturdy than Bf 109s- was mentioned in one book I read recently as the reason why they started adopting heavier guns. The other reason frequently mentioned (including I believe in some of the links I posted) was strafing armored vehicles which Soviet fighters apparently did a lot of .



The FW 190 didn't vary all that much for armor until you got to the Sturmbock aircraft.
In fact the 190 Fighter Bombers were some of the lightest versions and significantly lighter than the typical fighter version because they almost never had the outer wing cannon and sometimes even deleted the cowl guns.
1 MG and 1 20 m cannon seems to be pretty light firepower for a strafer aircraft.



Schweik said:


> Actually I think it was a matter of the needs of the mission and pilot choice, as just as many had 3 guns as two. The Yak-3 in fact typically had 1 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7mm.



The Yak-1B had the cannon and only one cowl MG.
It also appears that just many of the Yak-9 before the Yak-9U had only the motor cannon and a single MG. The Yak-9T certainly had only a single MG besides the cannon for the simple reason that the feed for the bigger cannon took up the space normally used by the RH cowl MG.
The Soviets also recognized that these planes had a serious lack of firepower in general which is why they experimented with swapping out one of the 12.7 mm MGs for a 20 mm ShVAK in the Yak-9P and came to the conclusion that even THAT wasn't quite enough and went to bigger cannon with all the associated problems.



Schweik said:


> No, I don't think that is the case. A Yak-9 is not equivalent to a Ki-27 or even a Ki-43. It's 100 mph faster than the former and 60 mph faster than the latter, lets keep that in mind before we go too far off the rails. You don't want to acknowledge it for some reason but the P-47 is the perfect example. For the Soviets it was basically useless. They didn't perceive bombers as 'mud movers' and sacrificed thousands of lives to do low altitude pinpoint strikes against enemy Tactical forces. If they thought the P-47 would have been good at that job by their standards and in the conditions they fought in, I'm sure they would have used it since they could have had them.



The point in picking the Ki-27 and Ki-43 wasn't because of performance. It was to illustrate different fighting styles. If you try to fight with a P-47 the same way as you would a Ki-43, you will get killed and that is the only point I was trying to make. The same applies to trying to use the P-47 the same way as one would fly a Yak-9.
Regarding Yak-9 versus Ki-43, they each came in enough different versions that it really matters which version is being compared.
You and I both know "Mud Mover" is a pretty generic term. Would you rather see a "precision" strike by the same aircraft using rockets, bazooka tubes or bombs or a strafing run by an aircraft that carries more than just two guns?
It really is a matter of knowing the aircraft and flying it to the aircraft's advantages.
The Soviet philosophy of fighters just didn't agree with how the Thunderbolt needed to be flown.



Schweik said:


> But the P-47 was not particularly fast at low altitude, was not agile or maneuverable at low altitude, was as big of a target as an Il-2 but not as well armored, did not climb all that well, wasn't as easy to fly for less trained pilots and required a long runway to use. It was good at high altitude but the Soviets had very little need for that capability (what little they did require was handled by Spitfire IX's in the PVO and later by high altitude Yak-9 variants). The Western concept of what made a good plane is not the only concept with any meaning. The Soviet fighters were ideal for the environment they were operating in.



If you actually check out the performance specs, you will find that the typical P-47D series is faster at Sea Level than just about every version of Yak fighter that didn't have a M-107 engine installed.
Climb rate with any of the mid production Thunderbolts with a Paddle Blade propeller of either type was pretty comparable as well.
No argument that it is a higher tech aeroplane that is more complicated to operate and burns a sh*tload more fuel as well.



Schweik said:


> Again, comparing a Yak-3 and an A6M is inaccurate. The Germans _feared_ the Yak-3, whereas you'll find few Hellcat pilots who feared the A6M. The F6F had significant advantages over the A6M in combat speed, dive speed etc. The Yak 3 or late model Yak 9 or La 7 did not have any major disadvantages against a Fw 190 or late model Bf 109.



How much of that "Fear" is due to the tactical situation?
How many American or British pilots "Feared" encountering a late model Dora or a Ta 152 or even a Me 262? One on one is a comparison of aircraft quality, but when one side has a serious numerical advantage, the numbers mean more than the quality does.
FWIW, the German fighters you mentioned and even a late model A6M have a dive speed advantage over some of these Soviet fighters at least according to their manuals.....
Regarding the matchups you listed, it would depend on the versions of the aircraft involved and how each was flown. None of them has a clear advantage in all areas, but if I had to pick one, I would pick the FW 190D or a FW 190G.



Schweik said:


> I don't know what your source is for the above claims but I resent the suggestion that I cherry picked anything. In fact - it's the opposite! That was the only Italian order of battle I could find in MAW last night. I have previously posted another Axis Order of Battle on this forum at least twice from earlier in 1942 which showed more MC 202 active but couldn't find it last night. The Shores books are very poorly organized for finding things and I have four of them. I'm sure, by the way, that you saw these previously because these were in threads where you were active. But I'll track them down again and post them.



I am normally interested in the equipment and don't really pay much attention to your quotes from the MAW unless they have some relevance to the technology. This is a rare case where you picked an aircraft (the Folgore and Veltro) that I had to do some general research on a few years back.



Schweik said:


> Regarding the MC 202 and this narrative that the Regia Aeronautica didn't have modern planes in North Africa, I assume you just aren't that familiar with the history. Apparently you have some kind of source why don't you read a little more about it I think you will find that I am right. By mid -1942 almost all the fighter sorties flown by the Italians were with MC 202 or other modern types (Re 2001, and later MC 205). Their main problem was with fuel, they didn't fly as many sorties (or more precisely, they didn't fly sorties on as many days) as the Germans and the ones they flew were mostly with the MC 202s and SM.79 Torpedo bombers attacking shipping in the Med. Most other planes were grounded most of the time.



Cherry picking data? Must be a coincidence regarding the date.
Note that I didn't pick the date of the aircraft deliveries either.
Actually I am using several sources and they all seem to agree so they must all be wrong.

Regarding Macchi C.205, did you know that the first prototype for this aircraft was a Serie IX Folgore? It first flew 19, April 1942. The first production series wasn't delivered until April 1943.....



Schweik said:


> This sounds nice but it's not the reality according to numerous pilot anecdotes. If you tried to chase an enemy pilot for a long way by following 5,000 feet above, one thing that can and did happen is that their wingman or squadron mates notice you doing that and swoop down to get you. He may even call for help on the radio . After say a half an hour chase he may be nearing his own base. All of these things actually happened historically.
> 
> More importantly, as soon as you make any attempt to shoot at the fleeing aircraft you are going to be at the same altitude (within 300 meters or so) and therefore close to Co-E. Assuming he has any of the momentum from his dive, in a P-40K he's going to be able to turn much more sharply, will have a better roll rate, and 200 more horsepower to call on. Therefore such chases often did not end well for Luftwaffe pilots, based on numerous surviving pilot accounts which I have already transcribed & posted in other threads on this forum.



The P-40K is a low altitude hotrod. It is a bottom-feeder.
The altitude limitation is a tactical disadvantage. It is a handicap that can be exploited.
It is not a good thing or the US would not have spent so much effort trying to improve the P-40's high altitude performance AT THE COST of its low altitude performance.
You can use team tactics to address its shortcomings. You can contrive any situation you want to try to demonstrate why it isn't important and bring in as many anecdotes as you want, but that doesn't really change the physics and mechanical limitations.

As for "close to Co-E" after starting with an altitude advantage, that is really an indication that the pilot executing BnZ attack just screwed up.



Schweik said:


> If / when I have the time I'll dig up a few of these already posted and link them since I don't want to bog down this thread with that side argument on a side argument.



Threads always seem to go off topic around here. This is no exception.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 2, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> From what I have read, the fighters with the heavy cannon were a bit heavier (obviously), had relatively little ammunition and also were less agile. The combination probably needed a bit more piloting skill as did the coping with recoil from the gun's recoil as shown in testing the Yak-9TK.



No doubt they were a bit harder to fly, to use the big gun properly especially in air to air combat also took skill. From what I read though, of all those big gun installations, the one on the Yak-9T was probably the least problematic. And at the same time they were a bit more expensive, rarer and would also be given to more experienced pilots for that reason as well.



> The FW 190 didn't vary all that much for armor until you got to the Sturmbock aircraft.
> ...
> 1 MG and 1 20 m cannon seems to be pretty light firepower for a strafer aircraft.



I'll take your word for it on the Fw, all I can say is that the 'Fokker' was mentioned in some of the accounts I read as one of the reason for the bigger guns. Bf 109s ('messers') were deemed vulnerable to a few well placed 20mm shells in the tail, wing root or cockpit. But yes as I assume you are aware if you have read any operational histories from WW2 in Russia pretty much all the Soviet fighters flew at least some ground attack missions as the need presented itself.



> The point in picking the Ki-27 and Ki-43 wasn't because of performance. It was to illustrate different fighting styles. If you try to fight with a P-47 the same way as you would a (snip)
> It really is a matter of knowing the aircraft and flying it to the aircraft's advantages.
> The Soviet philosophy of fighters just didn't agree with how the Thunderbolt needed to be flown.



This is the crux of our debate here. We both agree the Soviets disdained the P-47. You assign this to a culture of flying, which I partly agree with - small agile planes, nose guns, high agility, low drag for better 'combat speed', easy to maintain and so on. The P-47 violated basically all of these rules. My argument is that the rules themselves made sense in terms of the conditions the Soviets faced (and developed the way they did because of them), in part their Strategic & economic limitations, but also due to the nature of the fighting at the front.

The Soviets were hardly averse to adopting foreign weapons - if they 'liked' them. They loved the P-39 obviously, they also liked the P-40, they liked Sherman tanks and GMC trucks. But they didn't like everything they got from overseas. I guess it comes down to this, when the Soviets said they didn't like the P-47, I can understand why. I think a Yak-9, or maybe even a P-39N, was better for them on the battlefield where they operated: over the front, often below 5,000 ft, in often chaotic melees. I think a Yak-3 is better in that situation and I'd rather have that than a P-47. If it's a matter of fighting at 30,000 feet I'd much rather have the P-47.

But I do also see your point about culture- that is true too. I would argue that the Japanese started WW2 very strong but declined gradually because they were a little bit more resistant to change in their cultural preferences (down to crazy things like pilots not wearing parachutes), while the Soviets who started out incredibly inefficient and ponderous gradually got better and were a bit more pragmatic, and by the end of the war were much more oriented toward the expedient and effective.



> If you actually check out the performance specs, you will find that the typical P-47D series is faster at Sea Level than just about every version of Yak fighter that didn't have a M-107 engine installed.



Looks to me like the Yak-3 was just as fast at sea level with it's VK=105PF

Yak-3 performance (572 kph/ 355 mph), P-47D10 performance (333 mph at sea level, 353 at 5,000 ft) - another one said 345 at sea level.

So lets say at least comparable speed, Yak-3 definitely better climb, much better agility, far less drag. All in all again, give a choice I'd damn sure rather be in the Yak-3. About the only real advantage I see for the P-47 is it could carry a lot more ordinance.



> I am normally interested in the equipment and don't really pay much attention to your quotes from the MAW unless they have some relevance to the technology. This is a rare case where you picked an aircraft (the Folgore and Veltro) that I had to do some general research on a few years back.



Well that explains why your positions on some of these things never evolve lol. At least you are honest. To me I think you can't really assess a military aircraft without knowing the operational history. Relying on pure math is like relying on philosophy to understand life without ever going outside. But trust me you aren't the only one that's why I don't spend a lot of time transcribing stuff any more. Not highly valued...



> Cherry picking data? Must be a coincidence regarding the date.



!??! like I said, it's just the ones I could find so far. I am not assuming ill will, malice or duplicity on your part so please extend me the same courtesy. Shores only gives the TO&E for the Italians once or twice in each book, so it's not like I had dozens of dates to pick from. It's just really hard to find stuff in there unless you put a post-it on it. Sadly I had no luck finding it last night but I'll try again since you keep bringing it up...



> Actually I am using several sources and they all seem to agree so they must all be wrong.



We are talking about slightly different time periods, in early 1942 there were still some MC 200 and G.50bis in the game, but by mid-1942 they were basically parked.



> The P-40K is a low altitude hotrod. It is a bottom-feeder. (snip)
> You can use team tactics to address its shortcomings. You can contrive any situation you want to try to demonstrate why it isn't important and bring in as many anecdotes as you want, but that doesn't really change the physics and mechanical limitations.



Well, this ties in with the Yak and La 5 etc. discussion. I don't think a low altitude plane is a 'bottom' feeder, I don't think only one kind of fighter is effective, in fact the lesson of WW2 is that very different planes were suitable for every Theater or every battlefield. The P-47 is a good example. The Bf 109 would have sucked in the Pacific due to range.



> Threads always seem to go off topic around here. This is no exception.
> 
> - Ivan.



On that at least, we agree!


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Earlier I posted tongue and cheek about the DC-8 being the ideal "stretched" aircraft. 

What exactly is "stretch"? An increase in size? an increase in capability? 
As another posit, how about any aircraft that was in production or advanced development (Pre-production.) at entrance of that country into WWII and was still in service and, or in production four or more years later had sufficient "stretch" to be amenable to the exigencies of war. (And thus successfully stretched.)
Consider that while the external appearance may not have changed, the weight, horsepower and war-load did. Those factors would all stretch beyond what the original designers intended. 

Consider the changes to the BF-109, Spitfire, and the Zero. All basically doubled HP over the course of the war while accommodating substantial changes in armament, pilot protection, armor, etc.

Aircraft like the Buffalo or Whirlwind were unable to"stretch".


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 2, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Just to quibble, all P-39s carried 120gal internal except the later N models and the earlier Q models. Kits were available to restore the full 120gal in the field if needed. Same wing, same internal capacity on all P-39s. Reductions were normally removal of the outer two tanks in each wing.
> 
> Regarding the P-40, biggest problem was rate of climb/combat ceiling defined as that altitude where the P-40 would still climb at at least 1000 feet per minute. The P-40E's combat ceiling was about 17000' clean. With the ubiquitous drop tank that fell to a little over 15000'. Now any plane can certainly climb over their combat ceiling, but it was a long and laborious process with rate of climb declining with every foot climbed. Not conducive to combat at all.
> 
> ...



P40 RoC improved dramatically when they took the peace time Boost Regulators off of them. The only sitting ducks you speak of is when the P40 was in bomber configuration. Later F/L and M and N models used the better 100/130 octane fuel. 

Again range was the deciding difference. Can have all the performance in the world like a Spitfire or P47. You cannot get there you cannot fight you will not fight. 
The P40 was a more rugged aircraft. P39 had CG issues and aggressive maneuvering would crack or bend the tail. Only reinforced in the last of the Q series. P39s were parked or lost because of bent tails. So far Never heard of a wing or Tail coming off a P40 unless it was shot off.

Published performance under test conditions are not the same as the combat settings. Performance improvement was discussed but never properly documented. You can always change an engine...replacing a dead pilot was not going to happen. Consider the conversation about the British Mustangs using 70 inches for 20 minutes with no harm to the engine is one example. British noted similar dramatic performance improvement with the P40. Which seems to be done in every theater of war. The Russians wore out the Allison engines faster because they kept boosting the hell out of them on Russian fuel when they ran out of British fuel. Beating the crap out of the Pistons, bending rods, cranks and cracking the blocks. Not to mention the less refined oil and no oil filters on these engines. 

Again the P39 never had the range of the P40. To be useful they were reassigned defending bases and shipping lanes where it did fine but rarely met the enemy. It never had the range of the P40 for escort. That is why you read 10 times more combat stories about the P40 than the P39. P40 was used more in every theater as an offensive combat plane. Same issue with the P47 and Spit which had the same pathetic range issues. Despite horrible cold weather performance and lousy maneuverability the P38 had the range to engage the enemy. Which is why it did better in the SWP. 

On long range combat missions you did not need the ultimate climb rate. Once at high altitude the P40 it was in a good energy state. 
The Me109 was a great and effective plane until the Germans discovered the BOB!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Most P-39's carried 87 Gallons.
> Largest the P-39 ever carried was 120 gallons.
> Various models had 100, 110, then 120 in all in the Q series
> 
> ...




I have to agree with P-39 Expert. 

There were only two tank set-ups on P-39s once you get past the Cs. either 87 gallons or 120 gallons. Some of the confusion comes in because there was a "reserve" of 10 or 16 gallons in one tank (two different height fuel pick ups in the same tank) so the reserve was actually in the same 60 gallon (for a 120 gallon plane) tank. Some confusion may come from a plane in a particular test not using full tanks. 

For the P-40 most if not all of the Fs had 147-150 gallons (sometimes the amnual does not agree with itself on different pages) and the Ls had the forward wing tank taken out. I have no idea if any Fs had the forward tank taken out in the field. SOme Ls may have had the forward tank replaced in the Field. 
Most P-40s had under 150 gallons internal until the later Ns when they changed the material the fuel tanks were made of. Then they went to 157 gallons, they did build a lot of Ns though. The Early Ns were also "stripped" and that included taking out the forward tank (actually not installed at the factory) but many of the "stripped " planes were equipped with the majority of items left out when in the field.

However many of the later P-40s operated with 75 gallon drop tanks so the P-39 looses that advantage, It may have cruised a bit faster at similar power setting due to lower drag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> It never had the range of the P40 for escort. That is why you read 10 times more combat stories about the P40 than the P39. P40 was used more in every theater as an offensive combat plane. Same issue with the P47 and Spit which had the same pathetic range issues.



Using the number of stories about one plane vs another is a pretty poor way of evaluating an aircraft. 

By Dec 1942 they had built 6883 P-40s compared to 2871 P-39s (an only 1900 F4Fs) of course there were more stories about the P-40, it was doing more of the work in the first year to two years of the war simply due to numbers available. 

I do think you really need to look at the manuals. The P-47 may not have had the range needed for escorting bombers in the ETO but it had a very similar range to the P-40 at similar speeds and altitudes. Where the idea that it was short ranged comes from I have no idea. Nobodies fighter planes (except the Japanese) had long range in 1941-42. 
A P-47 has double the range of a Spitfire (both without tanks) at similar speeds and altitudes.

The Trouble the P-47 had was that the escort mission in the ETO called for a long hard climb and a high speed cruise, both of which cut into the range/radius but then any other plane would have had it's range/radius reduced trying to fly the same mission. 

As an exercise I just calculated the range for a P-40E taking off with a 52 gallon drop tank and cruising at 297mph true at 15,000ft as *567* miles (after using 38 US gallons to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft, I also figured the P-40 as having 100% of it's internal fuel available when the tank was dropped and I did not count the drag of the tank in the first part of the flight. it doesn't get much more favorable than that.
The P-47 on 305 gallons of internal fuel and no drop tank when cruising at 299mph at 15,000ft would have a range of 574 miles after using 60 US gallon to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft. 

I am not seeing the huge advantage in range for the P-40. 
These are calculated ranges and make no allowances for combat or reserves (or even landing, planes just run out of fuel on the last mile or two of flight and have to glide down

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> No doubt they were a bit harder to fly, to use the big gun properly especially in air to air combat also took skill. From what I read though, of all those big gun installations, the one on the Yak-9T was probably the least problematic. And at the same time they were a bit more expensive, rarer and would also be given to more experienced pilots for that reason as well.



Hello Schweik,

Performance did seem to require a lot more care to manage. The pilot has to be a much better marksman because only the first shot is likely to hit anything. Considering the tests of the Yak-9TK, there is also the problem of loss of control when firing at a low airspeed (300-350 KPH). There were also problems with severe recoil damaging the airframe and causing fluid leaks.
An interesting statistic was that on July 1st 1945, after several months of production and the stated intent to arm an entire fighter regiment with them, there were only 14 Yak-9T in front line service.



Schweik said:


> But I do also see your point about culture- that is true too. I would argue that the Japanese started WW2 very strong but declined gradually because they were a little bit more resistant to change in their cultural preferences (down to crazy things like pilots not wearing parachutes), while the Soviets who started out incredibly inefficient and ponderous gradually got better and were a bit more pragmatic, and by the end of the war were much more oriented toward the expedient and effective.



I believe the biggest issue the Japanese fighter pilot had early in the war was the lack of ability to communicate with other pilots. Hand signals and flying maneuvers to convey a message are techniques that belonged in the Great War era. What do you do when not in visual range???
As for the Soviets, my impression is that their biggest advantage was shear size and population. If you look at their various military industries, they tried to progress multiple competing designs in just about EVERYTHING. It seems like they had design staff to spare in almost every imaginable field.... except Aero engines.
Their principle seemed to be, "Make a couple thousand of everything and let the Germans sort them out!"



Schweik said:


> Well that explains why your positions on some of these things never evolve lol. At least you are honest. To me I think you can't really assess a military aircraft without knowing the operational history. Relying on pure math is like relying on philosophy to understand life without ever going outside. But trust me you aren't the only one that's why I don't spend a lot of time transcribing stuff any more. Not highly valued...



I don't try to get too deep into the operational histories for the simple reason that often the tactical or strategic situation entirely overshadows any differences in weapons quality.
How much of the success of those combat pilots you describe due to the aircraft quality and how much is due to the better training programs on the allied side?
Consider this the equivalent of learning human anatomy and surgical techniques without trying to understand how the political and social situations in Africa and Asia affect life spans of the population. The political and social aspects simply don't interest me.



Schweik said:


> We are talking about slightly different time periods, in early 1942 there were still some MC 200 and G.50bis in the game, but by mid-1942 they were basically parked.



The narratives I was using as reference were all about late 1941 through early 1943 but the overlap and best statistics were for the year 1942. Unfortunately, there was no breakdown of the sorties by type for each month; there was just one summary for the year.
The numbers for the Macchi C.202 specifically emphasized a very low operational number IN North Africa where the fighting was. Many missions were being flown at much less than squadron strength.
I also tried to find the corresponding numbers in a book of the same series about the Macchi C.200, but there is much less English in that book and I don't read Italian. There also wasn't a breakdown for the number of missions flown by C.200 that I could find in that book.
Basically all but one of the C.200 units was returned to Italy by early 1943



Schweik said:


> Well, this ties in with the Yak and La 5 etc. discussion. I don't think a low altitude plane is a 'bottom' feeder, I don't think only one kind of fighter is effective, in fact the lesson of WW2 is that very different planes were suitable for every Theater or every battlefield. The P-47 is a good example. The Bf 109 would have sucked in the Pacific due to range.



We are actually in pretty good agreement.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Using the number of stories about one plane vs another is a pretty poor way of evaluating an aircraft.
> 
> By Dec 1942 they had built 6883 P-40s compared to 2871 P-39s (an only 1900 F4Fs) of course there were more stories about the P-40, it was doing more of the work in the first year to two years of the war simply due to numbers available.
> 
> ...




Good points...Russia got the bulk of the P39s and did excellent in that combat arena.
Just too short legged for Pacific and European theaters.
The P39 and P40 performance changed dramatically dumping Civilian Boost levels.
Where they both fought gave a good accounting. 

However the P47 used twice the amount of fuel to go same distance.
Looking at the European Map showing range of each plane.
Spit and P47 showed same range arch into Europe and the Mustang a lot farther.
Including Two range arch’s using two sized fuel tanks for each plane.
Plus the P47 needed a very long runway to get off the ground loaded.
Full up P40 had a better fuel economy and used unimproved fields.
You use a larger fuel tank going to go a bit farther.
The P40 E was just a more nimble low altitude fighter.

As for running out of fuel...and gliding back...that was a Spitfire feature...!


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But I can meet you half way. For example you can look at the well documented careers of some of the top P-39 Aces, whose successes are often given an eye roll because "Commies!" or "Slavs!" or some such. Alexander Pokryshkin was, I believe (I could be wrong if so correct me) the top scoring Soviet P-39 Ace (and therefore the top scoring P-39 ace period) with 54 or 59 victories depending on whose count you believe, of which ~45 were with the Airacobra. Many of his victory claims have been carefully examined. Among other things he seems to have shot down and killed numerous _experte_ such as Uffz. Hans Ellendt, Lt HGelmut Haberda and others.



Individual aces (and eksperten) were at times quite accurate, even over the course ot their career; so it is indeed quite plausible that Pokryshkin's victory claims are reliable. I believe 
Rechkalov is credited with a few victories as the top scoring Airacobra ace.



Schweik said:


> In Black Cross / Red Star Volume 2, Bergstrom notes that the Soviets claimed 3,012 German aircraft shot down in aerial combat in the first half of 1942. Actual German losses are listed there as 1046 in the air and another 124 on the ground. It is from this figure that I get the early Soviet claim rate as roughly 3-1 overall. This is on page 210. While it's true 3-1 is a fairly high rate, it is not the astronomical level that seems to so often be assumed. Even, for example if we assumed some of the Soviet P-39 units actually overclaimed at that rate most of them would still have had positive kill / loss ratios. But my contention is indeed that the Soviet overclaiming rate improved substantially in 1943 due to changes in policy, and then again 1944 largely due to gun cameras.



It's been a while since I read BC/RS vol. 2 and I can't remember the details; but I agree that a 3-1 overclaiming rate is not astromical, more like the average imo. 



Schweik said:


> It's worth noting here that as 'losses', Bergstrom only counts aircraft listed as destroyed, MIA, or with at least 60% damage. That is a very tight net, I personally would count any aircraft that made a forced landing caused by gun damage as a victory since it went down due to enemy action. But for sake of argument I am willing to use his numbers. If a fighter crash-lands due to a single bullet in the radiator and is two days later given a new propeller and the radiator is patched and refilled and it's put back into action, it may not mean a major setback for the enemy but from the point of view of the pilot making the claim that he (or in the Soviet case sometimes she) shot down an enemy aircraft, he (or she) is basically correct. That plane was no longer able to bomb troops or attack friendly bombers on that particular mission as the result of being hit. Attrition is a separate (though still of course relevant) issue from victories / losses.



In the Lw 60% and above were write offs, increasing level of % damage was an evaluation of how many parts could be salvaged. Less than 60% was regarded as recoverable, whether that in reality was always feasible would of cause very much depend on the current war situation. A pilot that shoots up an enemy plane and sees it crashland in enemy territory is right to claim a victory; he can't be expected to judge whether it's repairable or not. But what about those damaged aircraft that make it back to base, not observed to crash- or forceland by the claiming pilot and deemed repairable? It's a grey area when it comes to verification of victories, but imo including damaged but repairable planes muddies the waters.

Anyway, I prefer overall claims/ losses to those of individual pilots or specific battles as there is often too much variation in those figures. When it comes to strict verification procedures, the Luftwaffe also had them in place; yet still managed some 'astronomical' overclaiming on numerous occasions.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I just checked volume 3 of Black Cross Red Star which covers the chaotic battle of Stalingrad, and the Soviet overclaim rate (for the second half of 1942) actually went up a little to 4.5-1, the German rate also rose slightly from 1.5-1 to roughly 2-1. I have Vol IV but currently not in my grasp, will post when I get my hands on it.



I read Bergström's Battle of Kursk and iirc he included a table showing the Soviets claiming 870+ against Luftwaffe losses of 97 during first 3-4 days of the battle; 9-1 overclaiming in mid '43. Whether those claims were 'confirmed' or not, I don't know and it is only a 'snapshot' and not to be taken as a general estimate of the rate of overclaiming. Does illustrate how much variation there is in the subject, though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> If you look at their various military industries, they tried to progress multiple competing designs in just about EVERYTHING. It seems like they had design staff to spare in almost every imaginable field.... except Aero engines.



This is both not quite true and yet true.

There were 3-4 different _major_ engine design bureaus in Russia. Each was trying to manage multiple programs at the same time. The Bureau that handled the Ash-82 engine for instance was also working an an 18 cylinder engine but was not successful until after the war with the engine that powered the TU-4. It was about the only thing not directly copied from the B-29 and yet, since the Soviets had licenced the R-1820 in the 1930s and developed through a number of models and then tried to make 3 different two row versions before the engine in the TU-4 (4th design) there is not a whole lot of superficial difference between the R-3350 and the russian engine/s. 

Few, if any, other countries had more than 3 major companies designing aircraft engines, The US had 3, England had 3 (if you can count Napier) and the Germans had 3. 

The big problem the soviets had was not enough engineers and draftsmen as opposed to "idea" men. The Russians are just as inventive as anybody else, but you need the lower levels of engineers, draftsmen and skilled prototype makers to turn the "ideas" in reality. You also need the supporting industry/infrastructure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 3, 2019)

Thanks Shortround6,

I actually knew there were a bunch of different engine projects going though I didn't go back to find the detail. This was really intended more as a bit of humor as was letting the Germans sort out the design variations.

As I see it, the Soviets showed an incredible amount of flexibility in adjusting their production lines WITHOUT loss of quantity production.
Note that with the IL-2 and an additional crew member added, they managed to address the CoG shift pretty easily with new outer wing panels.
This is why I have suggested several times that the outer wing panels of the Airacobra should have been redesigned but perhaps not quite as radically as in the P-39E.
With the Yak fighters, Wings get adjusted in location and size, Oil coolers get moved around, cockpits get moved around as needed to suit whatever particular project is going on. The basically sound Yak-1 design evolved into so many different lines that it is amazing to see.
You need a bomber? How about we put a bomb bay behind the cockpit of a heavy Yak fighter?

One has to wonder what might have happened if the Soviets had been manufacturing the Airacobra themselves? How quickly could they have addressed its shortcomings for CoG and lack of fuel (if they had needed extra fuel)? If they had the auxiliary supercharger, a stretch of the fuselage would gotten them the extra room needed.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> As for running out of fuel...and gliding back...that was a Spitfire feature...!



Hello Dan Fahey,

I seem to remember that was a "Saburo Sakai flying the A6M" feature.
He decided to fly until he ran the tanks dry and glide in for a landing just to see what the actual endurance was.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This is both not quite true and yet true.
> 
> There were 3-4 different _major_ engine design bureaus in Russia. Each was trying to manage multiple programs at the same time. The Bureau that handled the Ash-82 engine for instance was also working an an 18 cylinder engine but was not successful until after the war with the engine that powered the TU-4. It was about the only thing not directly copied from the B-29 and yet, since the Soviets had licenced the R-1820 in the 1930s and developed through a number of models and then tried to make 3 different two row versions before the engine in the TU-4 (4th design) there is not a whole lot of superficial difference between the R-3350 and the russian engine/s.
> 
> ...




Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.

That said, I don't think the Soviets were slacking on engine development, I just think they could have, if they'd _really_ felt the need, put more into engine development vs. manufacture _or design_ of fighters, or bombers, or trucks or tanks or small arms or submarines or whatever. I don't think they felt the deficiencies of the Klimov etc. engines as sorely as it may appear they should have to some.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Thanks Shortround6,
> 
> I actually knew there were a bunch of different engine projects going though I didn't go back to find the detail. This was really intended more as a bit of humor as was letting the Germans sort out the design variations.
> 
> ...



This was both a strength and a weakness of their system. Many factories made their own modifications to the same type of aircraft to the point that defied standardization, quite often whole assemblies (like landing gear) were basically customized or one-offs and didn't always even use interchangable parts. The challenge to mechanics must have been enormous, and they were under immense pressure / threat from their bosses to keep planes flying. Still better than being in the infantry probably.

On the other hand as you say the direct link between factories and front line units allowed them to rapidly make changes and minor improvements that make a big difference on the front line. An interesting contrast to the American system which was sometimes a lot more slow to react (see P-38, Mk 14 torpedo etc.)


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 3, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Dan Fahey,
> 
> I seem to remember that was a "Saburo Sakai flying the A6M" feature.
> He decided to fly until he ran the tanks dry and glide in for a landing just to see what the actual endurance was.
> ...


But the Zero was light enough to glide..!
I can see that a good pilot would try stuff like that !


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.
> 
> That said, I don't think the Soviets were slacking on engine development, I just think they could have, if they'd _really_ felt the need, put more into engine development vs. manufacture _or design_ of fighters, or bombers, or trucks or tanks or small arms or submarines or whatever. I don't think they felt the deficiencies of the Klimov etc. engines as sorely as it may appear they should have to some.




Germans could have put a world of hurt on the Russians with Long range fighters and bombers.
Russia would just have moved them further out or under ground.
But then again you would have to ship them.

But then again when you shoot your Engineers because you did not like them.
That caused a bit of anxiety being innovative.

Also having 87 octane and maybe 100 octane as a main fuel supply kind of limited power.


Do have a question...about Fuel in the CBI Theater...
The Brits and USA main focus was to protect Burma Oil and Processing Facilities.
What Octane Fuels did the allies have access to?
Suspecting the British 100/130 octane was used and not the USA 100 Octane.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

The Germans did cause *a lot *of mayhem with "long-range" bombers early in the war. They destroyed several important factories, a lot of communications infrastructure (rail, bridges). The Germans could send Ju 88, Do 217, and He 111 bombers on their own to do raids and cause serious trouble in the first year or two of the war. Due to altitude and / or speed, combined with the general chaos of Soviet air defenses they could often evade Soviet fighters. A lot of the early-war Soviet fighters (I-153, I-16, LaGG-3) were hard pressed to catch a bomber flying at say 20,000 ft and 250+ mph. Even the high altitude MiG-3's didn't seem to do very much.

The Soviets scrambled for quite a while to contend with this threat. Eventually (again around the tipping point of 1942-43) and somewhat inconsistently Soviet factories were now further from the front line and harder to get at, and defenses stiffened up, partly with better fighters on the front line (Yak-9 and La 5) which could more easily catch pretty much any German bomber crossing the front lines, partly due the use of more P-40s and later Spitfire Mk IXs for PVO (air defense units), and some Pe-3 and other planes as night-fighters, and partly from radar, and very heavy AAA concentrations like seen at the port facilities of Leningrad which was one of the few Soviet positions the Germans never could crack with their bombing raids.

As the deep side of the Blitzkrieg operation, the Strategic raids worked in the first part of the war. You can similarly see the German attacks on the airplane industry during the BoB.

However in the long term, once the enemy has adapted, I think the effects of strategic bombing decline and the costs increase. One good example is how the British air defense network rapidly adapted and became so efficient by the end of the BoB. Another good example is Korea. Plastered by B-29 raids to even more of an extent than Japan had faced in WW2, North Korea did indeed put their production underground. Their defenses (AAA and interceptor) improved dramatically and losses of heavy bombers went up. It wasn't until Vietnam that the SAM became a serious threat although the basic technology was known in WW2 (and used a little bit by the Germans I think but they never got them operational) SA-2s made B-52 raids quite dangerous.

In WW2 it is debated of course, Speer explained how he distributed production and the Germans were still cranking out a lot of kit almost to the end, but some things like oil couldn't be subdivided into caves and so on.


As for the fuel quality used by Allied planes, my understanding is that they usually did send the good British fuel after a certain date. What fuel the Russians used for Anglo-American lend-lease fighters in particular seems to be a hotly debated topic, some Russian sources I read said they had British fuel, others said they used their own. I'm not sure an Allison would even run on 70 octane fuel but I don't really know, Shortround6 probably does.

Apparently the good fuel did make it to India and Australia, and eventually into the Med, beyond that I am not sure.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.


Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Looking for a bit more data on MiG-3 I found this, maybe they did ok in PVO

_"From Moscow to Leningrad, Sevastopol to Karelia, MiG-3s were used all across the Eastern Front in the summer and fall of 1941. MiG-3s were rolling off Zavod No. 1’s assembly line at an increasing pace, and pilots were being trained specifically to fly the high-speed fighter. In the skies over Moscow, MiG-3s played a crucial role in defending the former capital from German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. From the start of the war, the PVO’s 6th IAK, equipped with MiG-3s and other fighters, were tasked solely with air defense of the Soviet capital. With its rate of climb and good performance at high altitudes, the MiG-3 was considered to be the best fighter for the task, though Luftwaffe reconnaissance crews would come to learn that Soviet interceptors, including the MiGs, could not reach higher altitudes. Consequently, experienced German crews would simply fly their reconnaissance missions above 8,000 meters, beyond the range of the PVO’s interceptors. MiG-3s were similarly used during the defense of Leningrad in the north, where the fighters were tasked with intercepting German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The 7th IAK, which was comprised of Polikarpov I-153s and I-16s in addition to the MiG-3s, was heralded for repeatedly preventing the penetration of German Ju-88s into Soviet airspace in the summer of 1941. _ "

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.
> Cheers,
> Wes



From what I gather, the British designs were ultimately adopted, but G.E. for example was still trying to make it's own designs through the war, which is the point / context

GE Aviation - Wikipedia

As to whether Packard counts, it's true they adapted Rolls Royce engines but weren't they doing their own engine research and variants of the engine (for example with marine engines)? Maybe it's a stretch. 

Does modifying someone else's design rule you out? 

I think the Soviet and French and maybe some British inline engines were originally based on older Hispano Suiza designs for example...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> But the Zero was light enough to glide


ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

You are correct that F16s have made deadstick landings, and I believe the number to be well above two. Watched the video of a night dead stick into an unlit airfield under combat conditions (carrying live ordinance) using the Lantern Pod for night vision. 

If only those Viper guys would have done just a touch better at Pilot Training then they to could have got a fighter with two engines instead of one...

😉

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As to whether Packard counts, it's true they adapted Rolls Royce engines but weren't they doing their own engine research and variants of the engine (for example with marine engines)? Maybe it's a stretch.


Packard had their own indigenous V12 design for marine use, to which they adapted some Merlin technology, making the PT boats into fast movers. And they had fooled around with V12 aero engines and superchargers in the 20s and early 30s, working on a follow-on to the Liberty engine of WWI. But AFAIK, they never produced an in-house designed V12 aero engine after that.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> If only those Viper guys would have done just a touch better at Pilot Training then they to could have got a fighter with two engines instead of one..


IF they happened to graduate UPT when Eagle pipeline inputs were happening!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Interesting article on Soviet evaluation of the P-51

The Soviet Union’s US-built Mustang Mk. I fighters

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 3, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I am not saying it was ineffective, I am saying that it's record may not be quite as spectacular as it's purported to be, as a consequence of overclaiming.......if you have aspirins would you mind PM'ing me one?


I think that's a fair statement. Certainly not unreasonable


XBe02Drvr said:


> ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Once read a pilot discribe the glide characteristics of a Phantom as that of an anvil. He may have been using a bit of hyperbole.............but maybe not too much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Once read a pilot discribe the glide characteristics of a Phantom as that of an anvil. He may have been using a bit of hyperbole.............but maybe not too much.


The Phantom's Martin-Baker seats, which were zero-zero rated and would preserve your posterior if you punched out sitting on the flight line, wouldn't save you if you did it in a steady state dead stick glide below 3000 feet. The sink rate would put you outside the seat's envelope and you wouldn't get enough separation to avoid the aircraft's point of impact.
There's a reason for the notation on the NATOPS departure from controlled flight recovery diagram:
"IF CONTROLLED FLIGHT NOT ACHIEVED DESCENDING THROUGH 10,000 FEET *EJECT.*
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This isn't the one I was looking for but Axis Order of Battle in June 1943 (just before the invasion of Sicily) included. This is from MAW IV pages 158-159.
> 
> *Germans*
> Bf 109 - 165 (mostly G-2 and G-4 with some F-4)
> ...



Ok deeply wounded by the accusation I was cherry picking, and in the undoubtedly forlorn hope of putting a particular myth to rest, I went through MAW II and MAW III page by page (due to the miserable insufficiency of the index in both brick-like books) and found two more, though still not the one I was looking for from mid 1942. I did book end that year though with the following Axis Orders of Battle:

*Feb 1942 Axis Fighters*
The following is actual on-hand strength

*Italian *(This is from Shores MAW II pp. 32-33

1° Stormo - MC.202 (38)
3° Grupo Autonomo CT - CR.42 (26)
12° Gruppo Autonomo CT - G.50 (36)
150° Gruppo Augonomo CT -MC.200 (25)
160° Gruppo Autonomo CT - CR.42 (35)
8° Gruppo Autonomo CT MC.200 (20)

So 38 modern fighters, 81 second-string, and 61 biplanes which I think were already relegated to fighter-bomber duties by then (having been bested by the Hurricanes), 180 fighters total plus about 150 bombers of which only the ~ 25 x operational SM 79 torpedo bombers and ~ 10 CANT 506 seaplanes were operational.

J.G.27 and a Bf 110 group and some German bombers were also operational at this time and very active but he doesn't give their numbers for February here.

*Nov 1942 *eve of Torch landings (from MAW Vol III pp. 41-45)

*German*
Again no numbers here but the following units / types are listed:

II./JG 51 - Bf 109G-2
Stab JG 53 - Bf 109G-2
II./JG 53 - Bf 109G-4
II./ZG 1 - Me 210A1-
II./JG 2 - Fw 190A-3
I./JG 53 -Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 2 -Fw 190A-5
II./JG 27 - BF 109F-4/G-2
Stab JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
I./JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 26 - Bf 110F-2/Ju 88C-6
I./SchG 2 - Bf 109F-4
4.(H)/12 - Bf 109F-4

This is seven squadrons so roughly 80-100 fighters not counting command units, consisting of half of two Jagdeschwader (roughly, fighter wings) of front line Bf 109 fighters: JG. 77 which was moving into the region, and JG 53 (two squadrons), plus squadrons from three more wings: JG. 27 (elite but being phased out due to casualties / battle weariness), JG 2 (elite Fw 190 wing), _and_ JG 51 (elite Bf 109), plus heavy fighters, Fw 190 Jabos (ZG II) some other miscellaneous Bf 109 units (I'm not sure what 4.(H)/12 means).

*Italian*
In Sicily and Southern Mediterranean Islands:
51° Stormo CT - MC 202 (23)
377° Squadriglia Autonoma Int -mixed Cr 42 (8) / MC 200 (2) / MC 202 (1)
22° Gruppo Aut CT - Re - 2001 (21)
17° Gruppo Aut CT - MC. 202 (33)
153° Gruppo CT - MC 202 (21)
20° Gruppo CT - MC 202 (11)
24° Gruppo Autonomo CT - mixed G.50bis (26) / Cr 42 (25) / MC 202 (2)

In North Africa specifically:
4° Stormo CT MC.202 (28)
3° Stormo CT MC.202 (20)
2° Stormo CT MC.200 / 202 (18)
15° Stormo Assalto - Cr.42 (17)
50° Stormo Assalto - CR.42 (11)
5° Stormo Truffatori - CR 42 (11)

So that is:
Med Islands: 91 MC. 202, 21 Re 2001, 2 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 33 CR.42, for a total of 112 modern, 28 second string, and 33 biplanes.
North Africa: ~ 55 MC.202, ~ 10 MC.200, 39 CR.42

Total in the operational area is: 146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 72 CR.42 which again were used for bombers.

For example I broke down the whole operational history of Oct 1942 and in that month the CR.42s were only operational on one day, as part of one bombing massive raid, losing 6 planes.

If you look through the books for 1942 or 1943 (up to the Italian surrender) you'll notice the vast majority of Italian claims and losses are of MC.202


So to go back to my original comment debunking the claim about Axis opposition in the Med, in early 1942 there may be some truth to that, certainly by the end of 1942 (when the US units were just ramping up with Torch) there was a formidable array of front line German fighters (Fw 190, Bf 109G-4, G-2 and F-4) and 146 MC.202 available, with relatively few of the older planes available (and even fewer in actual sorties)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I believe the Lockheed J37 was started prior to the arrival of the British technology, but was essentially a DOA program.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> I believe the Lockheed J37 was started prior to the arrival of the British technology, but was essentially a DOA program.


Did it fly? Did it fight? DQ.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Did it fly? Did it fight? DQ.


Nope, like a myriad number of other engines, protracted development, and lack of a patron killed it. But according to Kay design work started in 1938.
And there was also the Westinghouse 19A, with the official US Navy kickoff on 7 Jan, 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2019)

On the subject of Russian/Soviet engines.

according to WIki the M/KV-105 went through at least 4 models.
the M-105 of 1939 at 1100hp
the M-105P of 1940, first mass produced version of 1050hp (?)
the M-105PA of 1941 at 1200hp
the M-105PF of 1942 at 1260hp
the M-105PF-2 of 1944 (?) at 1300-1360hp (?) used in the Yak-3

adjust as you see fit, however

the M-106 engine which was started in 1938/39 was supposed to be a 1250/1350hp engine at some point in it's development. and was in small scale production in 1942. It's failure in 1940/41 forced the continued use of the M-105 series.

The M-107 likewise overlaps the M-105 with work starting in 1939 and 2000 engines scheduled for production in 1941. At this point in time it was a 1300/1400hp engine and one can see how, had it worked, the Soviet Lagg and Yak fighters would have been much more capable aircraft. _BUT_ failures of connecting rods, pistons and crankcases kept it out of service (in any numbers) even though 686 engines were built in 1941/42.

The Soviets were NOT building planes that were just good enough on purpose. They were building lightly armed planes with short lived engines because they didn't have much choice.
The Planned better engines were not working and their alternative was to over boost the existing engine, accept the shorter engine life and restrict armament (weight) to keep up performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2019)

For the Americans you had 3 companies designing major aircraft piston engines, Packard pretty much built Merlin's under licence. 

Packard's chief aircraft engine designer had died in 1931 (?) in an an aircraft crash. The PT boat engine was derived from the larger of the old V-12 aircraft engines (and was of 2500 cu in ).


The US did have slew of other engine makers/designers but lets face it. Air Cooled Motors (Franklin), Continental, Jacobs, Lycoming, Kinner, Fairchild (Ranger), and a few others never developed an engine that saw use in a 1st line combat aircraft. Designing 50-350hp engines that ran on low grade fuel was hard to transition to over 1000hp engines running on 100 octane and up. 
Many other countries also had engine makers that built light engines. England had De Havilland and Blackburn making inline fours and sixes for instance. 

But for piston engines that counted in combat aircraft the numbers of design teams were pretty much as given.

Some of the light engine makers did get development contracts for Jet engines as most of the big companies were stretched to the max working on piston engines. 
For the US some weird notion of secrecy prevented Jet engines being developed at major engine companies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Well I'm certainly not suggesting that if they could have doubled horsepower in 1942 they wouldn't have done so. What I am saying is the following:

Every nation decided how much money to allocate in their defense budget
Some went to R&D, some to production, some training, some to logistics
Of course the Soviets were working on better aircraft designs, better engines, things like rockets and so on.
But I suspect the Soviets probably put a bit more emphasis on production than on R&D, across the board.
They did support and push the design efforts, but by the time their factories were working, they got what they needed and didn't ramp it up to another level. This is what I mean by 'just enough'.
If you are arguing that they were at the absolute maximum investment they could have made in engine development in terms of money, logistical resources, people, infrastructure, political cover and so on, then I think you are mistaken.

In the US, the UK, Japan and Germany R&D was partly private and partly corporate, but my understanding is that even Soviet design bureaus also had some leeway to develop projects (of course, you could end up in the Gulag if it didn't go well...)

The Soviets came up with surprising innovations (even if they were often hacks of foreign designs) during the war, the katyusha rocket, the PPsh submachine gun, the T-34.

With aircraft the improvement was more gradual, but it was pretty steady after the great factory move of 1941/42. By 1944, with the arrival of the Yak-3, I think they had the best low altitude fighter of the war, I think a low altitude fighter was definitely a thing, and I believe there was no other fighter which would have been as good on the Russian Front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For the Americans you had 3 companies designing major aircraft piston engines, Packard pretty much built Merlin's under licence.
> 
> Packard's chief aircraft engine designer had died in 1931 (?) in an an aircraft crash. The PT boat engine was derived from the larger of the old V-12 aircraft engines (and was of 2500 cu in ).
> 
> ...




The Soviet Klimov M-100 series was itself derived from the famous and highly influential Hispano-Suiza 12Y, around which the whole Klimov "Design Bureau" was organized, though admittedly they took them farther than Packard did the RR Merlin. Later postwar the whole company was built around making Soviet derivations of the Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent turbojets...

For a company (mostly) in a neutral country and not directly involved in the war effort, Hispano-Suiza was for sure one of the more important firms in terms of original designs for WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That said, I don't think the Soviets were slacking on engine development, I just think they could have, if they'd _really_ felt the need, put more into engine development vs. manufacture _or design_ of fighters, or bombers, or trucks or tanks or small arms or submarines or whatever. I don't think they felt the deficiencies of the Klimov etc. engines as sorely as it may appear they should have to some.



You might want to come up with a theory that covers all the attempts to replace the Klimov engines then.

Lagg-3 to La-5 for example. The Lagg-3 underperformed with the M-105 engine and was due to be dropped from production until the more powerful radial was installed. 

Or how about the fact that the Yak-1s were _supposed _to be powered by the M-107 engine? Due to problems with the engine it didn't power service Yaks until the Yak-9U 

From Wiki: 
"Yak-9U (VK-107)
The definitive Yak-9 variant, Yak-9U (VK-105) equipped with the new Klimov VK-107A engine with 1,230 kW (1,650 hp), and the 20 mm ShVAK with 120 rounds replacing the VYa. Weight of fire: 2.72 kg (5.98 lb)/sec. Early test flights in 1943 indicated that the only comparable Soviet fighter was Polikarpov I-185 prototype which was more difficult to fly and less agile due to higher weight. The prototype's top speed of 700 km/h (435 mph) at 5,600 m (18,370 ft) was faster than any other production fighter aircraft in the world at the time, other than the P-51B that could reach up to 441 mph on military power.[15] Early problems with overheating were fixed by enlarging the radiators and production aircraft had further improved aerodynamics. Turning ability to complete a circle: 23 sec, best Soviet fighter at altitude."

Please note that postwar production of the VK-107 and the Yak 9U were stopped twice for several months each time as they tried to sort out the engine. 

Yak-7 with M-82 radial?

How about Yak 1s with the M-106 engine.?

In 1941 the engine was supposed deliver 1350hp for take-off and at 6500ft. 1250hp was supposed to be available at 13,000ft. It weighed the same as an M-105 engine. later a different supercharger (single speed) was fitted. 

When tested in Jan 1943 this aircraft achieved 342mph at sea level and 391moh at 11,200ft, climb to 16,400ft took 4.5 minutes. 
However (like many soviet aircraft) the provisions for cooling were insufficient. Despite problems with both cooling and the engine itself ( vibrations, detonations, smoking and poor oil seals) 47 Yak 1s with the M-106 engine had been built by Feb 18th 1943 (Production aircraft did lose some speed) but it seems they were not accepted (tested?) and some were repowered with M-105PF engines. 

A number of variant aircraft often had armament cut to a single 20mm gun in order to increase performance or ceiling. 

A number of different aircraft got the M-82 engine but in many cases it did not provide the increased performance the Lagg fighter showed. 

The Soviets were searching for more engine power, it was harder to come by than many thought.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For a company (mostly) in a neutral country and not directly involved in the war effort, Hispano-Suiza was for sure one of the more important firms in terms of original designs for WW2.



I am not sure how you figure that one. 
Yes there were Hispano factories in Spain (Neutral?) but there were also factories in France (and the gun factory in England) that Hispano had interests in. 

Once France surrendered Hispano's influence on designs of either engines or guns stopped for the duration of the war. Hispano had been heavily involved with France's war effort. 
The Hispano V-12 engine was slamming into a wall in 1940 and needed considerable modification to even stay remotely competitive.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well I'm certainly not suggesting that if they could have doubled horsepower in 1942 they wouldn't have done so. What I am saying is the following:
> 
> Every nation decided how much money to allocate in their defense budget
> Some went to R&D, some to production, some training, some to logistics
> ...



You keep missing the point. The Soviets *had* engines of several hundred more horsepower than the M-105 in development in 1938-1940. The aircraft designers were planning on using these engines. The Soviet planners *had* already ordered these engines into production before the Germans attacked. The production orders for the engines were premature and the engines were on no way ready for service use (even by Soviet standards). This meant that the production aircraft of that generation of Russian aircraft had to make do with the lower powered M-105 series engines. In order to maintain the desired performance (or at least close to it) something/s had to be sacrificed and one of the things sacrificed was armament.

The Lagg was designed to use a 23mm gun. When it failed in testing the two designers were sent to prison and later shot. The 20mm ShVAK cannon was the fall back cannon (it entered service in 1936). I don't what was_ intended_ for the Yak prototype but it flew with one 20mm gun and four 7.62 guns, the 2nd prototype took out two of the machine guns to correct a CG problem. The Soviets showed every indication of wanting to use more or bigger guns in the design stage (or in later variants) than the majority of their production fighters carried.
The NS-37mm gun in the Yak-9T weighed about 4 times as much as the 20mm ShVAK.
They were caught between what they needed and what they wanted or what they desired to counter any future German improvements. This was always a problem with accepting weapons that just good enough. 
The Russians were also constrained by manufacturing capability. Engineers were also a bit thin. Russian light tanks were pretty much a disaster but since they didn't have enough T-34s they built thousands of crappy light tanks just to make up numbers until the situation got better and they could get the factories to make something else (SU-76 SP guns).

The Soviets could be quite ruthless when it came to producing weapons and evaluating effectiveness but often this ruthlessness was because there was no "good" answer, but only a choice between bad and even worse. They often could not wait for the weapons/planes they wanted and had to settle for what they could make even knowing that due to performance shortfalls they are going to take large losses.

I am not trying to blame the Russians here,
The US was 'saved' by the Allison company finding new ways to make better and stronger parts for the Allison that allowed it to survive the extra power it could make using 100/130 fuel.
The US trying to rely on the US Army/Continental IV-1430 doesn't bear thinking about (even in 1943/44 it couldn't make the power claimed for it in 1941)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the subject of Russian/Soviet engines.
> For the US some weird notion of secrecy prevented Jet engines being developed at major engine companies.



The funny thing is Northrop/PWA were working turboprop concepts and Lockheed the L-1000 (XJ37) pre-war, I believe the Northrop engine was getting War Department funding. 
The PWA effort did eventually become the T34.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 3, 2019)

Stalin was a sycophant!
He would send civilians armed with rocks and pitchforks en-mass along with his armed military to push back the Germans.
Germans would throw everything at them until munitions ran out and had to fall back to get more.
The Russian people were starving anyway. What food was available went to the army. 
Not much different than the Japanese Kamikaze field and air units to push back the Allies. 

Desperate people do desperate things..


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

I don't really disagree with that a whole lot Dan but the word "sycophant" means something different than you appear to think it does.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 3, 2019)

I think he meant psychopath.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You keep missing the point. The Soviets *had* engines of several hundred more horsepower than the M-105 in development in 1938-1940. The aircraft designers were planning on using these engines. The Soviet planners *had* already ordered these engines into production before the Germans attacked. The production orders for the engines were premature and the engines were on no way ready for service use (even by Soviet standards). This meant that the production aircraft of that generation of Russian aircraft had to make do with the lower powered M-105 series engines. In order to maintain the desired performance (or at least close to it) something/s had to be sacrificed and one of the things sacrificed was armament.
> 
> The Lagg was designed to use a 23mm gun. When it failed in testing the two designers were sent to prison and later shot. The 20mm ShVAK cannon was the fall back cannon (it entered service in 1936). I don't what was_ intended_ for the Yak prototype but it flew with one 20mm gun and four 7.62 guns, the 2nd prototype took out two of the machine guns to correct a CG problem. The Soviets showed every indication of wanting to use more or bigger guns in the design stage (or in later variants) than the majority of their production fighters carried.
> The NS-37mm gun in the Yak-9T weighed about 4 times as much as the 20mm ShVAK.
> ...



The story of aircraft designs all over the world is one of new engines not panning out. Every country (even England) had promising aircraft designs which never went anywhere because engines didn't pan out. Every country had promising engine designs they struggled with. Allison ultimately made 'adequate' engines for American needs, and they were probably better overall than most of the M-105 series, but they were hardly spectacular compared to say a Rolls Royce Merlin or DB.601 and they didn't produce spectacular power let alone high altitude performance (unless you connected them to a G.E. turbo).

We've talked about this before, the UK and Germany were way ahead of everyone else (and very lucky for it) in in-line engine development. Radials seemed to be a bit easier to make into performers (in part by doubling the number of cylinders with a second row) and both the US and the USSR had quite powerful ones by the mid-war. So did the Japanese.

Everything you posted above is quite familiar to me, I have read all those Wikis you've been quoting from and a few books too. The bottom line is the Soviets could have put more into aircraft (and engine) design and development: more people, more buildings, more materials, more money. I don't think they had literally every resource that could be stuffed into that task up there in Leningrad.

So if you can swallow that pill the next question is 'why'. Were they saying over shots of vodka "_Comrade Tupolev! Comrade Yakovlev! I feel great sadness in my heart because Thunderbolts are so much better than our planes. If only we had the Seversky Design Bureau to save us, we could fly through the high clouds! ура приятель!_"

Or did they decide what to do deliberately, with the same cold pragmatism with which they planned that masterful counterstoke, the cunning _maskirovka_ we know as _Operatsiya "Uran"_? Did they carefully hoard every barrel of fuel, every ingot of aluminum, every bushel of sorghum they could use to solve their existential problems? Did they read the combat report summaries every day, convene a meeting and decide how much to push for and support this, and how much that. How many rubles to spend opening the new T-34 factory in Karkhov? How much on rebuilding factory number 31 at Tblisi so we can start cranking out more LaGG-3? How many more to retool it for Yak-7 production? Do we send Gorbunov the ASh-82s he's asking for? How much will it cost to repair 5 railroad bridges so we can get this 9 tons of carrots to Leningrad to postpone total starvation another few days? (and so on).

I think if you go through the war year by year, month by month from 1942, the Soviets had fighters that could, as designed, contend with the German fighters of that particular moment on a relatively equal basis (at the altitude and in the conditions of the front). A properly made, well piloted Yak-1 could cope with a Bf 109E. A Yak-1B or Yak-7B could handle a Bf 109F. A Yak-9 or La 5 could deal with early G models and so on. The problem was getting A) enough units of the best fighter of the moment to the front line units in time or the next battle, B) get the production quality high enough that they are performing at or near spec (that was a big one), and C) get enough farm boys trained to be pilots with enough skill to get the most out of them, and enough talented veterans put in the right places to lead them.

For that matter you might want to look at radio manufacturing as almost as important as guns or superchargers. Because in the early war it wasn't just the Japanese who had to rely on hand signals. Getting to full transmitter / receiver rigs in each fighter took a while for the Soviet war machine. How much does a full radio set improve the combat effectiveness of that same squadron of Yak-1Bs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure how you figure that one.
> Yes there were Hispano factories in Spain (Neutral?) but there were also factories in France (and the gun factory in England) that Hispano had interests in.
> 
> Once France surrendered Hispano's influence on designs of either engines or guns stopped for the duration of the war. Hispano had been heavily involved with France's war effort.
> The Hispano V-12 engine was slamming into a wall in 1940 and needed considerable modification to even stay remotely competitive.



Hispano Suiza was based in Spain, in Catalonia. The chief engineer and designer who created the main gun in the Spitfire and the Hurricane (and a lot of other planes) was Swiss -hence the name but they were a Spanish company. They also had a branch in Paris and a branch in Argentina, but beyond that I think they mostly just sold their designs for things like inline engines and guns. And inline engines which worked with guns in the middle

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 4, 2019)

Looking at all the liquid cooled combat engines.
IMHO the Allision was the best platform. 
Had the better more efficient single speed single stage Supercharger. 
It was more rugged easier to rebuild and good stretch with better cranks.

The P40Q should have been built.
Even if it was only for the Bubble Canopy helping SA. 

A second Supercharger on the Allison would have opened up its flight envelop and still keep its low altitude performance.
Not using the P63 was also short sighted.
Would have been our best ground attack and fighter.
Able to fight its was out of the target area.

We didn’t shoot Engineers like Stalin did.
But had a way of shooting our own foot off.

Stalin was desperate and violent history of being attacked by China, Europe and Asia.
US was a bit player in WW2 in comparison...
Just not the same sense of urgency.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well I'm certainly not suggesting that if they could have doubled horsepower in 1942 they wouldn't have done so. What I am saying is the following:
> 
> Every nation decided how much money to allocate in their defense budget
> Some went to R&D, some to production, some training, some to logistics
> ...



Hello Schweik,

I believe you are underestimating the sheer amount of effort required to develop an aircraft engine.
Consider the case of the Packard Merlin. They STARTED with a proven design with proven performance which the Soviets did not have. They had all the drawings supplied to them by Rolls Royce and working examples of the Merlin XX and it still took them about a year to get things straight. Remember that this was before the days of computers, calculators and photocopying.



Schweik said:


> The story of aircraft designs all over the world is one of new engines not panning out. Every country (even England) had promising aircraft designs which never went anywhere because engines didn't pan out. Every country had promising engine designs they struggled with. Allison ultimately made 'adequate' engines for American needs, and they were probably better overall than most of the M-105 series, but they were hardly spectacular compared to say a Rolls Royce Merlin or DB.601 and they didn't produce spectacular power let alone high altitude performance (unless you connected them to a G.E. turbo).



I am very surprised you are saying this considering our recent discussion about the P-40K. The Allison had no trouble making the power and had excellent durability and flexibility. It just didn't have the supercharger for really good altitude performance. If you look at what these engines are capable of when run to their limits, you will find that the Allison in very high power applications seems to be superior in durability to the Merlin.



Schweik said:


> For that matter you might want to look at radio manufacturing as almost as important as guns or superchargers. Because in the early war it wasn't just the Japanese who had to rely on hand signals. Getting to full transmitter / receiver rigs in each fighter took a while for the Soviet war machine. How much does a full radio set improve the combat effectiveness of that same squadron of Yak-1Bs?



Whether airborne communications helps depends a lot on whether the pilots are trained to fight as a team. It also helps when someone beyond visual range has information which significantly affects the tactical situation.
Imagine a radio message coming in that says: "Stop chasing the Torpedo Planes! There is an incoming raid at high altitude that is 20 miles out."
How do you coordinate with your wingman or the rest of your squadron in the middle of a dogfight?



Schweik said:


> The Soviet Klimov M-100 series was itself derived from the famous and highly influential Hispano-Suiza 12Y, around which the whole Klimov "Design Bureau" was organized, though admittedly they took them farther than Packard did the RR Merlin.



You need to remember that Packard was not taking the Merlin as a baseline and manufacturing new models of engines. They were adapting existing engine designs and changes had to be shared and approved by Rolls Royce. THAT was the contract. They did make some adaptations but that was mostly in terms of measuring standards (Decimal versus Fractions of an inch). Packard wasn't even allowed to use SAE thread standards and had to stick with Whitworth threads and ended up having to make their own screws and bolts in house because they could not buy them on this side of the pond.



Dan Fahey said:


> The P40Q should have been built.
> Even if it was only for the Bubble Canopy helping SA.
> 
> A second Supercharger on the Allison would have opened up its flight envelop and still keep its low altitude performance.
> ...



Hello Dan Fahey,

The P-40Q was better than earlier P-40s but it still didn't have what was wanted and that was Speed.
It was still about 25-30 MPH slower than the P-51 that was already in production.

The P-63 didn't have a lot of range and still wasn't particularly fast by late war standards.
Is there any reason to believe that the P-63 was superior to a P-47 for ground attack?
What was its ability to carry ordnance?

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> I believe you are underestimating the sheer amount of effort required to develop an aircraft engine.
> Consider the case of the Packard Merlin. They STARTED with a proven design with proven performance which the Soviets did not have. They had all the drawings supplied to them by Rolls Royce and working examples of the Merlin XX and it still took them about a year to get things straight. Remember that this was before the days of computers, calculators and photocopying.
> ...


Very cool post and I agree with most of that but just to quibble a bit about the p40q, yes it was slower straight and level than the p51 but was still fast(well over 400) and had an astounding rate of climb over 4000 fpm although I can't remember exactly right now. To me, if I can give up 20 mph but gain an aditional 1000 to 1500 fpm climb that seems worthwhile.
Also it was, from what ive read at least, a fair amount more maneuverable.
I certainly wouldn't want to build p40Qs INSTEAD of p51s but they certainly had some advantages and as such would seem to have been a useful adition especially if we were going to continue continue building p40 right up until almost the end of 44 anyway.
Not to mention they were one beautiful airplane.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> I believe you are underestimating the sheer amount of effort required to develop an aircraft engine.
> Consider the case of the Packard Merlin. They STARTED with a proven design with proven performance which the Soviets did not have. They had all the drawings supplied to them by Rolls Royce and working examples of the Merlin XX and it still took them about a year to get things straight. Remember that this was before the days of computers, calculators and photocopying.
> ...



I've read widely differing opinions as to which was better in terms of reliability in the MTO, Merlin or Allison, but I don't think Allisons were perfect. For one thing the highest amount of horsepower they ever delivered in an actual deployed combat aircraft was roughly 1,600 hp in the V-1710-111/113 of the P-38, at 1,600 hp (WEP) using a turbo. Second best is probably the 1,550 / 1580 hp delivered by the P-40K at low altitude, again at WEP. That is good but not great. Most deployed engines were producing more like 1,200-1,300 hp at military power and ~ 1,400 for WEP. Yes they could be overboosted but that did not always correlate with a long engine life or great reliability.

And they didn't get there overnight because there was a long series of improvements and internal strengthening that had to be done to crankshafts, crank case and other components before that became safe to use. Later war experiments with Allison engined aircraft, particularly when flying at altitude, indicated possible quality control problems.

RR Merlins by contrast in addition to multi-speed and two stage superchargers got comfortably into the 1,700 hp range and were able to operate for long periods of time at high RPMs and boost (for example enabling the high speed cruise on Mosquitos). Merlin 130 and 133 got up to 2,000 hp.

Ultimately the supercharger is part of the whole engine package. Allison never developed good high altitude versions of their engines, except with the turbo and that ended up being extremely temperamental and fraught implementation, delaying the realization of the potential of the P-38 by probably at least a year. Ultimately for that reason especially I would judge it as adequate and not exceptional.



> Whether airborne communications helps depends a lot on whether the pilots are trained to fight as a team. It also helps when someone beyond visual range has information which significantly affects the tactical situation.
> Imagine a radio message coming in that says: "Stop chasing the Torpedo Planes! There is an incoming raid at high altitude that is 20 miles out."
> How do you coordinate with your wingman or the rest of your squadron in the middle of a dogfight?



This is one of the areas in which it really helps to read a little operational history. We were talking about the P-39 earlier, for the Soviets the radios in the P-39 (it had two although they sometimes removed one of the receivers) were it's number one asset. They built their fighting tactics (flying in echelon at two altitudes, and with wingmen) around the radios. Yes I can imagine that trying to grasp how a radio made a big difference could be difficult if you had no idea of operational details, but it most certainly did make an _enormous _difference. There is a good reason why the Americans, British, Germans and eventually Japanese put good radio sets in all their military aircraft. You yourself brought this up as a major problem for the Japanese (early on) which is why it's baffling that you seem to argue the opposite here.

I'm not an expert on this, but from what I understand most American fighters used SCR-274 or SCR-522 radios, often one transmitter / receiver in the HF band, and a second receiver only on the VF band, and sometimes also navigation and IFF sets. The American radios were preferred over the British ones in North Africa because they had four preset (programmable) channels that you could change with a button like in the old AM radios in cars back in the day, vs. a knob that you had to tune in. For fighter units, one channel on the transmitter / receiver was tuned to a squadron band, that way you didn't hear chatter from miles away on the coast. Another channel might be base, another might be tuned to communicate with other friendly units. The second (receiver only) radio would be for communication from the squadron leader or from base / ground controllers (the Soviets made heavy use of ground controllers). Once you were tuned into the right channel it was easy to use the radio in combat, the P-39 had a transmit button on the throttle handle and a mute / talk switch on the O2 mask.

From what I have read the number one message you would need to hear in the middle of a dogfight would be "break!" for the whole squadron, or "Number 51, Break!!!" for a specific aircraft, which definitely saved many lives. Another example would be "ten miles north of Gamut heading toward base two 109s chasing" which could help a lot if you were in a bind outside of the chaotic melee. Use of the radio however was risky when facing the Germans as they had excellent countermeasures and could use radio chatter and signals to plan unpleasant surprises, so chatter was kept to a minimum especially before combat started. When many of the Australian veterans of the MTO moved to the Pacific they were amazed at the amount of free radio chatter. Apparently the Japanese didn't have as sophisticated of a system. But I wouldn't want you to naively and trustingly take my word for it. Read up on what the Soviets said themselves.



> You need to remember that Packard was not taking the Merlin as a baseline and manufacturing new models of engines. They were adapting existing engine designs and changes had to be shared and approved by Rolls Royce. THAT was the contract. They did make some adaptations but that was mostly in terms of measuring standards (Decimal versus Fractions of an inch). Packard wasn't even allowed to use SAE thread standards and had to stick with Whitworth threads and ended up having to make their own screws and bolts in house because they could not buy them on this side of the pond.



Actually you are overstating the case here a bit, Packard made a lot of changes for example changing the coatings of the bearings to use indium. It's true they didn't make their own variants of RR engines but as you note, just to produce good quality merlins required a pretty high state of organization, the only thing preventing them from making their own variants was the contract I believe.



> Hello Dan Fahey,
> 
> The P-40Q was better than earlier P-40s but it still didn't have what was wanted and that was Speed.
> It was still about 25-30 MPH slower than the P-51 that was already in production.
> .



The F6F was much slower than the P-51 but it certainly proved useful, wouldn't you say?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

I should add that the Japanese overcame the setback of their lack of radios initially through superb training and excellent discipline. As you are no doubt aware the Japanese pilots in the early war had a lot more flying hours and went through a far stricter training regime than Allied pilots. They were particularly well trained in group tactics and coordination with their flight leaders.

Later they received transmitters, and finally transmitter-recievers. This was the usual pattern. It also represented a shift from strict unit cohesion to a more semi-autonomous mindset.

There were also serious challenges to getting a radio to work reliably in an airplane beyond just the radio set itself. The antenna masts and wires could adversely affect speed and where they were placed could make a big difference on the range of the radio. Even after sufficient number were being manufactured, the Soviets faced serious problems with grounding their radios so that they could operate properly without interference.

And once the radios were working, specific tactics and discipline standards had to be worked out for their use. But this was done, and when it was in place, it did indeed make an enormous difference, warning colleagues about to be bounced, spotting enemy aircraft, coordinating with escorted 'friendlies' and ground units such as forward air controllers, and helping to achieve local numerical superiority (gang up on smaller units of enemy aircraft).

One thing that was often done for ground communication in the field was to take a radio out of one of the airplanes and put it in a tank or a car, so that they knew they were communicating on the same frequency etc. It was often quite dicey to get everything coordinated especially between friendly Allies from different nations (Anglo-American for example, and German-Italian or German-Romanian).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

This interview gets into some details about the Soviet use of the radio with P-40s. Some excerpts:
_
*"How good was the visibility from a Kittyhawk?*

Oh! It was great.

*And what about the radios?*

The radio was excellent. It was the main thing that saved us in combat.

*What were your main missions?*

We were assigned to PVO of Leningrad, 7th IAK PVO, and our main task was to repel bombers from Leningrad. But due to lack of forces, we were given tasks not well coordinated with PVO. We had to fly escorts for reconnaissance aircraft, forward air controllers, shturmoviks [ground-attack aircraft], and bombers. We had to strafe ground forces, although without bombs, and we had to fight for air superiority.

*Which planes flew as forward air controllers?*

Humpback—the Il-2.

*You escorted Ils from a different regiment?*

From a regiment stationed in Kasimovo. We were given an order to escort them very early in the morning, so we flew to Kasimovo in the evening and took off in the morning. There were six of us covering Ils during the strafing of Siverskaya airbase.

*Were you communicating with the Il pilots in flight?*

Our flight leader had a radio connection with the Il leader; the rest were connected only to each other."_

So you see here, this echoes what I was saying - only the flight leader has a radio that communicates with the other unit, the Sturmoviks, the rest of the squadron are on a band in which they only hear each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 4, 2019)

A thought on radios. After the basic necessities of a military aircraft( i.e. propeler, engine,guns,) you definitely need stuff like that, I can think of no other adition that dollar for dollar, pound for pound would be better at increasing the effectiveness on an aircraft than a radio.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> - Ivan.



So nothing on the Italian TO&E? Did I waste my time transcribing all that?


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So nothing on the Italian TO&E? Did I waste my time transcribing all that?


You didn't waste your time. I found it fascinating.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

A little bit more from that interview:

"_*Can you talk to us about radio discipline? Normally they write that radio discipline was bad—too much chatter over the radio.*_

_I would not say that. Of course, it happened, along with cursing. But they said only what was necessary: course such-and-such, altitude so-and-so. You responded with “Roger!” And you shut up. Then, sometimes you gave warnings: “Look, over there, Fokker,” or “Someone is coming at your back.”_

_*How did you converse? By call sign, by nickname, by last name?*_

_There was a call sign. Mine was “21.”_

_*By your aircraft number, or what?*_

_In accordance with the squadron number. Arkadiy Morozov was “20,” and I—the deputy—was “21.” More than that I don’t remember. But those were our call signs_."

and

"*Did the work on Lend-lease equipment influence the tactics and organization of the equipment’s combat employment?*

_The combat employment was just the same as for our own aircraft. Well, the radio equipment was better, and as I have already told you, the radio saved us. *The radio alone helped us to avoid many losses.* You could talk through it just the same as you and I are talking here now. And the Kittyhawk had excellent visibility. One had only to turn his neck."_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A little bit more from that interview:
> 
> "_*Can you talk to us about radio discipline? Normally they write that radio discipline was bad—too much chatter over the radio.*_
> 
> ...


Very interesting. Personally I enjoy reading pilots interviews and accouts more than probably anything else.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> I believe you are underestimating the sheer amount of effort required to develop an aircraft engine.
> Consider the case of the Packard Merlin. They STARTED with a proven design with proven performance which the Soviets did not have. They had all the drawings supplied to them by Rolls Royce and working examples of the Merlin XX and it still took them about a year to get things straight. Remember that this was before the days of computers, calculators and photocopying.
> ...



The P-40 was getting faster throughout its history.
You missed that I mentioned the Bubble Canopy would have been a big help..for SA - Situation Awareness

Still Curtis built them without the better engine which would have given it a wider improved flight profile.
Fact that the Mustang was faster is not relevant as most of that speed was at high altitude.
The new engine would have made the P-40 25-30 mph faster and climb better at all altitudes.
The P-40 was a better dog fighter at altitudes under 20 k where most of the fighting took place.
Interesting the Russians and Italians also fought at the lower altitudes where most of the targets were.

On the P-63 lots of information on French use in Africa and Vietnam. Look it up!
Had better range than the P47's, more nimble and used unimproved fields.
It was better than the F6F, F8F and the few Corsairs given to them.
The French used the left over Japanese planes like the Ki-43 and remaining bombers.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

I love them too, but I also really like the whole design angle and have wasted enjoyed many hours of reading wikipedia articles, profile specs and long winded, overly detailed production histories of various aircraft. For me it's probably about 50/50

For evaluating different aircraft, we have sources from:

high level overview from military bureaucracies (mostly 1950s),
from higher level military commanders (1940s - 50s),
the war-journalists (1940s-50s),
the more purely civilian journalists (1940s-60s),
biographies of the pilots (50s-60s),
postwar enthusiasts and fanboys (60s-70s),
squadron and fighter / bomber wing histories,
detailed logistical records and government test memos and so on,
systematic interviews with the pilots like those Russian ones and the ones Australian War Memorial has done, 
personal letters, flight / log books, and private journals from pilots,
Aggregation websites (wwiiaircraftperformance.org, pacific victory roll, ciel de gloire, Len-lease.ru and so on) which collect 8-10
New wave of comparative analysis books based on items 8-10.
Immediately postwar, most of our analysis came from 1-4 especially. These had a certain bias in terms of perception. Then in the 50's and 60's we started getting (5) some autobiographies and memoirs of Aces, especially a bunch of the German _experten_ (plus Saburo Sakai). Mostly the famous ones from the more famous Theaters of the war. All of the above (1-5) heavily influenced (6) the first wave of secondary literature by the enthusiasts of the 60s and 70s.

Much more recently we have been getting data originating from items 7-10 and I think that is changing our perception somewhat, as they challenge the earlier sources. But the new information emerging especially in the form of (11) and (12) is hard for a lot of people to digest even though it's probably a more realistic picture of the reality. But the picture is still emerging so it may be a bit early to start drawing new conclusions. At the very least though, it gives the opportunity to re-examine some of the older tropes, like the idea that the P-39 was only used by the Soviets for ground attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Oct 4, 2019)

On my list of "what ifs" is: what if, when Martin added the top turret to the B-26, instead of sticking it back by the tail, they had put it just behind the cockpit, or between the radio operator/navigator's position and the bomb bay? They would have needed to stretch the fuselage about four feet or so, but the center of gravity would have been moved forward. Without making any other changes, the extra length in the fuselage, plus the relocated CG would have made the plane more stable. (Of course, they still could have lengthened the wings and increased the size of the vertical stabilizer, as they did.) That might have saved a few lives, and it sure would have given that top gunner a wider field of fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

The B-26 seems a good candidate for a stretch...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 4, 2019)

B-26 already featured an overly heavy, big & long fuselage, as it was tailored for a 1200 sq ft wing and 4 engines, not a 600 sq ft wing and two engines. Making the fuselage even bigger and heavier would've made things even worse.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

Lengthening by a couple of feet didn't seem to add a lot of weight on fighters, so long as the space wasn't filled with fuel.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

I've always thought the B-26 was an interesting case. A lot of people like it but the service record is decidedly mixed. The early war Martin 167 "Maryland" and 187 "Baltimore", built solely for export (to the French I think originally) gave excellent performance, had good handling. Both managed close to 300 mph, the 167 was so maneuverable that it was sometimes used as a long range fighter. There was even an ace in the type who flew one out of Malta. Both had a pretty good range for the early war ("Maryland" 1,300 miles, "Baltimore" 980 miles).

They did carry relatively light 2,000 lb bomb loads and were fairly lightly armed (the Baltimore had 4 forward firing guns and up to 6 flexible defensive LMG, later versions got a pair of .50 cal guns in a power turret)

Both performed quite well in British service in the MTO, where the Maryland became an important recon type, and the Baltimore replaced the badly performing Blenheim as the main bomber of the DAF (along withe the A-20 / Boston / Havoc).



Both were relatively long and skinny, providing a smooth and clean profile to the resistant air.





Maryland










Baltimore

The far more well known model 179, known as the "Marauder" was also meant to be fast, but requirements for heavier armament and bomb load resulted in a rather portly aircraft with a large compliment of heavy machine guns for defense. But as we all know it ended up relatively slow and (particularly in it's first short-winged incarnation) difficult in terms of handling, with a high wing loading and a relatively poor power to mass ratio.

Top speed according to Janes in spite of powerful R-2800 engines just 287 mph and a ceiling of 21,000 ft.

It did carry a 4,000 lb load though. But to what use?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've read widely differing opinions as to which was better in terms of reliability in the MTO, Merlin or Allison, but I don't think Allisons were perfect. For one thing the highest amount of horsepower they ever delivered in an actual deployed combat aircraft was roughly 1,600 hp in the V-1710-111/113 of the P-38, at 1,600 hp (WEP) using a turbo. Second best is probably the 1,550 / 1580 hp delivered by the P-40K at low altitude, again at WEP. That is good but not great. Most deployed engines were producing more like 1,200-1,300 hp at military power and ~ 1,400 for WEP. Yes they could be overboosted but that did not always correlate with a long engine life or great reliability.



Hello Schweik,

My comment was not to suggest that the Allison or Merlin was superior. It was just an observation that under VERY high power, high RPM use (well beyond the levels used in WW2 aircraft) the Allison seems to hold up much better.



Schweik said:


> Ultimately the supercharger is part of the whole engine package. Allison never developed good high altitude versions of their engines, except with the turbo and that ended up being extremely temperamental and fraught implementation, delaying the realization of the potential of the P-38 by probably at least a year. Ultimately for that reason especially I would judge it as adequate and not exceptional.



When your customer is not willing to fund development of a better supercharger and already had a "solution" for high altitude operation, then does it make sense to spend corporate funds for no contract?



Schweik said:


> You yourself brought this up as a major problem for the Japanese (early on) which is why it's baffling that you seem to argue the opposite here.



We are actually both arguing for the requirement for a good radio installation in fighters.



Schweik said:


> Actually you are overstating the case here a bit, Packard made a lot of changes for example changing the coatings of the bearings to use indium. It's true they didn't make their own variants of RR engines but as you note, just to produce good quality merlins required a pretty high state of organization, the only thing preventing them from making their own variants was the contract I believe.



Actually I don't believe I overstated anything here. All changes had to be approved by Rolls Royce and shared with them. Some of the better ideas were adopted for RR production as well. Some such as Indium coatings were just differences that were accepted. I am sure that if one looks at details of the engines side by side, there will be other differences such as seals. Some people working on these engines have commented that the Packards and Rolls Royce engines are about equal in performance where there are equivalent versions but Packards tend to keep more of their oil on the inside.
Many sources have commented that when working on drawings, the dimensions and tolerances had to be tightened up by Packard so that they could guarantee parts interchangeability.



Schweik said:


> So nothing on the Italian TO&E? Did I waste my time transcribing all that?



Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.



Dan Fahey said:


> The P-40 was getting faster throughout its history.
> You missed that I mentioned the Bubble Canopy would have been a big help..for SA - Situation Awareness
> 
> Still Curtis built them without the better engine which would have given it a wider improved flight profile.
> ...



Hello Dan Fahey,

I had not missed your mention of the Bubble Canopy.
Just remember that although this was a "better" P-40, everyone else already had the Bubble Canopy for better SA.
Even WITH the improved Allison engine, the XP-40Q-2 was still only making 422 MPH which is 25 MPH below what a P-51D could do.
The client wanted SPEED and even this P-40 wasn't achieving it.



Dan Fahey said:


> On the P-63 lots of information on French use in Africa and Vietnam. Look it up!
> Had better range than the P47's, more nimble and used unimproved fields.
> It was better than the F6F, F8F and the few Corsairs given to them.
> The French used the left over Japanese planes like the Ki-43 and remaining bombers.



The US built a bunch of P-63. They just exported them all. Compared to what was already in the inventory, they were a bit short-ranged and slow for the time.
Considering that the French lost their colonies in both places you mentioned, that is hardly a recommendation for the quality of their equipment. Neither is using left over Ki-43 fighters.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Considering that the French lost their colonies in both places you mentioned, that is hardly a recommendation for the quality of their equipment.


Irrelevant argument. A stable full of the best aircraft in the world (Spits? Mustangs? Mosquitos? Skyraiders??) wouldn't have kept Indo-China and Algeria in the empire. Their problems ran far deeper than the quality of their air weapons.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
> The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.
> 
> - Ivan.



Par for the course I guess, never let facts get in the way of a good theory eh?

Ok despite the futility let’s summarize what I posted on this so far:

*Feb 1942 *
38 x MC.202, 81 x MC.200 and G.50, and 61 x CR 42 - fits your theory

*November 1942*
146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis and 72 CR 42 fighter bombers- doesn't fit your theory

*June 1943*
6 x Bf 109, 11 x MC 205, 10 x Re 2005, 32 x MC 202, 4 x MC 20, 4 x D.520, 17 x CR.42 - doesn't fit your theory either


In addition –

I finally found that post I had made long ago. It is here. It shows the match up right before El Alamein.

From Shores the theoretical Allied fighter strength was 336 fighters (128 Kittyhawks, 128 Hurricanes, 32 Hurricane IID, 75 Warhawks, and 48 Spitfires) by theoretical I mean it does not show on-hand aircraft like I've been showing for the Italians and for the Germans in that post. The hard core of this group are the 48 Spitfires, 75 P-40F/L, and 60 x RAF Kittyhawk II and III for 183.
Total Axis on-hand fighter strength ads up to 307 front line (Bf 109 and MC.202) fighters plus 150 Cr.42 fighter bombers, 12 Bf 109E Jabo and 46 Bf 110.
German actual fighter strength (via Shores for August 1942) was 92 x Bf 109F, 12 x Bf 109E, 46 x Bf 110

If you counted the CR 42s the Allies were actually outnumbered (457-336) though as I said due to fuel shortages and their vulnerability the biplanes rarely flew.

And then the Italian strength, which no wonder I couldn’t find it in Shores as it was derived from this website.

Here is what the website shows. Before the Battle of El Alamein in *October 1942:*

210 x Macchi 202 in 7 groups
150 CR 42 “Fighter Bombers” in 5 groups
1 group / 20-30 planes of Ju 87
1 group / 20 planes of Z 1007 bombers
2 groups / 40 planes of Sm.79
Then for *November 1942* it once again shows 147 fighters, 85 fighter bombers and 61 bombers in Libya specifically – which matches almost exactly the number of MC.202 I listed above from Shores for that same month; plus another 184 fighters in Sicily and 33 in Sardinia.

So rather the average of 30-80 MC.202 may be applicable for January or February of 1942, but their numbers steadily built up in 1942 and by mid year (when the Americans first started trickling in) I think it's actually more like 100 - 150, peaking around 200 before El Alamein. And while 150 aircraft may not sound like much, the Germans also had about 80-100 state of the art Bf 109s manned by elite JG 27, 51, 53, and 77 (77 replacing 27 after they were overwhelmed) later joined by Fw 190s, so you are talking about 250-300 top level Axis fighters facing about 300-350 Allied fighters, most of which were P-40s and Hurricanes. The Hurricanes almost totally relegated to fighter bomber duties.

As I already pointed out, the 325th FG claimed 95 Bf 109 and 26 MC 202 'confirmed' destroyed while flying P-40s, as you can see here, their only other Italian fighter was a single MC 200 damaged. That is 99.9% front-line aircraft. From Shores we know that about 10 of their victories in 1943 were actually MC 205. None were MC 200. I've posted those too somewhere.



So the *TL : DR *is that *the trope that the P-40 did well in North Africa only because they faced sub-par opposition is just that, a legend and not based on fact.*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Oct 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've always thought the B-26 was an interesting case. A lot of people like it but the service record is decidedly mixed.
> Baltimore
> 
> The far more well known model 179, known as the "Marauder" was also meant to be fast, but requirements for heavier armament and bomb load resulted in a rather portly aircraft with a large compliment of heavy machine guns for defense. But as we all know it ended up relatively slow and (particularly in it's first short-winged incarnation) difficult in terms of handling, with a high wing loading and a relatively poor power to mass ratio.
> ...



Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

ClayO said:


> Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.



Yeah, sometimes the fusion of government requirements with the corporate culture results in an odd looking duck. Military planners don't always see the world in the 'less is more' manner of an aeronautical engineer.

The Germans insistence on dive bomber capability for every bomber kind of fits there too. But I'm torn because I can understand why they wanted it. Level bombing was so ineffective in comparison.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 4, 2019)

and mission creep makes me think of (cough) F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The story of aircraft designs all over the world is one of new engines not panning out. Every country (even England) had promising aircraft designs which never went anywhere because engines didn't pan out. Every country had promising engine designs they struggled with. Allison ultimately made 'adequate' engines for American needs, and they were probably better overall than most of the M-105 series, but they were hardly spectacular compared to say a Rolls Royce Merlin or DB.601 and they didn't produce spectacular power let alone high altitude performance (unless you connected them to a G.E. turbo).



There is a difference (a large one in my opinion) in that while the Russians fitted a lower powered substitute engine into production/service fighters than they were designed for, the US and the British never did. Both countries had fighter prototypes powered by engines that either outright failed or had development problems but none of these fighters went into production with lower powered engines. 

P-38 went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?) 
P-39 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)P-39 did have the turbo removed.
P-40 went production with as good or better engines than the Prototype. (prototype used a C-19 engine and not the C-33)
P-47 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype
P-51 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype

All of these planes got higher powered engines later in life as did the Russian aircraft. 

F4F went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype, although a few got lower powered engines.
F4U went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (Prototype had an 1850hp engine)
F6F went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype.

I don't know of any British fighter that _went into production_ with a lower powered engine than the prototype or planned engine in design stage. 




Schweik said:


> I think if you go through the war year by year, month by month from 1942, the Soviets had fighters that could, as designed, contend with the German fighters of that particular moment on a relatively equal basis (at the altitude and in the conditions of the front). A properly made, well piloted Yak-1 could cope with a Bf 109E. A Yak-1B or Yak-7B could handle a Bf 109F. A Yak-9 or La 5 could deal with early G models and so on. The problem was getting A) enough units of the best fighter of the moment to the front line units in time or the next battle, B) get the production quality high enough that they are performing at or near spec (that was a big one), and C) get enough farm boys trained to be pilots with enough skill to get the most out of them, and enough talented veterans put in the right places to lead them.



Well, you own statement shows why the Soviet high command _wanted_ higher performing planes. They knew that conditions B and C were NOT going to be met and they needed to insure some measure of superiority in design in order to allow for shortfalls in production performance and the shortfall in skilled pilots. It is easier to keep your green pilots alive and have them become experienced pilots if they are flying planes with superior performance. 

What the Soviet high command wanted and what they got were not always the same thing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Hispano Suiza was based in Spain, in Catalonia. The chief engineer and designer who created the main gun in the Spitfire and the Hurricane (and a lot of other planes) was Swiss -hence the name but they were a Spanish company. They also had a branch in Paris and a branch in Argentina, but beyond that I think they mostly just sold their designs for things like inline engines and guns. And inline engines which worked with guns in the middle



The _Branch in Paris_ actually had at least four locations. It also, in aircraft engine production at least, was by the far the largest producer. Getting through H-S history is tough when you consider the car production, truck production, engines for rail cars and airframe construction in addition to the aircraft engine and cannon production. 

However the company did not have the resources of some of the big American and British companies. It also seems that the chief engineer and designer went on to new challenges/projects and didn't go back to the early ones often enough. Or was kept out by some of the manufacturing arrangements? 
two reasons for the lack of development in the V-12 engines (or perhaps the trouble in trying to develop the V-12 to stay competitive with the new engines) was that the bore spacing on the V-12s was the same as the 300hp V-8 engine of 1918. It meant you could produce the V-12s using some of the same production machinery but it also meant the bore was limited in size and resulted in the long stroke and high piston speed. They also used a thin crankshaft with no counterweights and no room for them to be added (without a lot of difficulty) which limited RPM. 
The ability to use a cannon down the middle was purchased at the cost of having the intake and exhaust both on the same side of the cylinder head which restricted port size and gas flow which affected power. It also limited the size of the supercharger that could be used unless a new supercharger drive (and/or location) could be designed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a difference (a large one in my opinion) in that while the Russians fitted a lower powered substitute engine into production/service fighters than they were designed for, the US and the British never did. Both countries had fighter prototypes powered by engines that either outright failed or had development problems but none of these fighters went into production with lower powered engines.
> 
> P-38 went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)
> P-39 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)P-39 did have the turbo removed.
> ...



Well you are concentrating on the success stories (for the most part). There were quite a few cancellations and long struggles with designs. P-38 is one of those due in part to the various problems with the engines and turbos. But there are others! Many others in fact, which went nowhere.






How about the Hawker Tornado, cancelled due to the failure of the Rolls Royce Vulture
Or the very promising Westland Whirlwind, delayed by problems with the Rolls Royce Peregrine and finally cancelled when they stopped making the RR Kestrel / Peregrine.
Dare I mention the Hawker Typhoon with the numerous problems with the Napier Sabre? Yes it delivered plenty of HP when it was working...
Or how about the doomed Curtiss P-60? Designed to use the Continental XIV-1430-3, then when that project failed a RR Merlin , then a turbocharged Allison V-1710-75, then a Chrysler XIV-2220 which is not a famous engine today because it did not work.
There was also the Lockheed XP-49 which was cancelled due to the failure of the Continental XIV.
The XP-55 Ascender was built around the Pratt and Whitney X-1800 engine and had to be redesigned due to delays with that project.
Or the ambitious and well named XP-58 Chain Lightning, originally meant to use the Continental IV-1430, which were not powerful enough so they switched to the Pratt and Whitney XH-2600, but that engine was cancelled so they switched to Wright R-2160 Tornadoes

And for every total failure there were also many partial successes. The P-36 was given numerous different radial engines none of which delivered enough power (or as much as they were supposed to) which is why they switched to the inline Allison for the P-40, and it didn't give enough power either.



> Well, you own statement shows why the Soviet high command _wanted_ higher performing planes. They knew that conditions B and C were NOT going to be met and they needed to insure some measure of superiority in design in order to allow for shortfalls in production performance and the shortfall in skilled pilots. It is easier to keep your green pilots alive and have them become experienced pilots if they are flying planes with superior performance.
> 
> What the Soviet high command wanted and what they got were not always the same thing.



Their biggest challenge with aircraft production was not so much the design, but quality control and the production process itself.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Par for the course I guess, never let facts get in the way of a good theory eh?
> 
> Ok despite the futility let’s summarize what I posted on this so far:
> 
> ...



Hello Schweik,

First of all, this isn't MY theory. It was something I lifted from an Italian book about the Macchi C.202.
You REALLY should read what you posted. Your data is actually in pretty good agreement.

My (actually from the book) comment was that in NORTH AFRICA, the monthly average was about 30-70 Folgore for *1942*. Your November 1942 statistic fits that just fine because of the units you listed only* 66 aircraft *by my count (really YOUR count) were actually in North Africa at the time.

As for June, 1943, I have some numbers for that also and they are actually a bit higher than yours though I don't remember ever putting those into the discussion.
As I said before, the main overlap from different sources that I was reading was 1942 so that is all I was trying to list.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

ClayO said:


> Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.



Hello ClayO,

The B-26 Marauder suffered from a LOT of problems. Most of them came from its basic design.
It was designed with a symmetrical airfoil which I had always wondered about. It seemed to be the style at the time but doesn't make sense for an aircraft that was not intended for sustained inverted flight.
A couple years back, I actually found an article by Peyton Magruder, the designer, that stated that the symmetrical airfoil was probably not the way to go.
It sacrificed wing span and wing area for high speed. It had the high speed to start, but as soon as weight increased, it needed bigger wings to still have a "reasonable" take-off and landing performance. This and the airfoil were probably reasons why the aircraft never had any great altitude performance.

It also seemed to be VERY sensitive to the way that the aircraft was loaded.

The package guns were not such a big deal because usually only two of four were retained in operational aircraft.

The last production version, the B-26G showed some of the weirdness that resulted from a small wing and goofy airfoil: The entire wing along with engines were inclined upward to improve low speed handling. That could not have done anything good for high speed performance which is probably why these aircraft were relatively slow.

Incidentally, even such a heavy beast could be flown as a glider as my neighbor proved after the war.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 5, 2019)

An interesting/ funny note on the B26, apaerantly one of its nicknames owing to its speed and small wing area was " the hooker" as it was so fast and had no visable means of support.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> American fighters used SCR-274 or SCR-522 radios, often one transmitter / receiver in the HF band, and a second receiver only on the VF band, and sometimes also navigation and IFF sets. The American radios were preferred over the British ones in North Africa because they had four preset (programmable) channels that you could change with a button like in the old AM radios in cars back in the day, vs. a knob that you had to tune in



Actually the SCR-274 was a collection of radios, literally, usually 3 receivers and 2 transmitters although other combinations could be used. All the radios were sometimes left on at the same time and the pilot changed which radio he was using. If a transmitter or receiver was turned off it could take wellover a minute to warm up and become useable from cold. This design gave a bit of redundancy at the cost of weight and size (actual money aside). each individual radio was tunable with a dial. 

The SCR-522 was a single radio set (transmitter and receiver) that could operate on four preset frequencies due to crystal control and did use a push button selector. 

However the SCR-522 was pretty much a copy of a British radio (at least in regards to circuits and function) as the British wanted the US to be a second source of production. 

In the UK in early 1943 P-47s had their american built radios taken out and British radios fitted in order to go on the first P-47 operations due to the many failures of the US radios. 

In NA which Aircraft got which radios is certainly subject to question as the US was fitting the SCR-274s for quite sometime. Although it appears that the P-39K & L got the SCR-522 radio was the SCR-522. P-40Fs got both (not at the same time) but the manual just says that "some aircraft are equipped....." without going into any further details. 

It does give range limits for the SCR-522 when talking to ground stations. 

At 35-50 miles from the ground station it must be above 1000ft.
At 80-100 miles from the ground station it must be above 5000ft.
At 120-1600 miles from the ground station it must be above 10,000ft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> An interesting/ funny note on the B26, apaerantly one of its nicknames owing to its speed and small wing area was " the hooker" as it was so fast and had no visable means of support.



From what I remember, they called it the "Baltimore Whore"....

"The Widowmaker"
"One a day in Tampa Bay"

....Lots of wonderful things said about the Marauder.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well you are concentrating on the success stories (for the most part). There were quite a few cancellations and long struggles with designs. P-38 is one of those due in part to the various problems with the engines and turbos. But there are others! Many others in fact, which went nowhere.



What part of 

"_There is a difference (a large one in my opinion) in that while the Russians *fitted a lower powered substitute engine into production/service fighters than they were designed for,* the US and the British never did._ *Both countries had fighter prototypes powered by engines that either outright failed or had development problems but none of these fighters went into production with lower powered engines.* "

Didn't you understand? Your whole post is covered by the bolded part. 

As for


Schweik said:


> How about the Hawker Tornado, cancelled due to the failure of the Rolls Royce Vulture
> Or the very promising Westland Whirlwind, delayed by problems with the Rolls Royce Peregrine and finally cancelled when they stopped making the RR Kestrel / Peregrine.



The Rolls Royce Vulture comes closest to the subject, not because of the Hawker Tornado but because the Avro Manchester had to use derated (lower power) Vultures in service. 
This is one reason I specified _fighters_ in my post. 

There were actually very few problems with the Peregrine engine itself. Most of the troubles came from a lousy throttle control system (hydraulic which leaked/bled down) supplied by a different company, and cooling problems on the ground (solved with different operating procedure). 
BTW the Peregrine was uprated in service, boost limit raised from 6lbs to 9lbs, not derated. 

Your post, while informative on it's own, has very little to do with the subject.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

On the M 202 in NA subject.

Is it possible there is some confusion between "in service" numbers and "on hand" numbers?

As in XXX number of aircraft on hand or in inventory but only XXX times 60% (or pick number) available for flight (in service) on a given day? 

Just a thought.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> First of all, this isn't MY theory. It was something I lifted from an Italian book about the Macchi C.202.
> You REALLY should read what you posted. Your data is actually in pretty good agreement.
> ...



*Let me remind you of the twists and turns of this conversation: *
I commented off hand as part of a discussion about the P39 that P-40s had a good record in the MTO, PTO etc. 
You remarked (incorrectly) that those were against inferior opposition. 
I pointed out that the Japanese fighters were hardly inferior, neither were the Germans on the Russian front, and neither were the German or Italian in the MTO
You claimed (incorrectly) that P-40s were mostly facing inferior Italian planes in the MTO
I pointed out the Luftwaffe was there in strength with their most modern fighters and the main Italian fighter, the MC.202 was equivalent to the Bf 109
You made claims of inferior performance (debunked) guns (debunked) and finally insisted there were only 30 MC 202 at any one time in the Theater
I pointed out by the second through fourth quarter of 1942 there were usually at least 150 MC 202 + 100 Bf 109, peaking at 200 - which compares pretty well to Allied front-line fighter strength
And now you are claiming that it's only 66 because only the ones based in North Africa counted.

This is actually immaterial to the original claim that P-40s faced marginal opposition since 80% of the fighters based in Theater and 99% of the fighters they claimed as victories were Bf 109 or MC 202. However there is a further fallacy in that MC 202s operating out of Pantelleria and Lampedusa, and also Sicily and Sardinia, fought US and DAF fighters in North Africa routinely in 1942 and 1943 - and more and more from those bases as Operation Husky approached, this is why they were taken out .

I found an even more detailed breakdown of Italian airpower. 

Regia Aeronautica in WWII Units, Bases, and Assigned Aircraft 1940-1943

Source is listed as: Dunning, C., Combat Units of the Regia Aeronatuica, Italian Air Force, 1940-1943, 1988, England, Air Research Publications Copyright GFN 1993

Fighter units conversion dates to modern types are as follows (it also shows where they were stationed each month):

These units switched to the MC.202 in 1941
*6 Gruppo CT *Switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 06/21/41. Switch to MC 205 in 03/43
*9 Gruppo* switch from MC 200 to MC 202 in 07/41
*10 Gruppo *switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 12/41. Switch to MC 205V starting on 05/54 completed by 07/43
*17 Gruppo* switch from MC.200 to MC.202 on 06/41
*20 Gruppo* switch from G.50 to MC. 202 on 12/41

These air wings switched to MC.202 or Re.2001 in 1942
*2 Gruppo *- Switch from G.50 to Re 2001 03/42
*7 Gruppo* switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 09/42
*22 Gruppo* switched from MC 200 to Re.2001 on 7/42
*23 Gruppo* switched from Cr 42 & MC 200 to Mc 202 on 07/42
*13 Gruppo* switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 11/42

So five air groups flying MC.202 by the end of 1941, and ten air groups flying MC.202 or Re.2001 by the end of 1942.

The following units switched in 1943
*16 Gruppo Assalto* switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 2/43
*18 Gruppo CT *switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 4/43
*24 Gruppo CT *switched from G.50 to Mc 202 and MC 205 on 05/43

The following units kept older types
*8 Gruppo* still on MC 200 by 09/43
*12 Gruppo* Still on MC 200
*21 Gruppo* CT still on MC 200


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the M 202 in NA subject.
> 
> Is it possible there is some confusion between "in service" numbers and "on hand" numbers?
> 
> ...



The numbers I've been posting are 'available for combat'. Physically on the airfield (but non servicable) are much higher.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the M 202 in NA subject.
> 
> Is it possible there is some confusion between "in service" numbers and "on hand" numbers?
> 
> ...



Hello Shortround6,

I don't claim to know that much about the operational service of the Macchi C.202.
I am just quoting from various books just like others. The low numbers surprised me also when I first saw them.
When a source lists the total fighter sorties flown and states that only about 30% were by the Macchi C.202, then one has to wonder what the REST were flown by.

As for the dispute in numbers between Schweik and myself, I think it is really a matter of breaking down the numbers. I stated in North Africa. He is stating in the entire inventory.



Schweik said:


> *Nov 1942 *eve of Torch landings (from MAW Vol III pp. 41-45)
> 
> .....
> 
> ...



Note there is one squadron split between Saetta and Folgore. Since the numbers in the total didn't really add up 65 versus 66, I just used the MAXIMUM number possible assuming there were no Macchi 200 present at all.
Either way, low of 55 to high of 66 both fit the pattern described.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> *Let me remind you of the twists and turns of this conversation: *
> I commented off hand as part of a discussion about the P39 that P-40s had a good record in the MTO, PTO etc.
> You remarked (incorrectly) that those were against inferior opposition.
> I pointed out that the Japanese fighters were hardly inferior, neither were the Germans on the Russian front, and neither were the German or Italian in the MTO
> ...



Hello Schweik,

We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?
The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?
How many of the Messerschmitts were still the older E models?
Early in the Pacific war, the Japanese army would have been flying mostly Ki-43. This was a beautiful and agile aeroplane, but without speed, firepower or protection. That would hardly be first rate opposition.

As for "debunking" performance and firepower claims: First of all, you are comparing a Me 109F-2 with the lower powered engine and less firepower against the C.202. Performance SHOULD be similar because they have nearly identical engine power. As for firepower, you obviously were not paying attention. Typically, the C.202 only had 2 x 12.7 mm Breda MG with relatively poor ballistics for a HMG. Even the 109F-2 had better hitting power with just one MG 151/15 motor cannon and had an additional pair of MG 17 LMGs. That was on the LOW side. With the Me 109F-4, there was additional engine power for better performance AND increased firepower with the MG 151/20 cannon.
This level of firepower was the same as a typical Japanese fighter and basically inadequate by the evaluation of the Italians.



Schweik said:


> *6 Gruppo CT *Switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 06/21/41. Switch to MC 205 in 03/43



What do you have for the first production series for the Macchi Veltro? My understanding was that it was about a month later than the date you are listing here.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

Regarding adequacy of engine power in the Yak fighters, here is a comment by Major A. Nikashin of 812 IAP who was a participant in service trials of the Yak-9K. Now keep in mind that the Yak-9K is the NS-45 armed variant which made it one of the most heavily armed.
Note also that the "all-up" weight of this model at 3028 KG or 6677 pounds was not particularly heavy in comparison to other fighters and yet this was the evaluation:

"Yak-9 fighters should be used in cooperation with Yak-3 lightweight fighters making up a cover group. Tangling with fighters is undesirable for the Yak-9Ks because they are heavy and, owing to the insufficient engine power, have poor vertical component. When bombers are encountered, the Yak-9K fighters should make a surprise attack from behind th clouds or out of the sun, trying to disrupt their formation. It is expedient to make the first attack from above at a distance of 400 to 600 m. If any part of the bomber is hit by one or two shells, this is enough for the bomber to be destroyed."

- Ivan.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> My comment was not to suggest that the Allison or Merlin was superior. It was just an observation that under VERY high power, high RPM use (well beyond the levels used in WW2 aircraft) the Allison seems to hold up much better.
> 
> ...


Yes you did miss what I said .... 
Curtis could have added the P40Q which would have been a better production fighter than the less performing earlier versions.
The P40Q and P63 would have been a far better performer under 20k.
The P39 and P40 were equal or better than all Axis fighters under 15k.
Especially CAS and Ground attack. The P51A was a better fighter under 20k.
I know this from Planes of Fame comments when they get a mixed bag of fighters up to altitude of a phot shot.
The P51A climbed a good bit quicker than the D/K Mustangs.
It was lighter and more nimble.
The P63 had considerable more range over the P39 and had the better guns and cannon.
It was a much more capable fighter. 
Far better down low but had competitive height altitude performance.

It was very strange why the US did not use the P63 or the upgraded P40.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?
> The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?
> ...


Totally disagree the P40 was up against lesser opposition. 
There was always a migration to newer types entering combat every month on all sides.
If not field modifications that helped them stay competitive. 
One of the striking facts when two opposing fighter groups got together...there were few one sided battles.
Majority of kills on both sides was everything that was not a fighter.
Meaning bomber, transport, recon..


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding adequacy of engine power in the Yak fighters, here is a comment by Major A. Nikashin of 812 IAP who was a participant in service trials of the Yak-9K. Now keep in mind that the Yak-9K is the NS-45 armed variant which made it one of the most heavily armed.
> Note also that the "all-up" weight of this model at 3028 KG or 6677 pounds was not particularly heavy in comparison to other fighters and yet this was the evaluation:
> 
> "Yak-9 fighters should be used in cooperation with Yak-3 lightweight fighters making up a cover group. Tangling with fighters is undesirable for the Yak-9Ks because they are heavy and, owing to the insufficient engine power, have poor vertical component. When bombers are encountered, the Yak-9K fighters should make a surprise attack from behind th clouds or out of the sun, trying to disrupt their formation. It is expedient to make the first attack from above at a distance of 400 to 600 m. If any part of the bomber is hit by one or two shells, this is enough for the bomber to be destroyed."
> ...



This is (hopefully) an honest mistake on your part. He's talking about a Yak-9K with the 45mm gun, which was clearly too big for the airframe. That is by no means the normal assessment of the typical Yak-9. The Yak-9K was a failure and was barely used.

_"Yak-9T modified with a 45 mm NS-45 cannon with 29 rounds and a distinctive muzzle brake to deal with the massive recoil. Firing the cannon at speeds below 350 km/h (220 mph) caused dramatic loss of control and tossed the pilot back and forth in the cockpit; however, accurate shooting was possible at higher speeds and in 2–3 round bursts. The recoil also caused numerous oil and coolant leaks. *The heavy cannon installation degraded performance, even more so at high altitudes, sufficiently to relegating the Yak-9K to be used as a heavy fighter and resulting in the need for a fighter escort of Yak-3s. The Yak-9K saw only limited use due to unreliability of the NS-45, airframe performance issues caused by both the NS-45 and larger fuel tanks used on the Yak-9K, as well as a reduction of bombers used by the Germans.* "_

According to this site, *only 50 were made*:

_"One of the consequences of this reconsideration was development of the "Yak-9K", which had a dedicated fit of the NS-45 cannon with a long and distinctive muzzle brake. A batch of about 50 of these fighters was built in the first half of 1944, and were put through tests and operational evaluation. The cannon was devastating in combat, but it proved unreliable; its recoil shock was also too much for the airframe, cracking fuel and coolant lines. The Yak-9K was not put into production. "_

I would say to look instead at a Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9T, Yak-9U or Yak-3


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Hmmm, Yak-9T is the greatest thing since borscht using a 170kg gun that is 341cm long with 30-32 rounds of cannon ammo and a single 12.7mm machine gun (200 rounds) while the Yak-9K using a 170kg gun that is 341cm long with 29 rounds of ammo and a single 12.7mm machine gun (200 rounds) needs escorts?

I am confused 






from Anthony Williams website. BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS 
The weights and lengths are from one of his books and may not agree with online sources

4th round from the left is the US 37mm. 
6th round from the left is the Russian 37mm used in the Yak 9T
8th round from the left is the Russian 45mm used in the Yak 9K

The 45 mm round was the 37mm cartridge case necked up. It was the same diameter at the back, there was little difference between the two guns.

Most accounts blame the poor performance of the 9K on the large fuel tanks and greater fuel load. 
However most accounts say the 9K was powered by the M-105PF engine that was rated at 1180hp at altitude (?). 
As was the 9T. 
Weight of the guns and ammo for either the 9T or the 9K might have gone 250-270Kg not including mounts, ammo boxes/chutes, gun heaters and charging system/s.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?



It seems inevitable, and as these discussions never progress in breezy disregard of the evidence, the same exact points are debated over and over. Kind of like politics these days I guess.



> The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?



Well, I've already shown (several times, going back to many months ago) that the vast majority of Axis fighters in the MTO in 1942 through mid 1943 (when P-40s were most active in the MTO) were late model Bf 109s and Macchi 202s, and in 1943 you can add Macchi 205s and Re 2001s to the mix. If they were so easy to shoot down I'd like to know why they posed equally difficult challenges for contemporaneous Sptifires and P-38s which were the best fighters in the Allied arsenal at the time.

As for which types flew sorties, well you already stated your preference to ignore operational history, and you have made it clear you don't find my assessments of operational history reliable. Still, you and I aren't the only people reading through this debate so for the benefit of others I went through about 40 pages in the middle of MAW III and took pics with my phone. I'll go through these in a followup post. I believe it shows that nearly all claims and losses, at any rate, were of MC 202 during this time period (the 40 pages covered late 1942 into early 1943).

*To Mods - can I post images of a few pages from this book?*



> How many of the Messerschmitts were still the older E models?


!!!!Did you read anything I posted on this? It's a little disheartening to answer a question and then have it asked again!?

The Germans used the latest and best fighters they had in the MTO. By the end of 1942 99% of the fighters were Bf 109G (specifically G-2 and G-4), with a few F-4. The 12 Bf 109E Jabos I counted separately since they weren't flying fighter sorties (and often weren't intercepted, since their escorts took on the Allied fighters). Same for the Fw 190 Jabos and attack ('schlacht') units which I counted separately from the fighter 190s of J.G.2

This is a repeat of something I posted 2 or 3 pages ago. Please notice the aircraft types:

*German*
Again no numbers here but the following units / types are listed:

II./JG 51 - Bf 109G-2
Stab JG 53 - Bf 109G-2
II./JG 53 - Bf 109G-4
II./ZG 1 - Me 210A1-
II./JG 2 - Fw 190A-3
I./JG 53 -Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 2 -Fw 190A-5
II./JG 27 - BF 109F-4/G-2
Stab JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
I./JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 26 - Bf 110F-2/Ju 88C-6
I./SchG 2 - Bf 109F-4
4.(H)/12 - Bf 109F-4

This is seven squadrons so roughly 80-100 fighters not counting command units, consisting of half of two Jagdeschwader (roughly, fighter wings) of front line Bf 109 fighters: JG. 77 which was moving into the region, and JG 53 (two squadrons), plus squadrons from three more wings: JG. 27 (elite but being phased out due to casualties / battle weariness), JG 2 (elite Fw 190 wing), _and_ JG 51 (elite Bf 109), plus heavy fighters, Fw 190 Jabos (ZG II) some other miscellaneous Bf 109 units (I'm not sure what 4.(H)/12 means). 



> Early in the Pacific war, the Japanese army would have been flying mostly Ki-43. This was a beautiful and agile aeroplane, but without speed, firepower or protection. That would hardly be first rate opposition.



Part of the opposition was the Ki-43, which I agree was excellent but no I certainly wouldn't call second rate (it was apparently the highest scoring fighter in the Japanese arsenal), but much of the opposition was also from A6M2s and later marks of the A6M, both over Darwin and Port Morseby / Milne Bay (and later other Islands), and soon after that Ki-61s and Ki-44s entered the fray as well. In fact the Tinian Air group, one of the top outfits in the IJN, was one of the main opponents of the 49th FG (P-40s) at Port Morseby.

Regardless of what was being flown, they were able to cause the Spitfires (again, top Allied fighter at the time) sent to the region trouble so I don't think it's plausible to call them second rate in 1942 or say up to mid-1943. They did not hold up well to the Hellcat or Corsair and a few P-38 pilots did well against them, but some P-38 pilots did well against Bf 109s too..



> As for "debunking" performance and firepower claims: First of all, you are comparing a Me 109F-2 with the lower powered engine and less firepower against the C.202. Performance SHOULD be similar because they have nearly identical engine power. As for firepower, you obviously were not paying attention. Typically, the C.202 only had 2 x 12.7 mm Breda MG with relatively poor ballistics for a HMG. Even the 109F-2 had better hitting power with just one MG 151/15 motor cannon and had an additional pair of MG 17 LMGs. That was on the LOW side. With the Me 109F-4, there was additional engine power for better performance AND increased firepower with the MG 151/20 cannon.
> This level of firepower was the same as a typical Japanese fighter and basically inadequate by the evaluation of the Italians.



The Bf 109F-2 was the contemporary of the original MC.202, that is why I made the comparison. Their firepower was equivalent, for the simple reason that the MC.202 was putting out more bullets, _and each bullet could knock down an enemy aircraft or kill a pilot_. For all this talk about 'throw weight' and muzzle velocity and so forth, have any of you ever seen a 12.7mm machine gun fire? (of any brand). Try to understand this - an aircraft is not a chunk of reinforced concrete which must be chipped away by a kind of long range jackhammer to destroy it. It is a mostly hollow shell made of light aluminum alloy (or light plywood, or cloth, or all three) with a few small pieces of relatively thin armor plate inside, and _a lot _of vulnerable control wires, hydraulic lines, oil tanks, squishy fuel tanks (which yes, have a sealer but aren't immune to blowing up), fragile high performance engines and _very_ squishy pilots. Any one of which can be messed up by a single shell let alone two or three. Even a 'bad' Heavy Machine Gun like the Breda is *still a heavy machine gun*. Shooting 11 HMG shells per second from two HMG is enough to do serious damage and certainly as lethal as another plane shooting 7 or 8 rounds per second with a slightly better gun. Bf 109F-4 was better than the F-2 (though apparently hampered by the Trop filter) but subsequent 202s were also improved. Which is what led to the 205 and 205V, N/1 and N/2 (started with MC. 202bis which had the DB 605).



> What do you have for the first production series for the Macchi Veltro? My understanding was that it was about a month later than the date you are listing here.
> 
> - Ivan.



That operational history was from Globalsecurity.org and they listed their source which I also listed. Wikipedia says the combat introduction of the MC 205 was in February 1943 which seems to match. From the wiki:

_"The C.205 entered production only five months after its maiden flight and began reaching front line units in February 1943. At the end of April, the 1° Stormo, based in Pantelleria, is the first unit to enter action with the C.205, on Mediterranean, escorting maritime and aerial convoys to and from Tunisia. "_

This also helpfully reinforces my point that units in Pantelleria and other islands were routinely engaging Allied fighters operating out of Tunisia.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This is (hopefully) an honest mistake on your part. He's talking about a Yak-9K with the 45mm gun, which was clearly too big for the airframe. That is by no means the normal assessment of the typical Yak-9. The Yak-9K was a failure and was barely used.
> 
> _"Yak-9T modified with a 45 mm NS-45 cannon with 29 rounds and a distinctive muzzle brake to deal with the massive recoil. Firing the cannon at speeds below 350 km/h (220 mph) caused dramatic loss of control and tossed the pilot back and forth in the cockpit; however, accurate shooting was possible at higher speeds and in 2–3 round bursts. The recoil also caused numerous oil and coolant leaks. *The heavy cannon installation degraded performance, even more so at high altitudes, sufficiently to relegating the Yak-9K to be used as a heavy fighter and resulting in the need for a fighter escort of Yak-3s. The Yak-9K saw only limited use due to unreliability of the NS-45, airframe performance issues caused by both the NS-45 and larger fuel tanks used on the Yak-9K, as well as a reduction of bombers used by the Germans.* "_
> 
> ...



Hello Schweik,

You have GOT to be kidding.
Here are some specifications for you to consider:
Yak-9K - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3028 KG (6675 pounds)
Yak-9T - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3025 KG (6668 pounds)

So you are trying to convince us that 7 pounds in aircraft weight makes such a difference? Really???
For what it's worth, this is very nearly the same weight and horsepower as a Macchi C.202 with 7.7 mm LMG in the wings which is probably why those pilots mostly chose to remove the guns as well.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, Yak-9T is the greatest thing since borscht using a 170kg gun
> I am confused



I really don't doubt that you are confused, but the biggest point of confusion on your part is that you seem to think I'm making up the assessment of the Yak-9T (2,700 built) vs. the Yak-9K (50 built, apparently). I'm not an expert on Yaks, I have two or three books and the internet, probably the same as you. I actually in fact, originally believed your claims about some of these things such as that very few large caliber guns were carried on Soviet fighters (from several previous debates about the use of Soviet fighters for CAS. I assumed you were telling the truth and didn't feel invested in it to look further.

But out of routine curiosity and interest in WW2 planes, I read a book about Yak fighter operations in WW2 and it mentioned that the Yak-9T was successful, well liked and 2700 were made. So I double checked with other sources, sure enough this was a fact. So I pointed it out. Why the Yak-9K was not a success and only 50 were made, I really don't know - Wikipedia says the recoil from the 45mm gun was a factor, they did also mention the fuel tanks. What do I care? 

I didn't write any of that, I didn't make it up. I don't work for the Yakovlev design bureau, I didn't fly a Yak. I'm just telling you guys *what the history says*. That seems to be a deep point of confusion for the two of you.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> You have GOT to be kidding.



Nope. And I must say, I have often wondered if you were kidding particularly in the last 5 pages or so.



> Here are some specifications for you to consider:
> Yak-9K - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3028 KG (6675 pounds)
> Yak-9T - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3025 KG (6668 pounds)
> 
> So you are trying to convince us that 7 pounds in aircraft weight makes such a difference? Really???



By no means ! I am not trying to convince you of any such thing. I am trying to explain to you what the various history books and online sources say - which is for example that Soviet evaluation of the Yak-9T was positive, and more than 2,700 were made. Soviet evaluation of the Yak-9K, which you definitely cherry picked, was negative, and only 50 were made.


You keep making repeated assertions which simply aren't true and don't line up with the historical record and then you just move on to another:

MC.202 was inferior - false
MC.202 was not available in any numbers- false
most Axis sorties in North Africa were old MC 200 and G.50 - false
Most German fighters in MTO were obsolescent Bf-109E - false
US forces only fought Ki-43 in PTO - false
Ki-43 was inferior - false (though I will say MC.202 was more dangerous)
Yak -9 was inferior too - false
Yak -9K is indicative of Yak-9 performance overall - false


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The P63 had considerable more range over the P39 and had the better guns and cannon.
> It was a much more capable fighter.




Really?
A fighter with 4 ft more wingspan (and 16% more wing area) and 2 1/2 ft more fuselage length and weighing 4-600lbs has considerably more range with just 16 gallons more internal fuel had considerably more range???

The M2 Browning machine guns in the P-63 were _better_ than the M2 Browning machine guns in the P-39Q?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I really don't doubt that you are confused, but the biggest point of confusion on your part is that you seem to think I'm making up the assessment of the Yak-9T (2,700 built) vs. the Yak-9K (50 built, apparently). I'm not an expert on Yaks, I have two or three books and the internet, probably the same as you. I actually in fact, originally believed your claims about some of these things such as that very few large caliber guns were carried on Soviet fighters (from several previous debates about the use of Soviet fighters for CAS. I assumed you were telling the truth and didn't feel invested in it to look further.
> 
> But out of routine curiosity and interest in WW2 planes, I read a book about Yak fighter operations in WW2 and it mentioned that the Yak-9T was successful, well liked and 2700 were made. So I double checked with other sources, sure enough this was a fact. So I pointed it out. Why the Yak-9K was not a success and only 50 were made, I really don't know - Wikipedia says the recoil from the 45mm gun was a factor, they did also mention the fuel tanks. What do I care?
> 
> I didn't write any of that, I didn't make it up. I don't work for the Yakovlev design bureau, I didn't fly a Yak. I'm just telling you guys *what the history says*. That seems to be a deep point of confusion for the two of you.




Apparently I was in error about the extent of use of large caliber guns in soviet fighters counting Yak 1s, 7s and 9s (but not 3s) and Lagg 3s and LA 5s (but not LA-7s) and Mig 3 but not any other kinds of of Soviet fighters the 37mm gun versions made up about 5% of the total, adjust as you see fit for numbers of other aircraft. 

Comments about the 45mm gun version have to taken carefully, I am not saying that such comments were not made or that they are untrue. But if they don't specifically call out the differences between the 45mm gun planes and the 37mm gun planes do not assume that the 37mm gun planes were free of similar defects/problems. 

Some accounts say that the 37mm gun caused cracks and the destruction of whole pipeline units. 

The 37mm gun fired a lighter shell at slightly higher velocity using a similar amount of powder, recoil forces of the 45mm gun went up around 27%. the recoil of the 37mm gun was far from light. 

several accounts claim (probably based on the same source) that the 37mm gun planes could destroy one enemy plane per 31 rounds fired while the ShVAK needed 147 rounds (45mm gun needed just 10 rounds per plane destroyed). 

Now fighters certainly need less rounds to shoot down than bombers but the Luftwaffe figured they needed to fire about 1000 rounds of MG 151 ammunition ( with 30-40 % mine shells) to shoot down a B-17. Luftwaffe figured about 2% hits for rounds fired, ShVAK was killing German planes with about 3 hits each?? 

Also please note that the 20mm ShVAK shells (not cartridge) weighed less than 1/7th what a 37mm shell weighed. and the gun weighed about 1/4 as much. 

I am not sure how efficient the 37mm armed Yak 9T was in actuality. Giving specialized aircraft to the best pilots and best shots is likely to skew the results.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Apparently I was in error about the extent of use of large caliber guns in soviet fighters counting Yak 1s, 7s and 9s (but not 3s) and Lagg 3s and LA 5s (but not LA-7s) and Mig 3 but not any other kinds of of Soviet fighters the 37mm gun versions made up about 5% of the total, adjust as you see fit for numbers of other aircraft.
> 
> Comments about the 45mm gun version have to taken carefully, I am not saying that such comments were not made or that they are untrue. But if they don't specifically call out the differences between the 45mm gun planes and the 37mm gun planes do not assume that the 37mm gun planes were free of similar defects/problems.
> 
> ...




I honestly don't know enough details about it, I have the Osprey book on Yaks which seems to praise it (the 9T) highly but they seem to be fairly pro-Soviet. The truth is most of the Soviet experiments with 37mm or 45mm guns, including on Sturmovik, seem to have been failures. I gather the 9T was reinforced somewhat but could handle the weapon, it sounds to me like the 27% of increased firepower of the 45mm was too much as the gun is mentioned as a cause. Extra fuel tanks no doubt had ill effects too.

Later the Soviets seemed to settle on the 23mm gun for the heavier armed Yak fighters, though the 37mm also remained in use. And I do suspect the P-39 may have influenced the adoption of that caliber, if not it's another coincidence as to why they liked it. Yes the guns were different but two large caliber guns like that are a lot more alike than any smaller caliber (LMG or HMG) gun.

I'll grant you this though, the Soviet planes didn't have a lot of margin. The Yak-9 and -3 were all metal I think which made them a little more versatile.

Two or three well placed 20mm shells could knock down just about any single-engined WW2 fighter - one shell in the engine or cockpit can do it. And if you are shooting from 50-100 meters per Soviet doctrine maybe your accuracy is a little better. 5 or 10 shells might be better but 20mm cannon make a pretty big hole.

The ShVak also looks like a bit better cannon (800 rpm at 770 mps) than an MG 151 (700 rpm at 700 mps)


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2019)

Here are some excerpts from Shores, randomly taken from about 40 pages in the middle of MAW III, covering the time period from Nov 1942 - Jan 1943. I went through and circled Italian fighter losses and claims - in red for MC.202 and blue for all the older types. In total I count ~40 mentions of the MC.202, one mention of a G.50 and one of an MC.200, the latter of which was on some kind of special convoy escort.

I don't expect this to prove anything but I am showing you what I see in the operational history, it's almost all MC 202 and German fighters (which at this stage of the war are all 109G-2 and G-4, or Fw 190s, with a few F-4 remaining)




Nov 1942 - 5 x MC. 202 lost, 1 x G.50 lost




22 Nov 1942 - 1 x MC.202 lost, 4 x MC.202 made claims



30 Nov 1942 - 2 x MC.202 made claims, 1 x MC.202 lost in accident



2 Dec 1942 - 1x MC.202 made claims, 1 x MC202 lost and 5 x MC.202 damaged, 1x MC. 200 lost



15 Dec 1942 - 7 x MC.202 made claims, 2 x MC.202 damaged by strafing



29 Dec 1942 - 3 x MC 202 made claims



Jan 1943 - 2 x MC.202 made claims



8 Jan 1942 - 2 x MC.202 made claims, 1 x MC.202 crash landed



11 Jan 1943 - 3 x Mc 202 made claims, 1 x MC.202 shot down, 1 x MC.202 damaged



11 Jan 1943 1 x MC.202 damaged landing - this one also mentions that a P-40 piot from 33FG (2nd Lt Scholl) shot down and killed Oblt Heydric, commander h of II./KG 51 when the latter got on the tail of his flight leader. German records confirmed the loss which I also confirmed in another couple of sources.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, I've already shown (several times, going back to many months ago) that the vast majority of Axis fighters in the MTO in 1942 through mid 1943 (when P-40s were most active in the MTO) were late model Bf 109s and Macchi 202s, and in 1943 you can add Macchi 205s and Re 2001s to the mix. If they were so easy to shoot down I'd like to know why they posed equally difficult challenges for contemporaneous Sptifires and P-38s which were the best fighters in the Allied arsenal at the time.



Hello Schweik,

First of all, I don't ever recall making a comment about 1943 other than about the transfer of remaining Macchi C.200 units back to Italy. I also never stated that the Macchi fighters were that easy to shoot down. My comment was that they were very poorly armed and that the C.202 was inferior to a Me 109F because it had less power even if the performance numbers were similar. Even the early Veltro didn't do much better for armament initially. The prototype was a Serie IX Folgore which was the first Macchi built version with wing guns. It wasn't until the Serie III Veltro came along that they actually got cannon armament.
As for your comment that Spitfires and P-38 were the best Allied fighters of the time, I agree. Consider though why they may not have done as well in this environment as a P-40. Both types have excellent altitude performance but don't have quite the same advantage down low.... Same as most of the German fighters.
For what it's worth, the Italian accounts also state that the Folgores were having problems handling the Spitfire and P-38 when they arrived. Each side always thinks they are facing tough opposition unless the battle is completely one-sided.



Schweik said:


> Part of the opposition was the Ki-43, which I agree was excellent but no I certainly wouldn't call second rate (it was apparently the highest scoring fighter in the Japanese arsenal), but much of the opposition was also from A6M2s and later marks of the A6M, both over Darwin and Port Morseby / Milne Bay (and later other Islands), and soon after that Ki-61s and Ki-44s entered the fray as well. In fact the Tinian Air group, one of the top outfits in the IJN, was one of the main opponents of the 49th FG (P-40s) at Port Morseby.



This is exactly why I don't think operational history is always an indication of aircraft quality. The Ki-43 Hayabusa was the Type 1 fighter (Model of 1941). It started life with 2 x 7.7 mm LMG. Equivalent aircraft in Europe (Britain) were carrying 8 x 7.7 mm LMG. That is not nearly enough firepower for Hayabusa. It got a bit better when one or both cowl guns were replaced with 12.7 mm MG based on the Breda HMG cartridge. (That part is debatable because it lost a lot of its firing rate.) Lack of protection has already been mentioned. It also was fairly slow even for the improved Ki-43-II at 330 MPH.

The A6M2 at the time carried only 60 rounds for each of its cannon. That gave it about 7 seconds total time of fire. After that, its firepower was even worse than Ki-43 because all it had left were two 7.7 mm LMG.
Someone here (I forget who) posted that it was nearly impossible for the A6M to shoot down a Wildcat or any of the tougher aircraft from the back unless it had its cannon. The only real chance to kill a Wildcat from astern would be to hit an oil cooler. This is consistent with what I have read about USN tactics of the time.
If you know about the Tainan Kokutai, then perhaps you have also read the books by or about Saburo Sakai. His was a successful unit, but he was somewhat surprised at the lack of success of other IJN units and all of the were flying the A6M.



Schweik said:


> Regardless of what was being flown, they were able to cause the Spitfires (again, top Allied fighter at the time) sent to the region trouble so I don't think it's plausible to call them second rate in 1942 or say up to mid-1943. They did not hold up well to the Hellcat or Corsair and a few P-38 pilots did well against them, but some P-38 pilots did well against Bf 109s too..



You can be flying the best fighter around, but if you used bad tactics and fight in a way that lets the enemy exploit their performance advantages, you will still get killed.



Schweik said:


> The Bf 109F-2 was the contemporary of the original MC.202, that is why I made the comparison. Their firepower was equivalent, for the simple reason that the MC.202 was putting out more bullets, _and each bullet could knock down an enemy aircraft or kill a pilot_. For all this talk about 'throw weight' and muzzle velocity and so forth, have any of you ever seen a 12.7mm machine gun fire? (of any brand). Try to understand this - an aircraft is not a chunk of reinforced concrete which must be chipped away by a kind of long range jackhammer to destroy it. It is a mostly hollow shell made of light aluminum alloy (or light plywood, or cloth, or all three) with a few small pieces of relatively thin armor plate inside, and _a lot _of vulnerable control wires, hydraulic lines, oil tanks, squishy fuel tanks (which yes, have a sealer but aren't immune to blowing up), fragile high performance engines and _very_ squishy pilots. Any one of which can be messed up by a single shell let alone two or three. Even a 'bad' Heavy Machine Gun like the Breda is *still a heavy machine gun*. Shooting 11 HMG shells per second from two HMG is enough to do serious damage and certainly as lethal as another plane shooting 7 or 8 rounds per second with a slightly better gun. Bf 109F-4 was better than the F-2 (though apparently hampered by the Trop filter) but subsequent 202s were also improved. Which is what led to the 205 and 205V, N/1 and N/2 (started with MC. 202bis which had the DB 605).



Actually I am pretty familiar with a .50 BMG in a McMillan sniper rifle. Those suckers are HEAVY (about 40 pounds)! A fellow brought one to the range many years back and insisted that *I* shoot it because I owned the chronograph and he was curious as to what kind of performance he was getting.
Engines aren't really as fragile as you think they are. There are plenty of videos to prove it.
As for aircraft structures, destroying sheet metal has radically different effects depending on where the location is.
Destroying structural members takes a bit more effort.
I am sure you have seen at least as many photographs of battle damage as I have.
As for the Macchi C.202, it didn't get enough performance enhancements worth mentioning. The C.202bis was really the initial designation for what became the C.205 Veltro.
Regarding the "slightly better gun", the shells are over 50% heavier and 650 feet/second faster. That is not "slightly".
Let's not forget as Shortround6 mentioned, that the larger shell carries a significantly larger explosive charge.



Schweik said:


> That operational history was from Globalsecurity.org and they listed their source which I also listed. Wikipedia says the combat introduction of the MC 205 was in February 1943 which seems to match. From the wiki:
> 
> _"The C.205 entered production only five months after its maiden flight and began reaching front line units in February 1943. At the end of April, the 1° Stormo, based in Pantelleria, is the first unit to enter action with the C.205, on Mediterranean, escorting maritime and aerial convoys to and from Tunisia. "_



According to one of the books I was reading, the first deliveries were April 1943 to Pantelleria, so that part is in agreement. There were apparently very few aircraft delivered, but I need to find the passage to confirm numbers.



Schweik said:


> By no means ! I am not trying to convince you of any such thing. I am trying to explain to you what the various history books and online sources say - which is for example that Soviet evaluation of the Yak-9T was positive, and more than 2,700 were made. Soviet evaluation of the Yak-9K, which you definitely cherry picked, was negative, and only 50 were made.



I just quoted the first evaluation of a heavy cannon armed Yak-9 I could find.



Schweik said:


> You keep making repeated assertions which simply aren't true and don't line up with the historical record and then you just move on to another:



MC.202 was inferior - I believe it WAS inferior for the reasons mentioned:
Firepower was too low.
You first claimed that the Wing LMG were "standard".
I pointed out that they were factory installed in a little more than half of the aircraft manufactured and that in operational use, they were typically removed. Your response was a very interesting, "They were ineffective anyway."

MC.202 was not available in any numbers- false
*I* did not make that statement. I stated that only about 30% of the fighter sorties flown by the Italians in North Africa in 1942 were with the Macchi C.202. I also stated that average monthly availability in North Africa of C.202 averaged 30-70 aircraft in 1942.
Anything else was something you are adding.

most Axis sorties in North Africa were old MC 200 and G.50 - false
I never made a statement as to the breakdown of types other than Macchi C.202 Folgore. I simply do not have the statistics. I never looked for them. They were not relevant to what I was looking for a few years ago when I was collecting data. Logic states though that if Macchi C.202 only account for 30% of sorties, then SOMETHING ELSE has to account for the other 70%.

Most German fighters in MTO were obsolescent Bf-109E - false
I asked YOU how many of the Messerschmitts were the older E models. The reason I asked is because of the photographs I recently saw in a book about the 109 that shows a quite a few 109E in Africa.

US forces only fought Ki-43 in PTO - false
WHERE did this statement come from????

Ki-43 was inferior - false (though I will say MC.202 was more dangerous)
The Hayabusa was a beautiful aircraft but was significantly out of date even at its introduction in 1941.
This is not to say it wasn't dangerous, but it was easily a generation behind.

Yak -9 was inferior too - false
I don't remember making such a statement. Keep in mind what my usual reaction is when you make such comparisons: There are so many variants of the Yak-9 that you need to be more specific as to which model is being discussed.

Yak -9K is indicative of Yak-9 performance overall - false
Same Engine, Same Engine power, Same airframe, Same Weight. Straight line performance numbers are nearly identical.
I would say the two probably have very similar if not identical flight performance.
One of the things worth noting is that although the NS-45 cannon has higher recoil, the muzzle brake apparently brings the recoil level below that of the NS-37.



Schweik said:


> And I do suspect the P-39 may have influenced the adoption of that caliber, if not it's another coincidence as to why they liked it. Yes the guns were different but two large caliber guns like that are a lot more alike than any smaller caliber (LMG or HMG) gun.



As I tried to point out earlier, the cartridge used in the NS-37 pre-dated the Great Patriotic War. When it was first used, there was no such thing as a Lend-Lease Kobra.
The power levels between the 37 mm are also very different as is the firing rate. The NS-37 is a much more powerful gun.



Schweik said:


> The ShVak also looks like a bit better cannon (800 rpm at 770 mps) than an MG 151 (700 rpm at 700 mps)



The firing rate you list is a little higher than my notes are listing. Mine only list 750 RPM and that is for a free firing wing mount or motor cannon. When synchronized, firing rate drops to about 610 RPM.
The 710 meters/second muzzle velocity for the MG 151/20 is also an indication that it is using shells that are quite a bit heavier than those of the ShVAK. With similar weight shells, it would be doing 800 meters/second.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The ShVak also looks like a bit better cannon (800 rpm at 770 mps) than an MG 151 (700 rpm at 700 mps)




The German cannon was a bit schizoid. It might have fired a bit faster, most sources do say 700-750rpm. But that is not a big deal 

The problem is with the ammo. the 700mps velocity is for a 113-117 gram projectile vs the 96-99 gram projectiles for the ShVAK cannon. 
This does not necessarily mean the German projectiles are more destructive as this weight is an average of a number of different types. 
However the famous German mine shell only weighed 92-95 grams (depending on source) and carried 18.6 to 20 grams of HE (again depending on source) and had a velocity of about 800mps (once again depending on source), this round had lousy penetration but the blast was obviously considerable. 
The Germans used mixed belts with up to about 40% of the mine shells. Due to the light weight the mine shell tended to loose velocity fairly quickly and the slower heavier shells would up going faster at the longer ranges. 
However the short, blunt Russian shells are also going to shed velocity quicker than some other shells. 

Short time of flight makes for easier deflection shooting.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 6, 2019)

Just a thought on the " p40s faced inferior oposition wherever they happened to be narrative". I'm not well read enough to have the numbers at my finger tips but it seems like it should be pretty easy to prove or disprove. If the majority of fighters faced by the p40 were older, inferior types( say 60%) then they would, at a minimum, constitute 60% of the fighters shot down by p40s( probably more like 70 or 80% because they were......well......inferior). 
From what ive read this was not the case but I'll leave it to those of you better read than myself to answer this question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 6, 2019)

ClayO said:


> Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.



A lot of the "mission creep" started fairly early. In part because the B-25 and the B-26 were in the design stage before WW II started in Poland. 
"on August 10, 1939, the Army issued a contract for 201 Model 179s under the designation B-26 "
The plane was ordered off the drawing board with no prototype. 
Combat experience by the French and British showed that the original set up as designed had several flaws or gaps in capability. (no armor or self sealing tanks for one thing) 

"Although the first B-26 had yet to fly, orders for 139 B-26As with self-sealing tanks and armor were issued on September 16. Further orders for 719 B-26Bs on September 28, 1940 brought the total B-26 order to 1131 aircraft."

first Flight by a B-26 was not until November 25, 1940 and the Army got the first ones on February 22, 1941. 
One the early aircraft there was single .30 cal in the tip of the nose, the two .50s in the top turret (first power turret on a US bomber) a single .30 cal out the bottom and a single .50 in the tail. Crew was five men. 
Crew weight, as given in the weight and loading charts in the March 1942 manual, was rather optimistic. 950lbs for all five men including parachutes, WHile the pilot, copilot and radio operator could all weigh 200lbs each (with parachute) the navigator was a svelte 180lbs and the gunner a mere 170lbs (again with parachute).
Ammo for the guns was 600 rounds for each of the .30 cal guns and 200 rounds for each of the .50s. 
At the rear of the plane the turret gunner was expected to get out of the turret and lay on his belly to operate the .30 cal tunnel gun and then bounce up and climb into the turret if the threat should get into the upper hemisphere of the plane. 

Radio operator (or co-pilot?) went through the bomb bay and into the the tail to man the tail gun (?) hardly an ideal situation in combat. 

The 326mph listed in the manual for the early planes was done at 26,734 lbs design weight. But normal gross weight as operated was 28,706 lbs which included only four 500lb bombs and just 465 gallons of fuel. 

for those who are interested the manual for the early planes is here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_Operation_and_Flight_Instructions.pdf 
with lots of charts and tables. 

The high performance of the early B-26 was somewhat of an illusion as even without chin guns and some of the other add ons it's combat weight had gone up thousands of pounds. 
The size of the bomb bay was not governed by the requirement to carry a torpedo but by the desire of the AAF to carry thirty 100lb bombs. 

Some speed was lost by the deletion of the propeller spinners and the larger air intakes (to house dust/dirt filters) and perhaps a large oil cooler intake. 

there are 3 basic B-26s, the original small wing, the big wing and the big wing with tilt.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Here are some excerpts from Shores, randomly taken from about 40 pages in the middle of MAW III, covering the time period from Nov 1942 - Jan 1943. I went through and circled Italian fighter losses and claims - in red for MC.202 and blue for all the older types. In total I count ~40 mentions of the MC.202, one mention of a G.50 and one of an MC.200, the latter of which was on some kind of special convoy escort.
> 
> I don't expect this to prove anything but I am showing you what I see in the operational history, it's almost all MC 202 and German fighters (which at this stage of the war are all 109G-2 and G-4, or Fw 190s, with a few F-4 remaining)



Hello Schweik,

You do realize that this is not really disproving anything I have been stating thus far.
Your statistics are for the very end of 1942 at which time, I don't believe the Saetta was in production any longer.
They certainly were not being delivered to the front.
At the end of October 1942, there was a resupply of Folgore to the units in North Africa.
I am still somewhat curious as to what the breakdown was EARLIER in the year to explain who was actually flying the other 70% of fighter sorties.

The earlier comment that I had made about Saetta units (all but one) returning to Italy at the end of 1942 / beginning of 1943 SHOULD have also included that the units were going back because they no longer had serviceable aircraft.
With relatively few aircraft still flyable, it isn't a great wonder that they were not getting shot down.
The Ali d'Italia 08 book comments that this was the end of the service of the Saetta as a front line aircraft.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 6, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> As for your comment that Spitfires and P-38 were the best Allied fighters of the time, I agree. Consider though why they may not have done as well in this environment as a P-40. *Both types have excellent altitude performance but don't have quite the same advantage down low.... Same as most of the German fighters. *
> For what it's worth, the Italian accounts also state that the Folgores were having problems handling the Spitfire and P-38 when they arrived. Each side always thinks they are facing tough opposition unless the battle is completely one-sided.



Well, you are actually making my larger point - which I've been trying to illuminate in this and several other threads on here: namely that different fighters excelled in different Theaters, therefore the same set of traits did not universally make a fighter superior; and second that among those traits high altitude performance wasn't necessarily the most important thing in every Theater.

Thus Soviet fighters did not need two stage superchargers - it would be nice to have, but when most combat is below 15,000 ft and quite a bit below 5,000 ft, it's not the most important thing - and worth sacrificing when limits for weight and size were strict. This is probably one reason why the P-39 did so well there., P-40s also did quite well where the fighting was mostly down low. In the MTO it was a mix of high, medium and low altitude though the bulk of the fighting was at medium (10-20k) and low altitude (below 10K). Same in the PTO. In China and Burma it was more low altitude in most engagements.

As for the complaints - yes whenever fighters had about even performance against enemy fighters of roughly equal capabilities the pilots often perceived it as a problem.



> This is exactly why I don't think operational history is always an indication of aircraft quality. The Ki-43 Hayabusa was the Type 1 fighter (Model of 1941). It started life with 2 x 7.7 mm LMG. Equivalent aircraft in Europe (Britain) were carrying 8 x 7.7 mm LMG. That is not nearly enough firepower for Hayabusa. It got a bit better when one or both cowl guns were replaced with 12.7 mm MG based on the Breda HMG cartridge. (That part is debatable because it lost a lot of its firing rate.) Lack of protection has already been mentioned. It also was fairly slow even for the improved Ki-43-II at 330 MPH.



I could be wrong but my understanding is that the 7.7mm mg (only) armed Ki-43s only fought in China and in the earliest engagements in the Pacific (mostly against Brewster F2A and Hurricanes). The standard was quickly adjusted to add at least one 12.7mm HMG. Still quite light armament but the Ki-43 made up for that with other excellent characteristics of what you might call hyper-maneuverability, excellent climb, good diving traits and relatively high combat speed especially at lower altitudes. Anyway it made short work for example of very heavily armed Hurricane IIC.



> The A6M2 at the time carried only 60 rounds for each of its cannon. That gave it about 7 seconds total time of fire. After that, its firepower was even worse than Ki-43 because all it had left were two 7.7 mm LMG.



The Spitfire through Mk VB, the Bf 109E series and quite a few other early cannon-armed fighters were also restricted to 60 rounds. Much better once they changed to belt-fed systems instead of drums but apparently with 60 rounds you could do damage.



> You can be flying the best fighter around, but if you used bad tactics and fight in a way that lets the enemy exploit their performance advantages, you will still get killed.



This is true, but the nice thing about studying aircraft which were in very wide use is that you can see how they performed with both new or poorly trained pilots using almost no tactics at all and how well with experts using ideal tactics. Furthermore, you can see how tactics were developed, often under brutal combat conditions, as pilots and leadership determined how they could exploit the advantages of their machine against the flaws of the enemy (if such existed). One way you can tell if an aircraft was truly unsuitable or obsolete is if they could no longer find any way to make it successful. This, I would argue was the fate of the Hawker Hurricane after 1942, or the P-39 in American service - even while the Soviets were able to figure it out.



> Engines aren't really as fragile as you think they are. There are plenty of videos to prove it.


Show me a video where a liquid cooled engine takes a hit from 2 or 3 HMG rounds and keeps running. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it was very common. In combat one round that holed a radiator or caused an oil leak could and usually did cause the rapid or gradual death of the engine.




> MC.202 was inferior - I believe it WAS inferior for the reasons mentioned:
> Firepower was too low.
> You first claimed that the Wing LMG were "standard".
> I pointed out that they were factory installed in a little more than half of the aircraft manufactured and that in operational use, they were typically removed. Your response was a very interesting, "They were ineffective anyway."



I don't remember dismissing them quite so categorically, but certainly the 12.7mm guns were considered the main armament by the pilots. Sometimes they removed wing guns in the field, sometimes they did not, you can see plenty of photos in Shores MAW showing the wing guns. It depended on the unit, the mission, and sometimes the individual pilot.

As to whether the MC.202 had too little firepower, it is essentially ridiculous. You can't simultaneously argue (as German pilots themselves did, as did their opponents) that the Bf109F-2 was a superb fighter and the MC.202 was inferior because it was underarmed. You might, by wiggling and twisting, make a case that the single MG-151-15 hit harder than two Breda 12.7mm, but it's certainly not a decisive or major difference, it was at best a slight difference, and at the same time the MC.202 had slightly better wing loading, climb and even speed than the 109F so it probably evened out. Both MC.202 and Bf 109F had a design philosophy that prioritized performance and agility over firepower. No one aircraft can be everything.

You have spoke before of a flying / fighting culture among the Japanese and the Soviets. The Italians had their own as well of course. They liked agility, performance and precision. They wanted to keep their significant altitude and climb advantages for the MC.202 which is why they didn't load it down with guns. They could have armed it like a Hawker Hurricane but then it would have been as slow and lumbering as a Hurricane. Italian pilots were trained in complex and nimble acrobatic techniques (commented on, sometimes with a hint of derision, quite a bit by the Germans and British) which required high agility, hence some pilots removed the wing guns, which in turn could depend on the mission. If they were sending them to shoot down B-24s more guns are better. To duel with Spitfires or Kittyhawk IIs, probably less is more.



> I also stated that average monthly availability in North Africa of C.202 averaged 30-70 aircraft in 1942.



Well I've shown you that is incorrect.



> I asked YOU how many of the Messerschmitts were the older E models. The reason I asked is because of the photographs I recently saw in a book about the 109 that shows a quite a few 109E in Africa.



There were quite a few. JG.27 was armed with 109E until late 1941. They accelerated the transition over to Bf 109F allegedly because of encounters with British Tomahawks. The switch to the Franz started with the arrival of II./JG27 in September 1941 and was complete by February 1942. All the other JG operational in North Africa from that point on had F or G model Bf 109, or Fw 190. There was also a unit of Bf 110 but after 1941 they did fighter bomber, night or coastal missions.



> The Hayabusa was a beautiful aircraft but was significantly out of date even at its introduction in 1941.
> This is not to say it wasn't dangerous, but it was easily a generation behind.



I don't think that is accurate because of the record of the fighter. It was not a generation behind, in some ways it was extremely sophisticated. It was excellent in combat, it's record was among the best in WW2, but it turned out to be not so great for attrition warfare.



> The firing rate you list is a little higher than my notes are listing. Mine only list 750 RPM and that is for a free firing wing mount or motor cannon. When synchronized, firing rate drops to about 610 RPM.
> The 710 meters/second muzzle velocity for the MG 151/20 is also an indication that it is using shells that are quite a bit heavier than those of the ShVAK. With similar weight shells, it would be doing 800 meters/second.
> 
> - Ivan.



The ShVak was not normally used synchronized on the Yak series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 6, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> You do realize that this is not really disproving anything I have been stating thus far.
> Your statistics are for the very end of 1942 at which time, I don't believe the Saetta was in production any longer.
> ...



I'll post some more from earlier in 1942 no problem. But lets not forget the context of the argument - your claim that the P-40 faced inferior opposition in the MTO. The P-40 was heavily engaged in the MTO through early 1944, with the peak of activity there (and almost all of the American activity) was between late 1942 and mid 1943.

By the way I wonder why this line of thinking doesn't extend to the Germans who slaughtered _so many_ I-153, I-15, MiG-3, LaGG-3, SB bombers, Su-2, Ro and other utility biplanes, and various other obsolescent aircraft in the first days and through the first year of Barbarossa.



> The earlier comment that I had made about Saetta units (all but one) returning to Italy at the end of 1942 / beginning of 1943 SHOULD have also included that the units were going back because they no longer had serviceable aircraft.
> With relatively few aircraft still flyable, it isn't a great wonder that they were not getting shot down.
> The Ali d'Italia 08 book comments that this was the end of the service of the Saetta as a front line aircraft.
> 
> - Ivan.



The pages I listed showed both claims and losses. I'll post a few more though if you don't mind I'll just give page numbers for others to verify as I don't want to go through the whole chore of making photos, uploading them to the computer and rotating them and marking them up etc.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 6, 2019)

Ok here is every Italian fighter (or fighter-bomber) claim or casualty listing for July & August 1942. This is all from Shores MAW II pp 244 -318. There may be additional activity for this same period covered in MAW III but I think this should be sufficient to make the point.

*July 1*
2 x MC.202 destroyed, 2 x CR.42 damaged (damage may have been due to the weather)

*July 2*
9 x MC.202 made claims
1 x MC.202 crash landed, pilot POW

*July 3*
16 x MC.202 made claims
1 x MC.202 crash landed, 3 x CR.42 failed to return (the CR 42s were flying as bombers, escorted by the MC.202)

*July 4*
15 x MC.202 made claims

*July 5*
4 x MC.202 made claims (a couple of these say MC202s plural)
1 x MC.202 shot down, 1x MC.202 destroyed strafing, 1x CR.42 crash landed

*July 6*
1 x MC.200 claimed a B-24 damaged
1 x MC.202 damaged, 3 x MC.202 damaged or crash landed

*July 7*
8 x MC.202 made claims
2 x Cr. 42 crash landed or FTR (10 other CR.42 and 1 MC.202 damaged or destroyed on the ground by an SAS raid but this was not air combat)

*July 8*
2 x MC 202 made claims for probables

*July 9*
4 x MC 202 made claims
1 x MC 202 damaged pilot WiA

*July 10*
24 x MC.202 made claims, 2 x CR.42 made claims
6 x MC.202 damaged in combat, 1 x CR.42 shot down

*July 11*
2 x MC.200 made claims for a B-24 damaged, 1x MC.202 made claims an enemy aircraft shot down
3 aircraft damaged by commando raid (ground troops)

*July 12*
No Italian claims or casualties

*July 13*
3 x MC.202 made claims
4 x CR.42 shot down, 1 x MC 200 crash landed

*July 14*
11 x MC.202 made claims
1 x CR.42 shot down

*July 15*
5 x MC.202 made claims
1 x MC.202 crash landed

*July 16*
11 x MC.202 made claims
2 x MC.202 shot down, 2 x MC.202 damaged

*July 17*
3 x MC.202 made claims

*July 18*
8 x MC.202 made claims

*July 19*
1 x MC.202 shot down

*July 20*
1 x MC.200 crash landed, 3 x MC.202 damaged by bombs

*July 21*
2 x MC.202 made claims

*July 22*
4 x MC.202 made claims

*July 23*
No Italian claims or losses

*July 24*
3 x MC.202 made claims
1 x MC.202 crash landed

*July 25*
4 x MC.202 made claims

*July 26, 27, 29, 30*
No Italian claims or losses

*July 31*
7 x MC.202 made claims
1 X MC 202 damaged

*August 1 -4*
No Italian claims or losses

*August 5*
9 x MC.202 made claims

*August 6-8*
No Italian claims or losses

*August 9 *
2 x MC.200 claimed a Liberator damaged near Bengazi (they apparently shot it down)

*August 10 *
No Italian claims or losses

*August 11*
2x MC.202 made claims

*August 12-13 *
No Italian claims or losses

*August 14*
4 x MC.202 made claims
4 x MC.202 destroyed by bombs

*August 15-18*
No Italian claims or losses

August 19
*(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:*
*Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
II./JG 27- 24 x Bf 109F
III./JG 27 - 24 x Bf 109F
JaboStaffel/JG 27 - 12 x Bf 109E
III./JG 534 - 24 x BF 109E and F
Jagdkommando /JG 27 3 x Bf 109F*

*Listing 97 aircraft servicable*)

*August 19*
4 x MC.202 made claims
2 x MC.202 shot down

*August 20-28*
No Italian claims or losses

*August 29*
7 x MC.202 made claims
5 x MC.202 crash landed or failed to return (this was in an engagement with Kittyhawks of 2 and 5 SAAF, 2 x Bf 109F from JG 27 were also lost. The SAAF lost 4 Kittyhawks, 3 Hurricanes and 1 Tomahawk damaged)

*Aug 30*
3 x MC.202 made claims
2 x MC.202 damaged or crash landed, 1 x CR 42 crashed into another CR 42 in a night landing

*By my count that breaks down as follows:*

*Claims*
182 x MC.202 made claims (on roughly 45 out of 62 days)
5 x MC.200 made claims (mostly against Liberators... on 3 days)
4 x CR.42 made claims (on 3 days)

*Losses*
36 x MC.202 shot down or damaged
14 x CR.42 shot down or damaged
2 x MC.200 shot down or damaged

(no G.50)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Thus Soviet fighters did not need two stage superchargers - it would be nice to have, but when most combat is below 15,000 ft and quite a bit below 5,000 ft, it's not the most important thing - and worth sacrificing when limits for weight and size were strict. This is probably one reason why the P-39 did so well there., P-40s also did quite well where the fighting was mostly down low. In the MTO it was a mix of high, medium and low altitude though the bulk of the fighting was at medium (10-20k) and low altitude (below 10K). Same in the PTO. In China and Burma it was more low altitude in most engagements.



The Russians may not have needed two stage superchargers but the supercharger on the M-105 was crap even for a single stage. 

You are trying to compare apples and oranges (or at least baking apples to eating apples). 

The Russian engines were never intended or designed to run on 100 octane and above fuel, and pretty much never did. this limited the amount of boost that could be used or more properly the amount of compression that the supercharger could use to raise the pressure of the ambient air to the desired manifold pressure. 

The M-105PA engine was good for 1100hp for take-off, 1100hp at 2,000meters in low gear of it's two speed supercharger and 1050hp at 4,000meters. Please note that this is not much different than what the Allison in the P-40 Tomahawk could do when flown by the book (no over boosting). Also note that on the M-105PA engine power dropped to about 1000hp at 2800meters at which point high gear in the supercharge was engaged. 

The M-105PF engine used lower supercharger gears and more rpm and higher manifold pressures to hit 1210hp for take-off, 1260hp at 700 meters in low gear and 1180hp at 2700 meters in high gear. At 4000 meters it actually made about 40-50hp less than the M-105PA engine. They also sacrificed engine life (shorter time between overhauls) to get this amount of power down low. It is little wonder that the Russians liked the Allison (and the fuel that came with it) 
The British and American fighters had hundreds more HP at low altitudes in 1942 using over boosting than the Russian fighters even when using single speed superchargers, and their single speed superchargers (let alone two speed) didn't crap out in the high teens as much as the M-105 engines did. M-105PA was down to 800hp at 6000 meters, the PF was worse. 

This was NOT a deliberate decision to keep their fighters light and cheap. It was a result of things out of their control like the quality of the available fuel and the state of the art in supercharger design in the Soviet Union in 1939-41. 
The Mig-3 shows the alternative possible path, use a really big engine to get power at altitude. 

Please note that the Soviets had tried using turbochargers on a variety of engines and aircraft but due to their state of the art they weren't out of the experimental stage. 
Also please note that on the first PE-8 four engine bombers the Soviets went to the extreme of mounting an M-100 engine in the fuselage to drive a supercharger that would provide air to the engine driven superchargers on the AM-34 engines mounted in the wing nacelles. The Soviets would have used higher altitude aircraft if they could have built them in numbers at a reasonable cost (both in rubles and in performance at other altitudes) 



Schweik said:


> I could be wrong but my understanding is that the 7.7mm mg (only) armed Ki-43s only fought in China and in the earliest engagements in the Pacific (mostly against Brewster F2A and Hurricanes). The standard was quickly adjusted to add at least one 12.7mm HMG. Still quite light armament but the Ki-43 made up for that with other excellent characteristics of what you might call hyper-maneuverability, excellent climb, good diving traits and relatively high combat speed especially at lower altitudes. Anyway it made short work for example of very heavily armed Hurricane IIC.



There is some confusion/dispute over the type and number of guns in the Ki-43 in the early part of WW II. Ammo shipments to some bases don't seem to go along with the conventional wisdom as to what guns were fitted. 

Did the Ki-43 really make short work of the Hurricane IIc or did experienced, well trained Japanese pilots make short work of inexperienced, not so well trained British/empire pilots? 
The performance figures for the IIC aren't that far off the IIA and both are a lot better than a Hurricane I. 



Schweik said:


> The Spitfire through Mk VB, the Bf 109E series and quite a few other early cannon-armed fighters were also restricted to 60 rounds. Much better once they changed to belt-fed systems instead of drums but apparently with 60 rounds you could do damage.



The belts certainly allowed for multiple engagements. 
But it points to the ever changing state of the art, Spitfires with belt fed guns started leaving the factory in Oct 1941, how lont it took to convert all production I don't know but in the spring and summer of 1942 55-60 round drums are no longer state of the art. A problem with both the 109Es and the Zero was that their 20mm cannon were of both fairly low velocity and low rate of fire. 



Schweik said:


> Show me a video where a liquid cooled engine takes a hit from 2 or 3 HMG rounds and keeps running. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it was very common. In combat one round that holed a radiator or caused an oil leak could and usually did cause the rapid or gradual death of the engine.


There may not be any "video" but there is a photo on page 131 of "Vees for Victory" that is supposed to be of a C-15 engine from a Tomahawk in NA that got hit 14 times by bullets (even if not heavy machine gun bullets). At least 3 of the hits are in the reduction gear case with another immediately behind. Other holes are either very difficult/impossible to see.
This may be a freak occurrence but some liquid cooled engines were not as vulnerable as is sometimes made out. You might not be able to keep fighting but the engine might stay running for 15-20 minutes at reduced power and get the pilot home. A lot depends on the location of the hit/s. the temperature of the engine to begin with (if you are already pushing the red zone there isn't much margin) , the air temperature and the amount of oil in the oil tank if the hit/s are in the oil system. 



Schweik said:


> I don't think that is accurate because of the record of the fighter. It was not a generation behind, in some ways it was extremely sophisticated. It was excellent in combat, it's record was among the best in WW2, but it turned out to be not so great for attrition warfare.



The Ki-43s record might very well be true. However it would be truly amazing if the commonly accepted scores are actually true. Like over 6000 allied planes shot down. IN 1942-43 the allies didn't have 6000 planes operating in the theaters the KI-43 operated in. By the end of 1943 only 2319 KI 43s had been built. 
How successful was the KI 43 in 1944 when the bulk of the Ki 43 production (2652) showed up? 

Maybe I am wrong but something seems a bit off.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Russians may not have needed two stage superchargers but the supercharger on the M-105 was crap even for a single stage.
> 
> You are trying to compare apples and oranges (or at least baking apples to eating apples).
> 
> ...



As a separate side discussion maybe for another thread, I just want to say I *love* the third / fifth engine just for the supercharger concept, the French had a neat design with one of those too though it didn't have time to mature.

SNCAC NC.150 - Wikipedia









This thing allegedly managed 373 mph at 26,00 ft! Not bad for 1939-1940

For the Soviets, I don't totally disagree that their policies were an adaptation to their reality, including things like fuel quality, but I still stick to my main point that R&D is, while partly dependent on the individual creativity of your designers (and therefore the luck of the draw for the war-leaders) to a large extent it's also a matter of how many resources you put into it. The Pe-8, which was quite a good long range / heavy bomber for 1941 (I would compare it to a slightly flawed Lancaster), would have been much more heavily and seriously developed if there had been a major perceived need for it. Same for high altitude capabilities for the Soviet fighters. Their main need to fight above 20,000 feet was to intercept the occasional Ju-86. They didn't need fleets of high altitude fighters because neither they nor the Germans were using fleets of high altitude bombers. The fighters, as I often try to point out, are basically obligated to go where the bombers go.

In the Battle of Britian there was a lot of more or less high altitude level bombing going on. Later in the 8th AF etc. campaigns (and British Night bombing) there was once again a lot of level bombing going on, then later you also had the B-29 raids on Japan. But these were features mostly of the very early and very late war. In most of the war, and in most Theaters, the action was down low above the tanks and artillery pieces and infantry battalions. In this crucial middle period of WW2, the fighting was more often than not down low, certainly for the Russian it almost always was. Therefore their development followed the course it did.

I also say again, if you were a high ranking general in the Soviet VVS, your main goal is to get production quality up to par, not to improve designs. If say in 1942 you had 95% of your fighters of the latest (say Yak-1B, Yak-7B or La-5) version flying at or near spec (instead of probably more like 30%) your Tactical and Operational situation would dramatically improve.




> There is some confusion/dispute over the type and number of guns in the Ki-43 in the early part of WW II. Ammo shipments to some bases don't seem to go along with the conventional wisdom as to what guns were fitted.
> 
> Did the Ki-43 really make short work of the Hurricane IIc or did experienced, well trained Japanese pilots make short work of inexperienced, not so well trained British/empire pilots?
> The performance figures for the IIC aren't that far off the IIA and both are a lot better than a Hurricane I.



As recently discussed in the Burma thread, from what I gather Hurricane pilots were having trouble with Japanese Ki-43s right until the end. A well flown Ki-43 could also shoot down other more modern Allied fighters. The general trend though in 1944-45 was for poorly trained replacement pilots on the Axis side, vs. fairly well trained and well-led pilots on the Allied side. My opinion on the Ki-43 from reading a lot of operational history in the CBI and PTO, is that they were armed well enough against other fighters or early war light bombers (Blenheims, TBD Devastators, TBF Avenger), their problem was that when faced with more heavily armed bombers like A-20s, B-25s and especially any US 4 engine bombers, or against planes like Beaufighters. They did not have enough hitting power to take those down.



> The belts certainly allowed for multiple engagements.
> But it points to the ever changing state of the art, Spitfires with belt fed guns started leaving the factory in Oct 1941, how lont it took to convert all production I don't know but in the spring and summer of 1942 55-60 round drums are no longer state of the art. A problem with both the 109Es and the Zero was that their 20mm cannon were of both fairly low velocity and low rate of fire.



And yet both the A6M and Bf-109e were known to be exceedingly deadly. I can tell you that in the MTO, both Spitfire Mk VB and Bf 109E were still in action through 1941, Bf 109E were being phased out by February 1942 (as I just pointed out to Ivan) except as Jabos, but the Spit VB were still around through the end of 1942 and well into 1943, along with the (better, IMO) Spit VC though some people disagree with that.

The A6M3 had 100 rounds per 20mm, & by the time you get to the A6M5c they were quite well armed- two x 20mm plus three x 13mm. Of course they came out very late. Should have been standard by say early 1943.



> There may not be any "video" but there is a photo on page 131 of "Vees for Victory" that is supposed to be of a C-15 engine from a Tomahawk in NA that got hit 14 times by bullets (even if not heavy machine gun bullets). At least 3 of the hits are in the reduction gear case with another immediately behind. Other holes are either very difficult/impossible to see.
> This may be a freak occurrence but some liquid cooled engines were not as vulnerable as is sometimes made out. You might not be able to keep fighting but the engine might stay running for 15-20 minutes at reduced power and get the pilot home. A lot depends on the location of the hit/s. the temperature of the engine to begin with (if you are already pushing the red zone there isn't much margin) , the air temperature and the amount of oil in the oil tank if the hit/s are in the oil system.



Again, I don't necessarily disagree - a strongly made engine could endure 2 or 3 hits even from an HMG or a 20mm, but it wasn't likely and certainly in most cases would be out of the fight. I do know for a fact this happened with numerous P-40s and even more B-17s and P-47s and so on (with legends of entire cylinders being shot off and the engine still running for a while) but for a fighter, 90% of the time a hit like that is going to take you out of the fight. The rest (i.e. whether the engine immediately shuts down or catches fire or if you are able to limp home smoking for another 10 or 15 minutes) is relevant more on the level of attrition warfare than to the Tactical situation. Attrition is of course very important too without a doubt, but it's a separate issue from immediate results in a dogfight.



> The Ki-43s record might very well be true. However it would be truly amazing if the commonly accepted scores are actually true. Like over 6000 allied planes shot down. IN 1942-43 the allies didn't have 6000 planes operating in the theaters the KI-43 operated in. By the end of 1943 only 2319 KI 43s had been built.
> How successful was the KI 43 in 1944 when the bulk of the Ki 43 production (2652) showed up?
> 
> Maybe I am wrong but something seems a bit off.



Without a doubt they overclaimed quite a bit, at least 3-1 probably more like 5-1 or 8-1, depending on the area of operation and the Theater, and the individual operation. The IJA seemed to be worse about that than the IJN, the two branches of the Japanese Imperial Military had very different cultures (and there is a reason why all the top Aces were in the Navy regardless of what plane they flew). But even with significant overclaiming of say, 5-1, they still took a toll. We can look at individual battles and Operations and see that the Ki-43 was not an easy mark.[/quote]


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok here is every Italian fighter (or fighter-bomber) claim or casualty listing for July & August 1942. This is all from Shores MAW II pp 244 -318. There may be additional activity for this same period covered in MAW III but I think this should be sufficient to make the point.
> 
> *July 1*
> 2 x MC.202 destroyed, 2 x CR.42 damaged (damage may have been due to the weather)
> ...


This would seem to, unless there is something I'm missing, put to rest the inferior oposition narrative.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, you are actually making my larger point - which I've been trying to illuminate in this and several other threads on here: namely that different fighters excelled in different Theaters, therefore the same set of traits did not universally make a fighter superior; and second that among those traits high altitude performance wasn't necessarily the most important thing in every Theater.
> 
> Thus Soviet fighters did not need two stage superchargers - it would be nice to have, but when most combat is below 15,000 ft and quite a bit below 5,000 ft, it's not the most important thing - and worth sacrificing when limits for weight and size were strict. This is probably one reason why the P-39 did so well there., P-40s also did quite well where the fighting was mostly down low. In the MTO it was a mix of high, medium and low altitude though the bulk of the fighting was at medium (10-20k) and low altitude (below 10K). Same in the PTO. In China and Burma it was more low altitude in most engagements.



Hello Schweik,

What I was saying was that the P-40 often wasn't facing first quality opposition which is one reason it might have done so well. There are many restrictive environments in which one set of performance qualities are favored. In a tight space even Romanian IAR 80 fighters were a match for first line US fighters, but that doesn't mean they were particularly good aircraft.



Schweik said:


> I could be wrong but my understanding is that the 7.7mm mg (only) armed Ki-43s only fought in China and in the earliest engagements in the Pacific (mostly against Brewster F2A and Hurricanes). The standard was quickly adjusted to add at least one 12.7mm HMG. Still quite light armament but the Ki-43 made up for that with other excellent characteristics of what you might call hyper-maneuverability, excellent climb, good diving traits and relatively high combat speed especially at lower altitudes. Anyway it made short work for example of very heavily armed Hurricane IIC.



There was a pretty good debate going on at J-Aircraft about what kinds of armament were actually installed in the Ki-43-II. The issue was really a choice of a very low rate of fire for a 12.7 mm gun or a decent rate of fire by replacing one of the 12.7 HMG with a 7.7 Vickers. Either way, it wasn't a lot of firepower.
Regarding killing Hurricanes, I suspect that might again be a bad tactics thing. Hurricane loses in an agility contest against Hayabusa.



Schweik said:


> The Spitfire through Mk VB, the Bf 109E series and quite a few other early cannon-armed fighters were also restricted to 60 rounds. Much better once they changed to belt-fed systems instead of drums but apparently with 60 rounds you could do damage.



I see that Shortround6 already addressed this, but here is another viewpoint:
The Spitfire Mk.VB still had 4 x .303 cal LMG even without the cannon. The 109E probably WAS too lightly armed but note that the successor replaced the two wing guns with a motor cannon with more ammunition and this was at about the same time as the introduction of the A6M2 and Ki-43-I.
Another factor to consider is that the "loiter time" of the A6M2 is much higher than either of the European fighters. Over the carriers at Midway for example, the description I had read was that after the first engagement, the combat air patrol was left to defend with just machine guns. Another book about the A6M made comments that for the first years of the war, the vast majority of kills were made with the machine guns.



Schweik said:


> Show me a video where a liquid cooled engine takes a hit from 2 or 3 HMG rounds and keeps running. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it was very common. In combat one round that holed a radiator or caused an oil leak could and usually did cause the rapid or gradual death of the engine.



Since when were we limiting this to liquid cooled engines? We already know about various R-2800 coming home with missing cylinders.
The specific video I was thinking of is of an automobile that was modified for radio control and shot at with a BMG. It eventually was destroyed of course, but took quite a few more hits all over than I would have expected. There is also a couple commercial videos (I believe one of them is by Dillon Precision) which shows similar things. 



Schweik said:


> I don't remember dismissing them quite so categorically, but certainly the 12.7mm guns were considered the main armament by the pilots. Sometimes they removed wing guns in the field, sometimes they did not, you can see plenty of photos in Shores MAW showing the wing guns. It depended on the unit, the mission, and sometimes the individual pilot.



Keep in mind that the first factory equipped version of Folgore with wing guns did not get produced until May 1942.
Multiple sources have claimed that the majority of the operational C.202 did not carry wing guns for weight and handling reasons.



Schweik said:


> As to whether the MC.202 had too little firepower, it is essentially ridiculous. You can't simultaneously argue (as German pilots themselves did, as did their opponents) that the Bf109F-2 was a superb fighter and the MC.202 was inferior because it was underarmed. You might, by wiggling and twisting, make a case that the single MG-151-15 hit harder than two Breda 12.7mm, but it's certainly not a decisive or major difference, it was at best a slight difference, and at the same time the MC.202 had slightly better wing loading, climb and even speed than the 109F so it probably evened out. Both MC.202 and Bf 109F had a design philosophy that prioritized performance and agility over firepower. No one aircraft can be everything.



Schweik, We have been to the same point over and over again. You call it wiggling. I call it stating the facts.
Before going a whole lot further, I suggest you do a little background research on the Breda 12.7 x 81 mm HMG. In the field of HMGs, this is one of the weaker guns. It only has about 2/3 the muzzle energy of a Browning M2.
The German MG 151/15 is really borderline HMG / Light Cannon. Besides the faster and heavier shell, it is carrying (according to Shortround6 3.5X the explosive charge).
The Me 109F-2 is also carrying two additional 7.92 mm MG 17 are not matched by anything the typical C.202 was carrying.
Wing guns might have gotten things a little closer, but most of the C.202 did not fly with them.
Now when we get to the 109F-4, we are matching a MG 151/20 against the two Breda 12.7 mm and it isn't even close to even.
I am very curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the Folgore was faster, climbed faster, etc.
From what I have been able to find, the F-2 has on the low end, about the same level speed and on the high end is about 15 MPH faster than Folgore. The F-4 is from 15-20 MPH faster.
As for wing loading, Folgore without wing guns is 2930 KG, with wing guns we get 3069 KG. Wing Area is 16.80 M^2
For the Me 109F-4, loaded weight is 2980 KG and wing area is 16.20 M^2.
I don't have data for the Me 109F-2 handy, but for the Me 109F-1, weight is listed as 2750 KG loaded.
Thus there isn't any significant wing loading advantage for the Folgore. Where did you get this idea?



Schweik said:


> You have spoke before of a flying / fighting culture among the Japanese and the Soviets. The Italians had their own as well of course. They liked agility, performance and precision. They wanted to keep their significant altitude and climb advantages for the MC.202 which is why they didn't load it down with guns. They could have armed it like a Hawker Hurricane but then it would have been as slow and lumbering as a Hurricane. Italian pilots were trained in complex and nimble acrobatic techniques (commented on, sometimes with a hint of derision, quite a bit by the Germans and British) which required high agility, hence some pilots removed the wing guns, which in turn could depend on the mission. If they were sending them to shoot down B-24s more guns are better. To duel with Spitfires or Kittyhawk IIs, probably less is more.



You are quite imaginative here but not really in agreement with the historical development of Folgore and Veltro.
Very early on, there was recognition that armament was too light. Heck, they were carrying the same two 12.7 mm HMG that some of the old Fiat CR.32 biplanes were!
There were attempts to add MG 151/20 cannon (!) in underwing gondolas very early in the production of the Folgore. There were only a total of 5 aircraft built to this standard because poor performance and eventually they were converted to the Veltro standard.
The 2 x 7.7 Breda MG were also tried but didn't become a production standard until May 1942 which was almost a year after service introduction of the type. In service, pilots usually had the guns removed because they represented 300 pounds of extra weight for no great additional firepower, so they were back to CR.32 armament.
It took another year to get a proper cannon armed fighter in the Serie III Veltro.
As for Altitude and Climb advantage, the specifications don't really show any significant advantage for either aircraft.
I do believe that with added engine power and armament (beyond what the C.205 got) the Folgore / Veltro was probably the airframe with better development potential, but at the stage that it reached with C.202 versus Me 109F, my belief is that the 109F had the advantage.
As for tailoring the armament to the mission, how long do you think it would take to completely remove and install wing mounted MG and ammunition feeds and replace fairings to block off the openings? Keep in mind that you also need to harmonize the guns. Is this the kind of thing that you would ask your ground crew to do once you hear that there is an incoming bomber attack? Oops, there are escorting fighters, "Hurry, pull the guns back out!!!" Really??



Schweik said:


> Well I've shown you that is incorrect.



I don't think you are even reading your own post. I stated average of 30-70 Folgore in North Africa in 1942.
Your one data point that "didn't match" showed 55 Folgore by your count. Seems in agreement to me.



Schweik said:


> I don't think that is accurate because of the record of the fighter. It was not a generation behind, in some ways it was extremely sophisticated. It was excellent in combat, it's record was among the best in WW2, but it turned out to be not so great for attrition warfare.



In what way do you think Hayabusa was that sophisticated?
It certainly was agile and easy to fly and that was probably the best that could be said about it.
What characteristics do you believe made it "excellent in combat" but "not so good for attrition warfare"?



Schweik said:


> The ShVak was not normally used synchronized on the Yak series.



It was ALWAYS used synchronized in the Lavochkin radial engine fighters.



Schweik said:


> *Claims*
> 182 x MC.202 made claims (on roughly 45 out of 62 days)
> 5 x MC.200 made claims (mostly against Liberators... on 3 days)
> 4 x CR.42 made claims (on 3 days)
> ...



By my count, that is 18 Folgore shot down over two months versus 16 other types shot down.
As you commented, Commando raids and bombing victims really don't count the same.
That doesn't sound like a great loss of aircraft over two months for the numbers involved.
Just out of curiosity, how do the Italian claims stack up against actual Allied aircraft losses during this time?



Schweik said:


> As recently discussed in the Burma thread, from what I gather Hurricane pilots were having trouble with Japanese Ki-43s right until the end. A well flown Ki-43 could also shoot down other more modern Allied fighters. The general trend though in 1944-45 was for poorly trained replacement pilots on the Axis side, vs. fairly well trained and well-led pilots on the Allied side. My opinion on the Ki-43 from reading a lot of operational history in the CBI and PTO, is that they were armed well enough against other fighters or early war light bombers (Blenheims, TBD Devastators, TBF Avenger), their problem was that when faced with more heavily armed bombers like A-20s, B-25s and especially any US 4 engine bombers, or against planes like Beaufighters. They did not have enough hitting power to take those down.



First of all, the Ki-43 that was being produced "at the end" wasn't really quite the same beast as it was earlier. It gained a bit more engine power than the A6M did even though it used basically the same engine.
It would have been faster that the Hurricane though it still wasn't particularly fast.
The interesting thing about the armament of Ki-43 is that its armament was almost exactly the same as that for a Folgore without wing guns.



Schweik said:


> The A6M3 had 100 rounds per 20mm, & by the time you get to the A6M5c they were quite well armed- two x 20mm plus three x 13mm. Of course they came out very late. Should have been standard by say early 1943.



A6M3 armament had a few variations with the later production Model 22s being the most advanced. Some probably got the 100 round magazines, but late Nakajima production A6M2 also got those.
As for the A6M5c, even the first model of the A6M5 had not yet been developed by early 1943.
Engine power did not increase, so with the extra guns, this model was definitely getting too heavy.

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 6, 2019)

A thought about tagging an aircraft as inferior solely due to less than optimal armament as this seems to be the sole shortcoming of the Mc202 near as I can tell. Everything else looks good to exceptional. Speed, climb, moaenuverability, etc. 
The p51 b&c versions were underarmed though less so than the Mc 202( but not by much) and I would argue were one of the very best fighters of the war. Don't think too many people would classify the p51b/c as inferior oposition. Imho.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Oct 6, 2019)

soulezoo said:


> I'm not sure it's germane here, but I always thought that one of the most successful stretches of an aircraft was a C-141A to a C-141B. That really opened up a whole different world of mission effectiveness for that airframe.
> 
> When I read the OP thread title, that was what came to mind at first.


The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 6, 2019)

Here is a power chart for the M/VK series of engines. This was posted by Tomo many years ago.





The M-106 engine used a single speed supercharger and managed to be up to 200hp more power at low altitudes than the M-105P engine. Even a slightly lower power such an engine in 1941/42 would have given a number of advantages to Soviet fighters. The VK-107, had they got it to work would really have changed things on the Russian front, even without trying to fight at 6000 meters and up (and even if an earlier version was 100-150hp less powerful)

It was the failure of these two engines to be developed as soon as the Soviets wanted that restricted the Armament choices of the Yak and Lagg design teams.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 6, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> A thought about tagging an aircraft as inferior solely due to less than optimal armament as this seems to be the sole shortcoming of the Mc202 near as I can tell. Everything else looks good to exceptional. Speed, climb, moaenuverability, etc.
> The p51 b&c versions were underarmed though less so than the Mc 202( but not by much) and I would argue were one of the very best fighters of the war. Don't think too many people would classify the p51b/c as inferior oposition. Imho.




The differences between the 12.7mm machine guns in the P-51B&C and the 12.7mm machine guns in the MC. 202 (or any italian fighter) are a lot more than "not by much".

The American guns cycle faster, more rounds per second, and that is if the guns are free firing. With the Italian guns slowed by synchronization the amount of bullets per second really starts to differ. rate of fire is about 18 bullets per second for the pair if Italian guns. The P-51B fires over 50 bullets per second, I don't know about you but 2 1/2 times as many per second seems like more than "not by much" to me.

The American bullets are heavier, about 46 grams vs 35 grams for the AP rounds. Not actually a big difference if you hit skin with nothing behind it, at 12.7mm hole is a 12.7mm hole, but if you hit a wing spar, engine mount, longeron, rib or other substantial piece of structure the heavier bullet will penetrate deeper and do more damage. The Longer, heavier, more streamline bullet will also retain velocity better meaning the difference in hitting power goes up with increased range.
The American ammo has a higher velocity to start with (about 14%) but since kinetic energy goes up with square of the velocity that means, if the bullets were the same weight (see above, they are not) the American bullet would hit about 30% harder. In actual fact the American AP round has 64% more kinetic energy at the muzzle than the Italian 12.7mm ammo. And at longer ranges (even 200-300 meters) the difference is even greater. 
The Italian guns do have exploding bullets (HE) but the charge is small and they used mixed belts (not all ammo is HE, some of the Bullets are AP).
Putting everything together the P-51B & C has about* 4 times* the firepower of a MC. 202 with two 12.7mm Breda- SAFAT machineguns. The wing mounted 7.7s are gong to help but not a lot.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 6, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> A thought about tagging an aircraft as inferior solely due to less than optimal armament as this seems to be the sole shortcoming of the Mc202 near as I can tell. Everything else looks good to exceptional. Speed, climb, moaenuverability, etc.
> The p51 b&c versions were underarmed though less so than the Mc 202( but not by much) and I would argue were one of the very best fighters of the war. Don't think too many people would classify the p51b/c as inferior oposition. Imho.



Hello Michael Rauls,

To characterize the Macchi Folgore, I would adjust things a bit.
Speed: Fair - usually quoted as just under 600 KPH.
This isn't bad and faster than a P-40 but not terribly fast compared to FW 190A or Me 109F/G or the Spitfire Mk.IX which arrived soon after.
Climb: Fair - actually very good for the amount of power but again nothing extraordinary and a quite a bit less than the FW 190A / Spitfire.
Maneuverability: Good by the standards of most of its adversaries. Not as good as predecessors such as C.200 and not as good as Hurricane so it needed to use vertical maneuvers to beat Hurricane.
Power-Weight: A bit on the low side in comparison to contemporaries. This was not a light airframe. It was just very aerodynamic.

The P-51B/C armament is quite a bit different. There are twice as many guns. They are all free firing, so they don't lose any firing rate for synchronizing. Their cyclic rates are higher, The bullets weigh 30% more and move 350 fps faster.
Assuming there was no synchronizing loss, the P-51B/C is still putting out over three times the muzzle energy as the guns on C.202.
The P-51B/C also had extraordinary speed and a really excellent climb rate and altitude performance which made it competitive even against late war fighters in any theater.

Of course it is also a much later aircraft.

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> 
> To characterize the Macchi Folgore, I would adjust things a bit.
> Speed: Fair - usually quoted as just under 600 KPH.
> ...


I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the MC 202 but from what I know I would characterize it's performance a little differently. The two sources I looked at gave it's speed as 376 and 380. Anything in that balpark is pretty good in 42. What was the 109 f doing. About the same to slightly less I believe. Climb rate, 3500 fpm, at least from what I read. Again, can't think of any planes except maybe the p38 that were surpassing this in 42 and quite a few( most) that were behind it. I admit I have not read extensively on this aircraft but in what I have read it was always discribed as quite maneuverable by pilots on both sides. Add to that good high altitude performance and I believe it was pretty good in a dive and that sounds like one tough oponent to me. 
Yes the armament was less than optimal but every plane has at least one fault and most of them several but overall it sounds pretty formidable to me.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

The point about the P-51B is that it was relatively lightly armed compared to many of it's contemporaries in 1944. Yet it was still considered almost wildly effective. In various other discussions in other threads some of the same people have made the claim that 4 x .50 cal is light armament - it's what the P-40F and L was often kitted out with in the MTO particularly when they were flying a lot of escort or fighter sweep missions. Lets also not forget that despite the opinions of some here, nose guns were widely considered more accurate (because they are) than wing guns and wing guns notably in the Mustang, Spitfire and P-40 were prone to jamming / stoppages, especially earlier in the war.

In a way, I see this as yet another example of the endless "There is only one way to make a good fighter" vs. "There are as many ways as there were battlefields".

There are a couple of approaches vis a vis armament. Quite a few of the best day fighters of WW2 had light armament:

P-51B/C - 4 x .50 cal in the wings
F4F3 - 4 x .50 cal in the wings
Ki-43 - 1 x 12.7mm and 1 x 7.7mm in the nose
Yak-1B - 1 x 20mm spinner and 1 x 12.7mm in the nose
Yak-3 - 1 x 20mm spinner and 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
La-5FN - 2 x 20mm in the nose
Bf 109F-2 - 1 x 15mm spinner, 2 x 7.92mm
Bf 109F-4 - 1 x 20mm spinner, 2 x 7.92mm in the nose
MC.202 - 2 x 12.7mm in the nose, 2 x 7.7mm in the wings (or not)
Ki-61 (early) - 2 x 12.7mm in the nose and 2 x 7.7mm in the wings

Some kind of in the middle:
A6M2 -2 x 20mm (60 rounds), 2 x 7.7mm in the wings
Spitfire I - 8 x .303 in the wings
Spit V - 2 x 20mm (60 rounds), 4 x .303 in the wings
Bf 109E - 2 x 20mm (60 rounds each) in the wings, 2 x 7.92mm in the nose
D.520 - 1 x 20mm spinner (60 rounds), 4 x 7.5mm in the wings
Ki-84 - 2 x 20mm inn the wings, 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
Ki-61 (late)- 2 x 20mm in the body, 2 x 12.7mm in the wings
MC 205 - 2 x 20mm in the wingts, 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
Fiat G.55 (early) - 1 x 20mm spinner, 4 x 12.7mm in the wings

And some heavily to very heavily armed:
Bf 109G-6, 1 x 20mm spinner, 2 x 20mm wings, 2 x 7.92 mm
Fiat G.55 (late) - 3 x 20mm in spinner and wings, 2 x 12.7mm nose
F6F - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
P-51D - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
F4U - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
Fw 190 - 4 x 20mm plus two 7.92 (or later 13mm)
P-47 - 8 x .50 wing guns
P-38 4 x .50 plus 1 x 20mm all in the nose
Tempest - 4 x 20mm in the wings
N1K1 -4 x 20mm cannon in the wings


All of the above were good to excellent fighters for their time. Some of the best of the war were in the first category, in fact I would say all in that first group with the possible exception of the F4F-3 are widely acknowledged as among the best designs of the war. . In fact many of the best and most highly regarded were in the first group and of the 'very heavily armed fighters' - probably only the Fw 190 is truly in the top tier. Maybe the P-47.

The point of laying out the above is to emphasize there were different schools of succssful fighter design in the war. Many of the types most successful in the key middle years of the war were the more lightly armed ones. Why? Because performance and / or maneuverability turned out to matter more than heavy armament. The most heavily armed fighters of the mid-war years like the Hurricane IIC and the Me 110 did not turn out to be the most deadly, to the contrary.

Later in the war engines got so powerful as to allow heavier armament. The other reason for it is A) you have fewer fighters to contend with but must on the other hand do more strafing (which made the more heavily armed Allied fighters more useful) or B) you have to contend with hordes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 7, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the MC 202 but from what I know I would characterize it's performance a little differently. The two sources I looked at gave it's speed as 376 and 380. Anything in that balpark is pretty good in 42. What was the 109 f doing. About the same to slightly less I believe. Climb rate, 3500 fpm, at least from what I read. Again, can't think of any planes except maybe the p38 that were surpassing this in 42 and quite a few( most) that were behind it. I admit I have not read extensively on this aircraft but in what I have read it was always discribed as quite maneuverable by pilots on both sides. Add to that good high altitude performance and I believe it was pretty good in a dive and that sounds like one tough oponent to me.
> Yes the armament was less than optimal but every plane has at least one fault and most of them several but overall it sounds pretty formidable to me.



Hello Michael Rauls,

What I am seeing is more like 373 MPH for a C.202, about 398-399 MPH for a C.205 and mostly numbers from the high 380's to about 394 MPH for a Me 109F-4.
As for climb rate, as mentioned earlier, both the FW 190A that was captured and tested and the Spitfire Mk.IX were both capable of climb rates in the 3900-4100 fpm range.

Now here's a cool thing: The manual for the C.202 claims a time of 1:28 to 2000 meters which works out to around 4400 feet per minute! Is it believable? I don't think it makes sense for the amount of weight and engine power, but you be the judge.

Hello Schweik,

A lot of the evaluation is probably context. Against a Macchi fighter with 2 x relatively light 12.7 mm Breda HMG, the P-51B/C seems very heavily armed.... And it is. 
The SAME armament on a P-40N-1 was determined by the customer (US Army) to be inadequate and later P-40N reverted to 6 guns instead of 4.
There was a pretty convincing argument that a 4 x .50 cal M2 armament was probably the ideal compromise between power and weight. The problem is that no matter what WE believe, the people buying the airplanes decided they wanted 6 guns.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 7, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> This would seem to, unless there is something I'm missing, put to rest the inferior oposition narrative.



It doesn't really tell us anything about how many MC-202's were there or how many sorties they flew.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The point about the P-51B is that it was relatively lightly armed compared to many of it's contemporaries in 1944. Yet it was still considered almost wildly effective. In various other discussions in other threads some of the same people have made the claim that 4 x .50 cal is light armament - it's what the P-40F and L was often kitted out with in the MTO particularly when they were flying a lot of escort or fighter sweep missions. Lets also not forget that despite the opinions of some here, nose guns were widely considered more accurate (because they are) than wing guns and wing guns notably in the Mustang, Spitfire and P-40 were prone to jamming / stoppages, especially earlier in the war.
> 
> In a way, I see this as yet another example of the endless "There is only one way to make a good fighter" vs. "There are as many ways as there were battlefields".
> 
> ...




We have to be careful in assigning such descriptions as light and heavy armament as it changed with time. A CR. 42 with two 12.7mm Breda-DAFATs had pretty good armament in 1939-40 ( the CR 32 with the same guns was even better in 1937 ).
The Spitfire with eight .303s falls in here, Heavy indeed in 1938 and even into 1940, pathetic in 1942 or later. 

For the US, while the .50 was effective (in numbers) it was also a heavy gun using heavy ammo which affected the aircraft it was used in. This leads to two different definitions of "heavy armament" heavy installed weight and/or heavy throw weight/ heavy target effect. 

ammo supply or duration of fire is also a question that needs looking at. The Bf 110 was not particularly heavily armed compared to the 109E-3 (it was compared to the E-1 or E-2 with their four 7.92 guns) when you figure weight of fire per second, however for a deep penetration fighter it carried 3 times the ammo for it's cannon as the 109. This required a 2nd crewman to reload the cannon. (first 400 Beaufighters had the 2nd crewman trying to change 60 round drums on four cannon, the 240 rpg was something of an illusion ). 

For the US four .50 cal guns was about the minimum effective armament that would be accepted. You did have to send the fighter thousands of miles from the factory and hordes of lightly armed fighters have too big of logistics footprint. However even the 4 gun installation on a P-40L went about 600lbs (272kg?) just for the guns and ammo (235rpg) . That is not light from an aircraft design/performance point of view. The eight .303s in the Spitfire mk I went about 430lbs with ammo. 

Just comparing calibers and number of guns can sometimes create a false impression or at least one that is shaded. 20mm cannon are especially subject to this as the weight of the projectiles and the rate of fire changed so much from one to the other (as did the muzzle velocity).

More tonight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> It doesn't really tell us anything about how many MC-202's were there or how many sorties they flew.


True, it wouldn't tell us exactly but should give a rough idea and what it does tell us exactly is the oposition they actually did encounter regardless of what the Italians had available or sortie rates.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 7, 2019)

That they were in North Africa is not disputed.


----------



## soulezoo (Oct 7, 2019)

davparlr said:


> The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!



I can recall when training missions included loading up the "pet rocks" (pallets of nothing more than a huge concrete block and steel rails) and putting them at each pallet station. That with about 90k lbs of fuel or so put the plane close to max load and then touch and go's were practiced. When we had the big crosswinds at Travis, well, that just made it more interesting.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> 
> What I am seeing is more like 373 MPH for a C.202, about 398-399 MPH for a C.205 and mostly numbers from the high 380's to about 394 MPH for a Me 109F-4.



Yes but we are talking about North Africa and the MTO, you should check your sources for Bf 109F-4 (trop), it's not quite as fast.



> As for climb rate, as mentioned earlier, both the FW 190A that was captured and tested and the Spitfire Mk.IX were both capable of climb rates in the 3900-4100 fpm range.



The Fw 190 was only around in one squadron, from late in 1942, and the Spit IX didn't arrive in the MTO until 1943.



> Now here's a cool thing: The manual for the C.202 claims a time of 1:28 to 2000 meters which works out to around 4400 feet per minute! Is it believable? I don't think it makes sense for the amount of weight and engine power, but you be the judge.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory!



> Hello Schweik,
> 
> A lot of the evaluation is probably context. Against a Macchi fighter with 2 x relatively light 12.7 mm Breda HMG, the P-51B/C seems very heavily armed.... And it is.



Here's something for you to research:

1) when did the Macchi C.202 first go into combat and
2) when did the P-51B first go into combat

Compare and contrast. When the P-51B came out it was very lightly armed compared to the fighters it faced.



> The SAME armament on a P-40N-1 was determined by the customer (US Army) to be inadequate and later P-40N reverted to 6 guns instead of 4.
> There was a pretty convincing argument that a 4 x .50 cal M2 armament was probably the ideal compromise between power and weight. The problem is that no matter what WE believe, the people buying the airplanes decided they wanted 6 guns.
> 
> - Ivan.



You are again forgetting fairly obvious things here. First, guns could be and were removed in the field if needed depending on the mission. Second, by the time the P-40N came out most of the mission was for fighter bomber / strafing runs, which necessitated 6 guns.

Third, it is well known that the P-40N was configured one of two different ways, as a fighter bomber or more as a pure fighter. It always did a bit of both, but the weight and payload varied based on where the squadron was stationed and what kind of missions it flew. The N incidentally played almost no role with Americans in the MTO, it was widely used in the Pacific and CBI but came too late for fighting in the Med (or at any rate, the F/L were used instead). The British also used it in the MTO but almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> That they were in North Africa is not disputed.



Don't you own a copy of MAW II and III? You can read the rate of sorties in the text, I just posted the summaries because I think it makes it all very obvious. How many Italian fighter sorties in the period I covered do you think were by anything other than a MC.202? From looking through the book by mid 1942 99% of the fighter sorties are MC.202. The CR.42s were only being used as bombers, due to the lack of any other effective Italian light bomber, they were essentially in the same role as Stukas but only flew a handful of days a month. The MC.200 seemed to be relegated to some kind of maritime defense missions and occasionally went after B-24s. That is what I see and I'm not making anything up. What am I missing here Stig?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> What I was saying was that the P-40 often wasn't facing first quality opposition which is one reason it might have done so well. There are many restrictive environments in which one set of performance qualities are favored. In a tight space even Romanian IAR 80 fighters were a match for first line US fighters, but that doesn't mean they were particularly good aircraft.



I think IAR 80 were quite good, they were just an old design that hadn't been upgraded with new engines. The fact that they did so well around Ploesti etc. tells me that in particular they were good low altitude fighters and by contrast, the P-38 was a bad low altitude fighter (which they also learned in the MTO)



> The specific video I was thinking of is of an automobile that was modified for radio control and shot at with a BMG. It eventually was destroyed of course, but took quite a few more hits all over than I would have expected. There is also a couple commercial videos (I believe one of them is by Dillon Precision) which shows similar things.



Now that seems like a link you should post, I'd love to see it purely for entertainment purposes.



> Keep in mind that the first factory equipped version of Folgore with wing guns did not get produced until May 1942. Multiple sources have claimed that the majority of the operational C.202 did not carry wing guns for weight and handling reasons.



My understanding is that MC.202 was made with the capacity for the wing guns in place. I've read that some pilots removed wing guns (mainly to improve roll rate) which was incidentally also done with Spitfires, Hurricanes, and P-40s operating in the MTO, but that not all were.



> Schweik, We have been to the same point over and over again. You call it wiggling. I call it stating the facts.
> Before going a whole lot further, I suggest you do a little background research on the Breda 12.7 x 81 mm HMG. In the field of HMGs, this is one of the weaker guns. It only has about 2/3 the muzzle energy of a Browning M2.
> I don't have data for the Me 109F-2 handy, but for the Me 109F-1, weight is listed as 2750 KG loaded.
> Thus there isn't any significant wing loading advantage for the Folgore. Where did you get this idea?



Here is the fact - a single 'good' HMG isn't dramatically better than two 'poor' HMGs, especially when we know the latter were putting out more bullets. Both the Bf 109F and the MC.202 were lightly armed by the standards of their day. Both were very good fighters anyway. That is the reality.

As for wing loading, it doesn't take a huge difference to make a difference - MC.202 with the larger wing area had 35.7 lbs sq ft loaded (with wing guns), Bf 109F had a wing loading of about 36.6 - that is enough to give the 202 an edge in a turn. Of course the Bf 109 also had leading edge slats which could help in a slow turn fight, but the tactics used with both planes emphasized keeping the speed up and combat in the vertical. Instantaneous turn or high speed turns would matter more.



> As for tailoring the armament to the mission, how long do you think it would take to completely remove and install wing mounted MG and ammunition feeds and replace fairings to block off the openings? Keep in mind that you also need to harmonize the guns. Is this the kind of thing that you would ask your ground crew to do once you hear that there is an incoming bomber attack? Oops, there are escorting fighters, "Hurry, pull the guns back out!!!" Really??



Again, you seem to think I'm making things up? I'm just telling you what I have read. You have already made clear you don't have any interest in operational history but you are routinely implying I'm crazy or disengenuous when I put out what is *IN *the operational histories! And no matter how many times you see evidence that defies your theories they never budge a centimeter.

The scenario I have seen described is something like this - "_Maggiore Raspanti, your new mission is to fly from Pantelleria will be to intercept B-24s heading to Sicily_." Maggiore Raspatni then tells Tenente DiSalvo to arm the fighters for their two Squadrigglia for bomber interception. If two months later he is told they are going to be supporting the Alpini division in Tunisia, and to expect to engage Spitfires and Kittyhawk IIs, they may remove the wing guns. Capisce?



> I don't think you are even reading your own post. I stated average of 30-70 Folgore in North Africa in 1942.
> Your one data point that "didn't match" showed 55 Folgore by your count. Seems in agreement to me.



You are making an artificial distinction between stationed in North Africa to operating over North Africa. The latter is the only part that is relevant. Fighter squadrons operating from Pantelleria, which is what, 30 or 40 miles from Tunisia, so routinely engaged Allied fighters operating over Tunisia and Algeria that the Allies decided it had to be captured before they could invade Sicily. It also served as a waystation for fighters and bombers operating from Sardinia and Sicily, both about ~150 miles away from Tunisia as the crow (or MC.202) flies.







In fact, Pantelleria, with it's large capacity air bases and huge fortified hangers, was kind of the Italian Malta, and you could argue that it was the single most important base for the Regia Aeronautica in 1942 -43





Here is a nice two gun MC.202 in an olive orchard in Pantelleria in 1943



> In what way do you think Hayabusa was that sophisticated?
> It certainly was agile and easy to fly and that was probably the best that could be said about it.
> What characteristics do you believe made it "excellent in combat" but "not so good for attrition warfare"?



It was beautifully streamlined, with an excellent combination of low drag with large high lift wings, it had a bubble canopy with excellent visibility in all directions, it was of all metal stressed-skin construction at a time when many fighters still had some cloth or wood skin, had highly effective combat flaps, was harmoniously balanced enough to handle fairly high dive speeds and remain controllable in a dive (unlike an A6M and to a better extent than a Bf 109). It had a remarkable range for a fighter in that era.



> By my count, that is 18 Folgore shot down over two months versus 16 other types shot down.
> As you commented, Commando raids and bombing victims really don't count the same.
> That doesn't sound like a great loss of aircraft over two months for the numbers involved.
> Just out of curiosity, how do the Italian claims stack up against actual Allied aircraft losses during this time?



The claims for the Italian fighters (almost exclusively Folgores) were often split between four or five pilots. They seemed to have something like a system of group kills similar to the Soviets. So in part that accounts for the large number of claims on a given day - you might have a total of 8 or 10 pilots making claims on the same two enemy aircraft. There was also clearly some substantial overclaiming.

That said, if you do look at the operational history, an encounter with MC.202s often resulted in a couple of casualties for any Allied fighters including Spitfires and P-38s. They also appear to have been able to shoot down B-24s if they could get past the escorts, and occasionally B-17s. Conversely MC.202 losses remained pretty low until 1943.
Early model Kittyhawks (I or Ia) and Hurricanes were clearly outmatched,
Spit V, P-40K or P-40F/L about even,
Tomahawks oddly seemed to do pretty well against both Bf 109 and MC202 (better than the early Kittyhawks) but still not quite up to par, maybe 3/4 as good.
P-38 I would say outmatched. Not until the Spit IX arrived in 1943 did you see an Allied aircraft that clearly had an advantage over the MC.202 (this was also true of the Bf109F/G and Fw 190).

The Italians didn't cause as much of a steady attrition against the DAW as the Luftwaffe did, partly because they flew fewer missions and seemed to disengage when the fight turned against them, but when it came down to an intense fight as it periodically did, they accounted quite well for themselves. I gather the small number that went to the Russian front did well there too. I think their main problem in the North Africa zone was fuel shortages.



> As for the A6M5c, even the first model of the A6M5 had not yet been developed by early 1943.
> Engine power did not increase, so with the extra guns, this model was definitely getting too heavy.
> 
> - Ivan.



You missed my point, I was saying they should have made a heavily armed version like that earlier than they did. They were contending with strong Allied bombers and the new generation of radial engined fighters which were all harder to shoot down. In my opinion the A6M5c still had quite good performance and excellent maneuverability.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

One other thing, in terms of "flying culture" as mentioned previously. The Italian pilots seemed to have a fighting culture tuned for attrition warfare - tuned for their survival. The biggest advantage of both the _Folgore_ and the Bf 109F and early G was in combat ceiling and climb. The ideal attack mode was to bounce from above and climb away rather than continue to engage. This seemed to work even against the Spit V, perhaps due to the dreaded Vokes filter, Bf 109 and MC.202 could usually attack them from above and disengage by climbing (usually in a climbing turn to the right). I gather even the P-38 could not always stay above the Bf 109.

The Luftwaffe found that sustained engagement with Spits or P-40s would often lead to losses. Hit and run was safer but often not decisive however, so sometimes they had to force their way in to get at at the bombers or (more rarely) they got caught from above. In this case it was basically rolling scissors and energy fighting against the turn and dive tactics of the Allied planes. Bouncing from above and only attacking with that advantage, which was the favored tactic of JG.27, had to be partly abandoned in the second half of 1942 due to increasing attacks against Axis air bases and the escalating stakes of the war on the ground, and JG.77 seemed to get into more and more sustained engagements, relying on their increasing advantage in speed with the 109G-2 and G-4, they sometimes fought all the way back to Allied bases. But JG.77 paid the price for their increased aggression and took heavy and mounting casualties in the MTO until they were all but wiped out.

The Italians by contrast continued to attack mainly when they had an advantage. When pressed they apperently had a repertoire of loops and stall turns and acrobatic maneuvers which often somewhat baffled the British, but this seems to have simply been their method of disengaging. Often they got one or two victories and disengaged. Only occasionally did they get into really intense fights of the kind routinely taken on by the Germans, but when they did they gave at least as good as they got. I can post some examples later.

Many of the Italian pilots had been at war for a long time - not a few going back to 1937 or 38 in the Spanish Civil War, then in quite bloody fighting with the British in Greece, over Malta, and in North Africa. They had been under fascism far longer than the Germans had, the pilot commentaries make it clear there was both official and unofficial tension between the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. The first Italian capitulation in 1943 did not come as a total surprise to the troops lets say. I think by mid to late 1942 many of the Italian pilots wanted to survive more than to win glory for Mussolini. Their fighting tactics anyway seemed to emphasize survivability 'with a bite' as they often knocked down Allied fighters and then disengaged.

I think this tactic coincided well with the decision, both on an institutional / production and unit or pilot level, to keep the aircraft less heavily armed (i.e. to use 2 guns instead of 4), in favor of performance and agility, as the latter traits were more conducive to survival based on the type of fighting they were emphasizing. But they did still have the option of 4 guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Another thought - early in the war in North Africa, Allied bombers consisted mostly of Britsol Blenheims which were extremely vulnerable to fighters. Starting in 1942 these were replaced by increasing numbers of much faster and more capable Douglas Boston and Martin Baltimores and also Hurricane and Kittyhawk fighter-bombers. 

From mid 1942 heavily armed and armored US B-25 and B-26 medium bombers joined the mix, along with B-24s and a few B-17s. This is a big shift in the situation. The medium and heavy bombers were being used to pulverize Axis air bases from roughly the time of Torch onward (I used to think this Tactical change was an American innovation but it apparently came from the British Air Marshal Coningham). It did however rely on the more dangerous US bombers for success. Allied fighter bombers and dive bombers were also causing a lot more problems in the ground war. This forced the Axis fighters to engage more heavily and it meant they needed to knock down much tougher targets.

Which makes sense as to the timing of when the extra guns appeared for the MC.202


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> That they were in North Africa is not disputed.


Well on that we agree. Don't think anyone is disputing that Mc202s were there. Whether or not they were 1st rate fighters for 42 and wheather they and other modern types made up the majority of Italian and Luftwaffe types seems to be what's in dispute. At least as near as I can tell.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Don't you own a copy of MAW II and III? You can read the rate of sorties in the text, I just posted the summaries because I think it makes it all very obvious. How many Italian fighter sorties in the period I covered do you think were by anything other than a MC.202? From looking through the book by mid 1942 99% of the fighter sorties are MC.202. The CR.42s were only being used as bombers, due to the lack of any other effective Italian light bomber, they were essentially in the same role as Stukas but only flew a handful of days a month. The MC.200 seemed to be relegated to some kind of maritime defense missions and occasionally went after B-24s. That is what I see and I'm not making anything up. What am I missing here Stig?



You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.

Something else you missed, though I don't what it has to do with the Macchi, but I have helped you out:



Schweik said:


> August 19
> *(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:*
> *Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
> I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
> ...


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 7, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Well on that we agree. Don't think anyone is disputing that Mc202s were there. Whether or not they were 1st rate fighters for 42 and wheather they and other modern types made up the majority of Italian and Luftwaffe types seems to be what's in dispute. At least as near as I can tell.



Yes, but see above.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 7, 2019)

davparlr said:


> The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!



We supported the C-131 and C- 141 stretch programs at Lockheed in Marietta GA back in 1990.
Had a good many contractors out there.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.



Au contraire mon frere, I had already demonstrated that several times there were far more MC.202 on hand than that. Please see this post:

"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

*Which shows that in October 1942 there were 210 MC. 202 in 7 groups, and in November 1942 there were 146 MC.202. In both cases there were also 20 Re 2001.*
That is three times as many as Ivan insisted in October and two times as many in November (after El Alamein).

Next Ivan was implying (I guess?) that most of these weren't active or flying sorties, (again, I guess? Something about 30%), so I posted all the other evidence to make it clear that the 202s were flying regularly, and are in fact the main fighter that shows up in the operational history - by a long shot. In fact they flew almost all the fighter sorties in 1942 if you added them all up.

To be honest, I doubt you missed it. You have the book so you know there were plenty of MC.202 active, far more than 30 or even 70 at any given time.

If you too are adopting the spurious assertion that only aircraft physically stationed in North Africa were part of the air battle *over* North Africa then I say, please read your book since it will be very quickly obvious that aircraft flying out of Pantelleria and even Sicily or Sardinia routinely tangled with Allied aircraft based in Algeria or Tunisia and etc.



> Something else you missed, though I don't what it has to do with the Macchi, but I have helped you out:



I didn't miss anything, I left out the twin engine birds because they were only flying night or maritime missions, so far as I am aware. Do you know any different?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but we are talking about North Africa and the MTO, you should check your sources for Bf 109F-4 (trop), it's not quite as fast.



Hello Schweik,

Good point. Thanks. I will check for that.



Schweik said:


> The Fw 190 was only around in one squadron, from late in 1942, and the Spit IX didn't arrive in the MTO until 1943.



This is why I have been stating that the competition here wasn't really first rate.



Schweik said:


> Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory!



Do you actually KNOW about the data from the manual I am referring to?
I think you do not which is why you are so quick to disparage.
From your comment, I take it your view is that an initial climb rate of 4400 feet / minute is plausible for this aircraft?
If so, then aeronautical engineers in other countries must be pretty lousy.



Schweik said:


> You are again forgetting fairly obvious things here. First, guns could be and were removed in the field if needed depending on the mission. Second, by the time the P-40N came out most of the mission was for fighter bomber / strafing runs, which necessitated 6 guns.
> 
> Third, it is well known that the P-40N was configured one of two different ways, as a fighter bomber or more as a pure fighter. It always did a bit of both, but the weight and payload varied based on where the squadron was stationed and what kind of missions it flew. The N incidentally played almost no role with Americans in the MTO, it was widely used in the Pacific and CBI but came too late for fighting in the Med (or at any rate, the F/L were used instead). The British also used it in the MTO but almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber.



You are assuming I have an opinion on this. I stated it as a matter of history and observation as to what the client wanted. I have no firm opinion on this subject though I do have my preferences. From what I have stated thus far, all you can really conclude is that I believe two HMG is not quite enough, especially if they are fairly low powered HMG.



Schweik said:


> My understanding is that MC.202 was made with the capacity for the wing guns in place. I've read that some pilots removed wing guns (mainly to improve roll rate) which was incidentally also done with Spitfires, Hurricanes, and P-40s operating in the MTO, but that not all were.



I had also thought that there was no great modification necessary for mounting wing guns in Folgore. What I have been finding out more recently suggests otherwise. There is mention of structural modifications needed to the wing of the Serie VII Folgore which was the first version (though not chronologically) to mount wing guns from the factory. This seems to be supported by the photographs which show MG 151/20 cannon mounted below the wing surface in Folgore test machines while in production cannon armed aircraft, the were mounted internally. Those production cannon aircraft STARTED with the wing gun equipped Serie IX Folgore though.

It also doesn't really sound like a problem with roll rates because if it were, then the problem would only have gotten worse with fitting MG 151/20 cannon as was eventually done on Veltro and that was attempted with Folgore.
It sounds like simple extra weight. Keep in mind that this weight difference is about the same as that between a Yak-9T/Yak-9K and a regular Yak-9 or a Yak-9U with the M-105 engine.



Schweik said:


> Here is the fact - a single 'good' HMG isn't dramatically better than two 'poor' HMGs, especially when we know the latter were putting out more bullets. Both the Bf 109F and the MC.202 were lightly armed by the standards of their day. Both were very good fighters anyway. That is the reality.



You are set in your opinion. That much is obvious. I have also pointed out that Me 109F-4 was armed with a MG 151/20 which was significantly more lethal, but you don't seem to want to recognize that fact.



Schweik said:


> As for wing loading, it doesn't take a huge difference to make a difference - MC.202 with the larger wing area had 35.7 lbs sq ft loaded (with wing guns), Bf 109F had a wing loading of about 36.6 - that is enough to give the 202 an edge in a turn. Of course the Bf 109 also had leading edge slats which could help in a slow turn fight, but the tactics used with both planes emphasized keeping the speed up and combat in the vertical. Instantaneous turn or high speed turns would matter more.



First of all, in a high speed turn, the structural limitations are probably going to be more of an issue than the aerodynamic stall. The other factor is that if we are discussing the Me 109F-4, then the Messerschmitt has a significant power loading advantage over the Folgore.
Also, not everyone favored high speed turns. Marseille was know for very low speed turn fights but then again he was a strange case.



Schweik said:


> You are making an artificial distinction between stationed in North Africa to operating over North Africa. The latter is the only part that is relevant. Fighter squadrons operating from Pantelleria, which is what, 30 or 40 miles from Tunisia, so routinely engaged Allied fighters operating over Tunisia and Algeria that the Allies decided it had to be captured before they could invade Sicily. It also served as a waystation for fighters and bombers operating from Sardinia and Sicily, both about ~150 miles away from Tunisia as the crow (or MC.202) flies.



I quoted what data I had from a book. I have not stated otherwise though you have tried by various means to make it seem as I may have stated something else. The passage clearly describes the numbers in North Africa but not elsewhere.
I didn't write these books.
Your data clearly supports that the data in the book is correct whether you believe it is relevant or not.
Why are you trying to start an argument about something that was not stated?



Schweik said:


> It was beautifully streamlined, with an excellent combination of low drag with large high lift wings, it had a bubble canopy with excellent visibility in all directions, it was of all metal stressed-skin construction at a time when many fighters still had some cloth or wood skin, had highly effective combat flaps, was harmoniously balanced enough to handle fairly high dive speeds and remain controllable in a dive (unlike an A6M and to a better extent than a Bf 109). It had a remarkable range for a fighter in that era.



Let's analyze what you have just stated.
The Hayabusa was introduced in 1941. Contemporaries in other countries and even in Japan had already gone to all metal stressed skin construction at least 5 or 6 years before. Its bubble canopy was not unique even for a Japanese Army fighter because it was a feature of its predecessor, the Ki-27 and of A6M from a year earlier. It had very good maneuverability. Its streamlining was not so good as can be seen by its speed as compared to the A6M2 with the same engine. The A6M2 was easily 20 MPH faster. It had some serious limitations on dive speed and was structurally weak to the point that several of them broke up in aerobatics and killed their pilots. Initial armament was pretty much identical to fighters from the Great War: Two Vickers 7.7 mm MG. This was NOT cutting edge technology for an aircraft introduced in 1941.



Schweik said:


> Tomahawks oddly seemed to do pretty well against both Bf 109 and MC202 (better than the early Kittyhawks) but still not quite up to par, maybe 3/4 as good.
> P-38 I would say outmatched. Not until the Spit IX arrived in 1943 did you see an Allied aircraft that clearly had an advantage over the MC.202 (this was also true of the Bf109F/G and Fw 190).



You included the Spitfire Mk.V as near equal with Folgore, but what I have been reading suggests otherwise. The Spitfire had a much better climb rate by every account that mentions it. Though if the manual is to believed, the Folgore outclimbs even a Spitfire Mk.IX and should give a Spitfire Mk.XIV a pretty good race.
It also has better armament and a much higher power to weight ratio, especially the low altitude versions.
The point though is as you know, none of these fighters was really "new", just new to the MTO.
This is why I have been commenting that the competition in MTO really wasn't quite first-rate.



Schweik said:


> The Italians didn't cause as much of a steady attrition against the DAW as the Luftwaffe did, partly because they flew fewer missions and seemed to disengage when the fight turned against them, but when it came down to an intense fight as it periodically did, they accounted quite well for themselves. I gather the small number that went to the Russian front did well there too. I think their main problem in the North Africa zone was fuel shortages.



I believe this response may be a bit off topic but here goes:
In reading about the accomplishments of Italian pilots, it appears that in general, they were a fairly skilled bunch and were also incredibly brave and fatalistic. They basically fought to the death against overwhelming odds and often with inferior equipment and terribly outnumbered. Regarding the Eastern Front, my understanding is that the Folgore was not sent there initially. Only Saetta were sent. By the time Folgore were arriving, it seemed like the Italians were having a pretty hard time there.



Schweik said:


> You missed my point, I was saying they should have made a heavily armed version like that earlier than they did. They were contending with strong Allied bombers and the new generation of radial engined fighters which were all harder to shoot down. In my opinion the A6M5c still had quite good performance and excellent maneuverability.



I believe the strategic situation prevented them from doing anything like that.
Keep in mind that in early 1943, the battle for Guadalcanal was still going.
It was being supported by aircraft from Rabaul.
A new model, the A6M3 Model 32 had been introduced, but the bigger engine had taken up space that had been used for the fuselage fuel tank and range was too short to make the trip. Even for the older A6M2, the trip was marginal, but that is all they had.
Before improving the armament, they had to improve the range which was done with A6M3 Model 22 which eventually also received a larger 20 mm cannon and more ammunition as well as more fuel.
The development cycle didn't get to the A6M5 prototype until much later in 1943.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.



Hello Stig1207,

It isn't just Macchi C.202 deployed everywhere. It is specifically deployed in North Africa which is where the book accounts overlapped.
There are two books that both claim 23,555 fighter sorties flown by Italian pilots in 1942 of which only 30% were with C.202 Folgore. I suspect they are all quoting the same source, but if they are correct, then who flew the other 70%?

I figure that AT BEST, the posts by Schweik may have accounted for a few hundred sorties.
What about the other 23,000? How about the beginning of the year. These are not answers I have but I am not willing to accept that 18 air to air losses and some number of "Claims" over two months in the latter half of the year is really an indication of what was happening for the entire year.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Maybe you should buy MAW II and read it. He goes through basically every squadron mission for every single day.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

I think in part what we are actually arguing about here is books that provide contradictory data. Older books especially often repeat errors or data points taken out of context.

Could a MC.202 climb 4,000 ft per minute? Well depending on the fuel and guns carried a P-40N could apparently do better than 3,500 ft per minute (according to one of those documents on WWiiaircraftperformance.org) and yet no pilot ever said it was a good climber.

Climb rate depends on a lot of factors - how much fuel is the aircraft loaded with, what altitude are you talking about (many can climb quite well from Sea Level for the first minute or two, after that it slows down a lot for most planes) what are the temperature, humidity, weather and atmospheric conditions? What power setting is used - takeoff, military, or "war emergency"? What flap setting, if any? How many wing guns or other heavy tidbits are on board? How fat is the pilot? 

So I wouldn't rule out a 4,000 fpm climb rate for the MC.202 for a minute or two, no I don't think that is unreasonable. If you told me that a Bf 109F could climb that fast I'd not be tremendously surprised there either*. But I will say this, the MC.202 seems to have a slight edge, it's slightly more aerodyamic, a little lighter and it's wing probably provides just a bit more lift. It was a slightly better plane except for firepower, than the Bf 109F2. Taking the guns into consideration they were about even.

The 109-F4 was slightly better than the 202 but I think a 205 is slightly better than an F4 or even up to a 109-G4. Overall the two types (202/205 and 109F/G) were comparable in the period they were being used, both were top of the line fighters by world standards. Both could take on the Spit V which was the best Allied fighter in 1942, both had a bit more trouble with the Spit IX but could still kill them. So no the opposition wasn't easier in the MTO. You are a fool if you really think that.



Many books floating around out there say a variety of different things and spread misleading data points. I was pretty certain not that long ago that a Pe-2 could fly at 360 mph because I have 5 books on my bookshelf repeating that number. Shortround6 debunked that claim and I subsequently learned that more accurate data cuts that speed down by 30 or 40 mph. Now I assume the 360 mph must have been from a test without guns and armor or something like that. Similar cliches like that the P-39s were only used as tank busters also get repeated in probably at least a dozen books on my shelf. I've learned to be wary of them.

New data sources are emerging like all those wartime documents on wwiiaircraftperformance and the flight manuals floating around, and the archives now being used as sources by people like Shores and Bergstrom and John Lundstrom, and (I think so far most precise of all) Michael John Clairingbould and Peter Ingman. And there will be more. These fantgastic new sources, unavailable 20 years ago, are now giving us a much clearer picture of the reality of the air war in WW2, which is really exciting to me. We all knew some of those optimistic accounts we read as kids weren't quite on the level.

But some of us get annoyed these days because we consider ourselves well informed and have believed those old tropes for 10, 20 or 30 or 40 years, and aren't ready for them to be debunked. The other problem we have right here is that if I Schweik open up one of the more current books and tell you what is in it, even if I take photos, you flat out don't believe me. Just like when you quote a figure like 20,000 fighter sorties in 1942 and only 30% by MC.202 doesn't seem remotely credible to me so I don't believe you. I believe you read something in the ballpark of that, but if that is exactly what it said, I think your book is wrong. Maybe 20,000 sorties period, including all the Sm.79s and Cant 506s and everything, then maybe? Even then it seems a stretch.

I fear we are at an impasse, those endless arguments go nowhere after a while. My dreams of debunking that one particular legend about the P-40 and the other ones about the Mc 202 being 'inferior' or the Ki-43 being easy pickings... have run their course.


*Fw 190 on the other hand usually is quoted at a considerably lower rate of climb so I'd really love to see that claim validated. WWIIaircraftperformance shows a range from 2,938 to 3,290 from Sea level, and I think that is using boost.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

In terms of the original subject, I was reading about the MiG 17 and it sounds like a MiG 15 that was stretched and given a bigger engine and a few other tweaks. Did I get that wrong?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In terms of the original subject, I was reading about the MiG 17 and it sounds like a MiG 15 that was stretched and given a bigger engine and a few other tweaks. Did I get that wrong?



Actually had the same engine the later versions got an Afterburner...
CAC Sabre was in Thailand and Malay right through the Vietnam war and never met.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 7, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Actually had the same engine the later versions got an Afterburner...
> CAC Sabre was in Thailand and Malay right through the Vietnam war and never met.


Did meet at Que Moy Incident


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

But it was stretched right?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could a MC.202 climb 4,000 ft per minute? Well depending on the fuel and guns carried a P-40N could apparently do better than 3,500 ft per minute (according to one of those documents on WWiiaircraftperformance.org) and yet no pilot ever said it was a good climber.




I do wish when people use the tests at WWiiaircraftperformance.org they include some of the pertinent data.

Yes the plane was using WEP (57in of MAP), it actually climbed faster than 3500fpm with the peak being 3720fpm with the engine making 1480hp. 

However the plane only grossed 7413lbs at take-off which is extraordinarily light for late P-40, The plane was a P-40K that was being used as a sort of prototype for the P-40N-1, The test does not say if the plane got all the modifications the P-40N-1 got. 

The P-40N-1 itself went about 7740lbs max gross clean and had the aluminum radiators and oil coolers, (as did the test plane) they had 27 in magnesium wheels instead of 30in wheels like most P-40s, the front wing tank was taken out (max internal fuel was 122 US gallons), the vacuum system was removed.a reduction in the front pilot armor, and the electric starter was removed (leaving the hand crank inertia starter), Some sources say the battery was removed, others say a much smaller one was fitted. In any case the test P-40 was about 300lbs lighter than "service" P-40N-1. 

A few reasons why there are few pilots memoirs touting the climbing ability of the P-40 is than only 400 of the light weight N were built. The factory rolled the first one out the door at the end of Feb or beginning of March 1943. The first US unit to get them was the 99th fighter squadron and they first went into action with them in June of 1943. In July the 18th fighter group of the fifth air force went into action with them and in Sept the 80th fighter group went into action in Burma. That may or may not be the extent of use of the P-40N-1 as a fighter with US forces. 41 were given to Brazil. AN unknown number were converted as tactical reconnaissance aircraft with a K-24 (or K-28) camera. 
Please note that _in service_ some of the P-40N-1s had the forward fuel tank installed in the wing, the electric starter motor added back in and the regular sized battery installed at the least. which means they were somewhat heavier than the official figures. The next model was the P-40N-5 and it had full fuel tanks, the starter and big battery, 6 guns but kept the light weight radiators,oil coolers and small magnesium wheels. 
With about 5200 P-40Ns built the light weight -1 would tend to get swamped by the combat reports of the later versions or by combat reports of the -1 after several hundred pounds had been added back in. 

One source says that the P-40N-1 took 6.7 minutes to climb to 15,000ft at 7700lbs, Power level of the engine not given. ( I am guessing military power for at least the first 5 minutes)


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I do wish when people use the tests at WWiiaircraftperformance.org they include some of the pertinent data.
> 
> Yes the plane was using WEP (57in of MAP), it actually climbed faster than 3500fpm with the peak being 3720fpm with the engine making 1480hp.
> 
> ...



You do realize that is the exact point I was making right? I was pointing out that those kind of stats can be misleading. Not trying to start another P-40 argument!!

What I mean is that conditions varied, tests were sometimes done in ideal conditions, (or sometimes the opposite) and then sometimes these stats get written down in books and become legends, right or wrong (and more often than not, wrong I think). So given that typical initial climb rate for an MC. 202 is around 3,300 - 3,600 fpm, a very light one or one with the engine pushed a little harder could well reach 4,000 fpm. That doesn't mean it was typical combat performance. However on the other hand, after flying for 40 minutes performance might jump up a little too with a light gas tank so that's also worth keeping in mind.

You really need a range of tests with the conditions noted to give you an idea of the range of performance under different circumstances, and especially some idea of what performance was like under actual combat conditions. Otherwise long lasting misperceptions or outright fantasies get repeated over and over.

As an aside, it's unclear if the 99th FS actually ever flew any combat missions with the -N, they did have some briefly, but seem to have flown the F and L in combat, all the photos and records of them I've found are with the F/L


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could a MC.202 climb 4,000 ft per minute? Well depending on the fuel and guns carried a P-40N could apparently do better than 3,500 ft per minute (according to one of those documents on WWiiaircraftperformance.org) and yet no pilot ever said it was a good climber.



Hello Schweik,

Actually I have seen that number before for the P-40. Its initial climb rate wasn't really that bad especially under War Emergency Power, so it isn't a surprise. I would imagine that a P-40K could do as well or better down near sea level.
For the Macchi, the climb rate works out to 4472 feet/minute average to 2000 meters. The problem is that I suspect that some of this data is for prototypes rather than the service type. The power output listed for the engine suggests that it wasn't the one that was actually installed in any of the Folgore service models but since there were 400+ DB 601 engines imported, perhaps it was one of those?



Schweik said:


> So I wouldn't rule out a 4,000 fpm climb rate for the MC.202 for a minute or two, no I don't think that is unreasonable. If you told me that a Bf 109F could climb that fast I'd not be tremendously surprised there either*. But I will say this, the MC.202 seems to have a slight edge, it's slightly more aerodyamic, a little lighter and it's wing probably provides just a bit more lift. It was a slightly better plane except for firepower, than the Bf 109F2. Taking the guns into consideration they were about even.



The problem though is that the Folgore really ISN'T lighter. Where did you get the idea that the wing was any better?
Aerodynamics is an interesting thing. With the same power, the Folgore was let's say as you suggest, even with a Me 109F WITH a Tropical Filter. Without, it was significantly slower. With the same engine power, the Veltro was slightly slower than the early Me 109G.



Schweik said:


> The 109-F4 was slightly better than the 202 but I think a 205 is slightly better than an F4 or even up to a 109-G4. Overall the two types (202/205 and 109F/G) were comparable in the period they were being used, both were top of the line fighters by world standards. Both could take on the Spit V which was the best Allied fighter in 1942, both had a bit more trouble with the Spit IX but could still kill them. So no the opposition wasn't easier in the MTO. You are a fool if you really think that.



I actually believe the Serie III Veltro and later is significantly better than the early Me 109G. Again, it is a firepower advantage. You really should pay attention to what you are writing. ANYTHING can kill ANYTHING. Remember the "Golden BB" as they call it. There ain't such thing as a bullet proof airplane.
In 1942, the best Axis fighter was probably the FW 190A. In early versions, it was a hot-rod and easily outclassed the Spitfire Mk.V. The Spitfire Mk.IX also came out in 1942, so later in the year, THAT would have been the best Allied fighter.
These planes were in service in ETO where neither the P-40 nor the Folgore could operate in. When they arrived in the MTO, the Folgore and P-40 were again somewhat outclassed.

You have a habit of doing a lot of name calling. That is really not a mature thing to do.



Schweik said:


> But some of us get annoyed these days because we consider ourselves well informed and have believed those old tropes for 10, 20 or 30 or 40 years, and aren't ready for them to be debunked. The other problem we have right here is that if I Schweik open up one of the more current books and tell you what is in it, even if I take photos, you flat out don't believe me. Just like when you quote a figure like 20,000 fighter sorties in 1942 and only 30% by MC.202 doesn't seem remotely credible to me so I don't believe you. I believe you read something in the ballpark of that, but if that is exactly what it said, I think your book is wrong. Maybe 20,000 sorties period, including all the Sm.79s and Cant 506s and everything, then maybe? Even then it seems a stretch.



First of all, you are making the assumption that I consider myself well informed on this subject. I do not.
Consider what happened fairly early on during the actual invasion of Sicily. There were a total of about 100 Folgore still in service. Over about two days, they flew 650 sorties against the allies IIRC. The Germans flew about 500 sorties over the same period. That 23,000 number doesn't sound so high with this kind of activity or even a much reduced rate over an entire year, so you may not think the number is credible, but I do.



Schweik said:


> I fear we are at an impasse, those endless arguments go nowhere after a while. My dreams of debunking that one particular legend about the P-40 and the other ones about the Mc 202 being 'inferior' or the Ki-43 being easy pickings... have run their course.



I was actually looking forward to see what you had to say about the Ki-43. I never said it was easy pickings. I just said it belonged to a prior generation. I like all three aircraft and but I don't believe any of them was among the best of their time.
You need to find some better and more worthwhile dreams....



Schweik said:


> *Fw 190 on the other hand usually is quoted at a considerably lower rate of climb so I'd really love to see that claim validated. WWIIaircraftperformance shows a range from 2,938 to 3,290 from Sea level, and I think that is using boost.



Much depends on Which version of FW 190A is being tested.
In June 1942, Oberleutnant Armin Faber of JG 2 did a massive stupid and landed a FW 190A-3 at a RAF base.
His aircraft was tested against Allied fighters, notably Spitfire Mk.V and the new Spitfire Mk.IX.
Spitfire Mk.IX and FW 190A-3 were VERY close in climb rate up to about 20,000 feet above which Spitfire had the advantage. Peak climb rate was around 4,000 feet / minute for both aircraft.
Here is the report but note all the qualifiers as to fuel and condition of the aircraft.
This is aircraft was pretty well documented and there were other factors not mentioned in this report
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep2092.pdf

There is another report of a USN test of a FW 190G (I believe) which was configured very similarly to a fighter variant but minus the outer wing cannon. Its climb rate was quite similar though there are some other qualifications on that aircraft.
Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Yes, but see above.


Well I looked abouve and to be honest I don't see how the adition of the me110s make the axis fighter force sub par even if they were not mostly confined to night oporations where p40s would likely never encounter them. They would constitute less than a third of the force if my quick in my head counculations are correct.
What percentage of of the fighter force in Western Europe was constituted by me 110s or similar types in 42? I'm willing to bet it was similar.
So if the percentages of first rate fighters to 2nd rate is similar then this force is by definition not sup par, at least if par is western Europe. And even if there was a fairly substantial difference say 15% 110s etc in Western Europe to 30% in the Med and dessert is that 15% difference enough to say" p40s were only successful because they were faced with inferior oposition because 15 aditional planes out of 100 were lesser types." I think we all know the answer to that.
And I don't see how the half dozen or so Do 17s enter into it at all as A: there not fighters and B: there were only 7 of them.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> The problem though is that the Folgore really ISN'T lighter. Where did you get the idea that the wing was any better?
> Aerodynamics is an interesting thing. With the same power, the Folgore was let's say as you suggest, even with a Me 109F WITH a Tropical Filter. Without, it was significantly slower. With the same engine power, the Veltro was slightly slower than the early Me 109G.



You are arguing yourself in circles and you are making less and less sense. The Folgore had more wing area - 181 sq ft, and a wider wingspan - 34' 9" vs the 109 at 172.8 sq ft and a 32' 7" wingspan. Hence, the Macchi gets a little more lift and maybe a little more drag from the wing - though other factors can affect that.



> In 1942, the best Axis fighter was probably the FW 190A. In early versions, it was a hot-rod and easily outclassed the Spitfire Mk.V. The Spitfire Mk.IX also came out in 1942, so later in the year, THAT would have been the best Allied fighter.


Well, the 190A did make it to the MTO in time to fight P-40s for more than a year, but I'd also add that I think you are staking out an outlier position. Many people (including a lot of wartime pilots) would say the Bf109 was the best German fighter. I believe it had the best record. Anyway if you are calling the Bf 109 sub-par then I think you are probably not worth debating with.




> You have a habit of doing a lot of name calling. That is really not a mature thing to do.
> [*]First of all, you are making the assumption that I consider myself well informed on this subject. I do not.
> [*]You need to find some better and more worthwhile dreams....
> [*]Spitfire Mk.IX and FW 190A-3 were VERY close in climb rate up to about 20,000 feet above which Spitfire had the advantage. Peak climb rate was around 4,000 feet / minute for both aircraft.






> - Ivan.



Why look at the mote in my eye while ignoring the plank in yours?
For someone admittedly ill informed you sure take out a very firm position and hold it with great confidence. This is almost the opposite of the ideal. In fact you boast of lacking curiosity about operational history and then proceed to argue for ten pages about the operational history - with people who actually have the data at hand.
I have a lot of dreams, I never said that was near at the top of the list. But wasting this much time arguing on this level is definitely not on it.
You complain that the Folgore 4,000 fpm climb rate isn't a realistic combat rate (and therefore dismiss your own source), but then laud one test of a German plane which is in contradiction to the Germans own test records. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory...
Ivan, I have to say you disappointed me. You seemed like a nice enough guy, if a bit opinionated. But this conversation has become so loose and chaotic as to become boring. You are speaking about a lot of things (more or less on your own admission) based far more on opinion than on knowledge. I think debating with you is a waste of time. We should probably to agree to disagree... on just about literally everything.

-S


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Here is the report but note all the qualifiers as to fuel and condition of the aircraft.
> This is aircraft was pretty well documented and there were other factors not mentioned in this report
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep2092.pdf



Ivan, I don't know if you are pulling my leg, but did you actually read this? 

Table 2 of that document shows the actual rate of climb as tested, which starts at 3,050 fpm, and then after reaching 4,000 ft drops down to 2,750 fpm.

This is pretty good initial rate, but it's not great and it's definitely not 4,000 feet per minute. In fact it's a considerably lower climb rate than the Flogore, which is normally listed as having an initial rate of climb of 3,563 fpm..

Tables 3 and 4 are _estimates _and top out at 3,750 fpm - they didn't actually get that performance in the test.

Again, I point you to this aggregation of actual German flight tests (that one for the A-5) which show climb rate ranging from 2,997 ft per minute to 3,290 feet per minute (initial). As you can see clearly on this chart, the rate of climb drops below 2,500 fpm by the time it reaches 8,000 ft. That actually isn't all that great for climbing at higher altitudes, in fact the Spitfire Mk IX which you mentioned could still make a very respectable 3,860 fpm at 12,600 ft and 3,020 fpm at 25,200 ft, making it far and away better than any of the earlier 190s.

But I don't think rate of climb was ever really the forte of the 190, it was more about speed, momentum, rate of roll and those heavy guns. It was still a good fighter.

The fastest _climbing_ German prop fighter though was one of the later marks of the 109.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Au contraire mon frere, I had already demonstrated that several times there were far more MC.202 on hand than that. Please see this post:
> 
> "Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs
> 
> ...



The post I replied to , you had transcribed claims and losses during July and August '42, and as I already stated, that information doesn't tell us anything about how many Mc. 202's were in North Africa at that time. While Pantelleria is close to nortern Tunesia, it's long way to Libya and even further to the Egyptian border, which is where the fighting is going on this period.



> I didn't miss anything, I left out the twin engine birds because they were only flying night or maritime missions, so far as I am aware. Do you know any different?



The 97 serviceable aircraft is of the total of 165 Bf 109's, 110's and Do 17's.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 8, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Well I looked abouve and to be honest I don't see how the adition of the me110s make the axis fighter force sub par even if they were not mostly confined to night oporations where p40s would likely never encounter them. They would constitute less than a third of the force if my quick in my head counculations are correct.
> What percentage of of the fighter force in Western Europe was constituted by me 110s or similar types in 42? I'm willing to bet it was similar.
> So if the percentages of first rate fighters to 2nd rate is similar then this force is by definition not sup par, at least if par is western Europe. And even if there was a fairly substantial difference say 15% 110s etc in Western Europe to 30% in the Med and dessert is that 15% difference enough to say" p40s were only successful because they were faced with inferior oposition because 15 aditional planes out of 100 were lesser types." I think we all know the answer to that.
> And I don't see how the half dozen or so Do 17s enter into it at all as A: there not fighters and B: there were only 7 of them.



You missed the point, once again see above.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Stig1207,
> 
> It isn't just Macchi C.202 deployed everywhere. It is specifically deployed in North Africa which is where the book accounts overlapped.
> There are two books that both claim 23,555 fighter sorties flown by Italian pilots in 1942 of which only 30% were with C.202 Folgore. I suspect they are all quoting the same source, but if they are correct, then who flew the other 70%?
> ...



I understood you the first time

I don't know how many Folgores the Italians had in North Africa in 1942; I was specifically addressing Schweik's claims and losses of C.202's in the summer of 1942.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The post I replied to , you had transcribed claims and losses during July and August '42, and as I already stated, that information doesn't tell us anything about how many Mc. 202's were in North Africa at that time. While Pantelleria is close to nortern Tunesia, it's long way to Libya and even further to the Egyptian border, which is where the fighting is going on this period.



So are you making the claim that fighter aircraft based in the Mediterranean Islands weren't engaging with DAF fighters in 1942? Because you have the book, you really ought to know better.



> The 97 serviceable aircraft is of the total of 165 Bf 109's, 110's and Do 17's.



So what? What is your point? Servicability waxed and waned for both sides throughout 1942 and 1943.
Which if any Axis fighters are you alleging are sub-par, Bf 109 or MC202 or both?

Be clear what you are asserting.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 8, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You missed the point, once again see above.


Ok, I'll bite. What exactly was the point you were trying to make.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2019)

We are getting into several areas of "stretch" of which the Mig-17 was one example.

The P-47N for example had a "stretched" wing (longer wing roots) in order to provide space for more fuel,
The C-141 (and a host of commercial aircraft) was stretched in length to provide more volume for payload. 
The Mig 17 was "stretched" over the Mig 15 in order to solve a variety of aerodynamic problems. It actually used a new wing of different airfoil in addition to the longer fuselage.
The longer fuselage may have been planed with the afterburner or perhaps it was coincidence? Changing the fineness ratio on jets happened sometimes to solve drag problems. 
The early Mig-17 carried the same armament and pretty much the same fuel load (they were always trying to cram more fuel into early jets) as the Mig 15.

Very few combat planes were "stretched" in physical size to accommodated more fuel (aside from the P-47N) or bombs.
A few planes may have had an extra bay in the wings to hold additional wing guns? 
Bombers often changed length to accommodate a new or different nose/tail turret. The B-17E had one of the most extensive rear fuselage rebuilds of any bomber or WW II aircraft. I don't know if people consider it a Stretch or not. 
The Halifax got slightly longer wings but the extra volume wasn't used to fit anything in, the extra wing area and change in aspect ratio was used to better handle the increased loads.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ivan, I don't know if you are pulling my leg, but did you actually read this?
> 
> Table 2 of that document shows the actual rate of climb as tested, which starts at 3,050 fpm, and then after reaching 4,000 ft drops down to 2,750 fpm.
> 
> This is pretty good initial rate, but it's not great and it's definitely not 4,000 feet per minute. In fact it's a considerably lower climb rate than the Flogore, which is normally listed as having an initial rate of climb of 3,563 fpm..



Hello Schweik,

My understanding is that in 1942, the Spitfire Mk.V was a pretty even match for a Me 109F. When the first FW 190A started showing up, Spitfires found they were pretty severely out classed. It got bad enough that an operation was actually planned to raid one of the German bases and steal an aircraft to examine. (Operation Air Thief)
Instead, Faber managed to present the British with an intact but derated FW 190A-3. It was tested against various Allied fighters of the time.
You should read the tactical reports from this testing. It makes for very interesting comparisons.
Now also note the qualifications from THIS report. The new paint job is likely to have a bit more drag.
The fuel used is British standard, not German C3 that the FW 190A-3 normally ran on.
What is Not mentioned on this report but mentioned in other descriptions is that this aircraft's engine had a tendency to run rough probably because of fouled plugs. An attempted solution was to replace plugs with those recovered from crashed German Bombers (!) This is hardly an ideal situation.
Even then, it compared pretty favorably in performance against the new Spitfire Mk.IX up to 20,000 feet.

Regarding Climb rates, the first listings are for Climb or 30 minute power.
The second set of listings are for emergency power and I believe the "estimate" is because they were not really sure they were getting the performance the engine was capable of achieving.



Schweik said:


> Again, I point you to this aggregation of actual German flight tests (that one for the A-5) which show climb rate ranging from 2,997 ft per minute to 3,290 feet per minute (initial). As you can see clearly on this chart, the rate of climb drops below 2,500 fpm by the time it reaches 8,000 ft. That actually isn't all that great for climbing at higher altitudes, in fact the Spitfire Mk IX which you mentioned could still make a very respectable 3,860 fpm at 12,600 ft and 3,020 fpm at 25,200 ft, making it far and away better than any of the earlier 190s.



Please look at the Manifold Pressure and RPM that are listed at the bottom of the table.
(1.32 ATA and 2400 RPM)
Those are well below what the engine is capable of.



Schweik said:


> But I don't think rate of climb was ever really the forte of the 190, it was more about speed, momentum, rate of roll and those heavy guns. It was still a good fighter.



What do you mean by "Momentum"?
I take it you did NOT read the testing of the "FW 190G-3".



Schweik said:


> The fastest _climbing_ German prop fighter though was one of the later marks of the 109.



Agreed.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2019)

The MK V Spit is a very difficult aircraft to pin down performance wise as the Basic MK number does not actually tell you which Merlin it had or which boost setting was being used. 

Even getting rid of the MK Vb (and a bunch of them were sent to Russia when they were old and tired which helps confuse things) leaves a rather large array of possible engine/boost settings (not to mention quality of build and tiny bits and bobs of equipment fitted or not fitted).

Comparing a MK V of 1941 with a Merlin 45 (9lbs boost) to a MK V of late 42/early 43 with a cropped impeller Merlin 50 (18lbs boost) at under 15,000ft is going to give some rather startling differences in performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 8, 2019)

Hello Shortround6,

Very good point.
It is pretty similar to grouping all the FW 190A or Me 109G or P-47D together.
Each had a pretty long production run and differed quite a bit from first to the last.

The later versions had some pretty impressive initial climb rates, but that was not what was being tested against Faber's 190 at the time.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

Every fighter with a long career in WW2 had many variations but the Spit V was a case apart - there was a huge variation in armament (B wing - two 20mm with 60 rounds plus 4 x .303, C wing - 4 x 20mm or two 20mm with 120 rounds plus 4 x .303, and ultimately E wing two 20mm, and 2 x 12.7mm (though those were mostly on Spit VIII / IX or later)). Then engine boost ranged very widely from +9 to +16 or even +18 as Shortround mentioned, and there were high (extended wing) and medium and low altitude (clipped wing) versions and so on.

Nevertheless I never read of a Spitfire pilot in 1942 claiming that the MC.202 was an easy mark. Not until the Spit IX arrived in force did they have a superior fighter, and even then there were no guarantees.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...


I took that he was asserting that if you include the 110s and the half dozen Do17s that tipped the balance of the axis fighter force into the inferior oposition category.
Not sure how else to interpret that but maybe there's something I'm missing. Wouldn't be the first time


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In terms of the original subject, I was reading about the MiG 17 and it sounds like a MiG 15 that was stretched and given a bigger engine and a few other tweaks. Did I get that wrong?



Yes, Schweik, the fuselage was lengthened by a bit, its wing area increased and the wings given greater sweep back - although resembling the '-15, it was an entirely new airframe, construction wise. The '-17 was a formidable fighter and more than a match for its contemporaries. At first glance the principal visual differences are that the '-15 has two wing fences on each wing and a small air brake compared to the '-17, which has three wing fences on each wing and a larger air brake with a fairing on it, the earliest '-17s had small air brakes though.

Both look almost identical from this angle, but note the number of wing fences. MiG-15:





DSC_6184

Chinese licence built MiG-17, Shenyang J-5:




DSC_6201


PLAAF MiG-15 showing small air brake. Contrary to common belief, China did not manufacture the single seat MiG-15, only the two-seat MiG-15UTI, but designated the type the J-2 in service.




DSC_6151

This is a Chinese only variant of the MiG-17, the Shenyang JJ-5, as the original manufacturer never built a two-seat MiG-17. it utilises the same rear fuselage however and shows the air brake, and increase in wing area, giving a kink in the leading edge. The ventral strake was not common to all MiG-17s.




DSC_0818

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 8, 2019)

On the subject of stretches, this is what the Chinese did with the MiG-21, the Shenyang J-8 twin engined interceptor.




Shenyang J-8 i




DSC_6080 

Info here: Shenyang J-8 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Oct 8, 2019)

Air International - December 1972....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

Didn't the MiG-21 itself (the single engine, Russian version) also get stretched somewhat? And I think maybe that did have to do with fuel? Or am I remembering wrong...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Didn't the MiG-21 itself (the single engine, Russian version) also get stretched somewhat? And I think maybe that did have to do with fuel? Or am I remembering wrong...


IIRC, it got a hotter engine and an interceptor radar. This "bulked up" the forward part of the fuselage, making the canopy even smaller and the already poor cockpit visibility even worse.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2019)

Looks like the 21bis was half a meter or about two feet longer, but then the -93 version was back to the original length. The extra fuel was in that saddle tank on the top.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Didn't the MiG-21 itself (the single engine, Russian version) also get stretched somewhat?



Sure did. Again, these are pics of Chinese examples, but do illustrate the differences between variants.

Chengdu J-7 based on the MiG-21F-13.




DSC_6229 

This is a J-7IIIA, which was based on the MiG-21MF.




DSC_5989 

The Chinese did all sorts of things with the basic MiG-21 design, including this light fighter variant, the Nanchang J-12.




DSC_5925

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

...And then there is what the Chinese did to the basic MiG-19, which wasn't produced in that many variants, but the ever resourceful Chinese expanded on the design considerably, offering technology upgrades that were only seen beneath the surface, as well as subtle exterior changes that warranted new designations. The Shenyang J-6 was built in larger numbers, in a greater number of variants for longer than the original product, being in production for an incredible 33 years. Variants of the basic design still serve with the PLAAF and other Third World nations, which means the basic MiG-19 warrants as one of the most long lived combat aircraft designs.

This is an early production Dong Feng 102, one of the earliest built, it's a rarity because they were so badly built that the PLAAF refused to accept them and ordered that they be scrapped. This was because production of the MiG-19 began at the time of the disastrous Great Leap Forward idealogical shift within Chinese communism put in place by Mao Tse Tung. it was more like a terrible drop backward as industry suffered, as did the population; enforced collectivisation in farming communities brought about a famine that killed hundreds of thousands.




Dong Feng 102

A basic MiG-19S copy for export purposes, the F-6.




Shenyang F-6

An improved variant, the J-6II with improved radar and nose auxiliary intake doors.




DSC_0437

The J-6III with wing tip AAMs.




DSC_6433

The Chinese only JJ-6 two-seater, of which again, the parent manufacturer did not produce.




JJ-6s 9922 and 9324

Then, there was the ground attack variant with an internal bomb bay and different avionics, the Nanchang Q-5 Fantan.




Nanchang Q-5 Fantan iiii

Several different variants of the Q-5 were built, including this radar nosed variant.




DSC_6222

And, believe it or not, this torpedo dropper variant - yup, that's right, a jet torpedo bomber, the Q-5B. Note the unusual nose contour. I don't think these went into service.




DSC_6226

The Nanchang Q-5 is still in service with the PLAAF, despite the advent of more advanced indigenous types.




DSC_7361

Deciphering all the different Chinese variants of the basic MiG-19 is difficult to say the least, as even Chinese based texts contradict themselves. What is available in English has come about through interpreting scraps of what the Chinese manufacturers themselves have revealed over the years. Several English language books have attempted to do so, but these still contradict each other. I got the information presented here from display boards at the various museums and the few books on the subject matter. Having just looked over the Wiki page on the J-6 variants, I wouldn't be so trusting of the accuracy of that, even compared to the different books I have on Chinese aircraft written in English, there are discrepancies. The Nanchang Q-5 page is detailed, but again, accuracy cannot be verified. Getting accurate performance specs is also fraught with issue as the PLAAF are notoriously cagey about such information. Using the basic MiG-19 data is a good guide, but doesn't really represent the advanced Chinese variants accurately enough. You won't find mention of the Great Leap Forward and its impact on production on the museum display boards.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 9, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I took that he was asserting that if you include the 110s and the half dozen Do17s that tipped the balance of the axis fighter force into the inferior oposition category.
> Not sure how else to interpret that but maybe there's something I'm missing. Wouldn't be the first time



This is what you are missing:

Schweik lists the German fighter units operational with Bf 109's , and these units have a total of 112 aircraft on hand and he then writes that of these 97 were serviceable. However, this a misrepresentation of what Shores writes; so in my reply to Schweik I added what he had left out and highlighted this in red. There were *112 109's + 46 110's +7 Do17's for a total of 165, of which 97 were seviceable .* 

If we take the c. 60% overall serviceability rate, then there were more likely about 70 serviceable 109's.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So are you making the claim that fighter aircraft based in the Mediterranean Islands weren't engaging with DAF fighters in 1942? Because you have the book, you really ought to know better.



No, I'd say they probably were; from Pantelleria specifically though it seems more likely that they would be engaging RAF fighters from Malta, which is about 240 km away, compared to say Tobruk which is 1200 km away. 





> So what? What is your point? Servicability waxed and waned for both sides throughout 1942 and 1943.
> Which if any Axis fighters are you alleging are sub-par, Bf 109 or MC202 or both?
> 
> Be clear what you are asserting.



I haven't alleged that either of them were sub-par; I just pointed out that your list of Mc. 202 claims and losses doesn't tell us how many Macchi's were on hand in North Africa. or in the Med as a whole for that matter.

However, with 182 claims for 18 losses, I guess the Italians were pretty happy with them


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...



No, but see my reply to Michael.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> This is what you are missing:
> 
> Schweik lists the German fighter units operational with Bf 109's , and these units have a total of 112 aircraft on hand and he then writes that of these 97 were serviceable. However, this a misrepresentation of what Shores writes; so in my reply to Schweik I added what he had left out and highlighted this in red. There were *112 109's + 46 110's +7 Do17's for a total of 165, of which 97 were seviceable .*
> 
> If we take the c. 60% overall serviceability rate, then there were more likely about 70 serviceable 109's.


Ok cool but.........that changes the overall landscape as far as percentage of total planes that are 1st line fighters by even less. Youd be better off going with what I thought you were asserting.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> On the subject of stretches, this is what the Chinese did with the MiG-21, the Shenyang J-8 twin engined interceptor.
> 
> View attachment 555863
> Shenyang J-8 i
> ...



Looks like they made a pointy nosed version of this one


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 9, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Ok cool but.........that changes the overall landscape as far as percentage of total planes that are 1st line fighters by even less. Youd be better off going with what I thought you were asserting.



You've lost me now ?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You've lost me now ?



It's a confusion between the argument or point you were making (if you were making one - it still isn't entirely clear) and the one Ivan was making that the Axis opposition in the MTO was sub-par.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's a confusion between the argument or point you were making (if you were making one - it still isn't entirely clear) and the one Ivan was making that the Axis opposition in the MTO was sub-par.



You are kidding me.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You are kidding me.



I never kid about Axis fighter strength.

(sorry, kidding)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> No, I'd say they probably were; from Pantelleria specifically though it seems more likely that they would be engaging RAF fighters from Malta, which is about 240 km away, compared to say Tobruk which is 1200 km away.



Hello Stig1207,

That is actually pretty consistent with the initial operations of the Macchi C.202 in late 1941.
Now keep in mind for distances that for the most of the early versions of the Macchi Folgore were not equipped with racks for carrying drop tanks and internal fuel for these aircraft is 430 liters or 113 Gallons.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Stig1207, Ivan, I am replying on this thread so as to avoid continuing to derail this one.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 9, 2019)

Found this article about the P51 Mustang

https://www.dau.edu/library/arj/ARJ/arj56/Haggerty_ARJ56.pdf


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Maybe 20,000 sorties period, including all the Sm.79s and Cant 506s and everything, then maybe? Even then it seems a stretch.



The quotes from the books were that there were 23,555 fighter sorties by Italians from North Africa in 1942, of which 30% were flown with Macchi C.202. There are other mentions that the numbers of Macchi C.202 in North Africa averaged about 30-70 in any month in NA.

Let's examine these numbers for whether they are "credible" or not.
30% of 23,555 sorties is 7067 flown by an assumed AVERAGE availability of perhaps 50 Folgore over 365 days.
That works out to about 0.39 sorties per aircraft per day. That means each available aircraft is flying only one sortie every two or three days over an entire year.

If the average total number of fighters of various types available to the Italians was below 150, then the general sustained rate of sorties would have to be higher. If the total number is HIGHER, then the rate of sorties is even lower than one every two or three days.

To me this seems believable.

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's a confusion between the argument or point you were making (if you were making one - it still isn't entirely clear) and the one Ivan was making that the Axis opposition in the MTO was sub-
> 
> 
> Stig1207 said:
> ...


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 9, 2019)

Hmmm, not sure why Schweiks post got included in my reply.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Looks like they made a pointy nosed version of this one



Yup the J-8II (I don't have a picture of one!), they even got US help with the avionics and glass cockpit etc, but Tiannanmen Square in 1989 put paid to foreign assistance and the project lagged. The Chinese then focussed on developing the J-10 fighter and acquiring manufacturing of the Sukhoi Su-27 as the original J-8 design was by the early 90s a bit old and even though it had entered service, it was no match for the US fighters being supplied to its allies in Japan, S Korea and Taiwan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Found this article about the P51 Mustang
> 
> https://www.dau.edu/library/arj/ARJ/arj56/Haggerty_ARJ56.pdf



Does it mention stretching the fuselage or extending the wings?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup the J-8II (I don't have a picture of one!), they even got US help with the avionics and glass cockpit etc, but Tiannanmen Square in 1989 put paid to foreign assistance and the project lagged. The Chinese then focussed on developing the J-10 fighter and acquiring manufacturing of the Sukhoi Su-27 as the original J-8 design was by the early 90s a bit old and even though it had entered service, it was no match for the US fighters being supplied to its allies in Japan, S Korea and Taiwan.



That is interesting as I would have assumed the Su-27 wasn't so far behind 90's era US fighters (maybe barring the F-22)

You seem to know a lot about PLA warplanes. What is your assessment of their current air fighting capabilities?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Also another question. to all you jet guys... I remember when I was in the military in the 80's the fighter doctrine seemed to rely heavily on active radar illumination, and the merits of one fighter vs. another in large part was measured on the strength of the radar and the range (and to a lesser extent, reliability) of their missiles. We were reminded of the need for guns in Vietnam, but confidence in the missiles increased as their capabilities and performance grew... look down radar, fire and forget capability, active homing and so on.

But now days in the era of "stealth", dangerous air defense systems like the Russian S-400, AEGIS with SM-2, PAAMS etc., the enhanced capability of passive sensors (and distributed sources) and the presence of pilotless UCAV, swarms etc., is it still standard doctrine to even turn the active radar on early and often in an air combat against another top tier opponent?

Meanwhile the Russians seem to be focused on hypermaneuverabilty, which is an interesting shift consdering the flight characteristics of aircraft of earlier generations like the MiG-25 or the Su-15. Seems like now they are back into more of a MiG 15 / MiG 17 type philosophy...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You seem to know a lot about PLA warplanes. What is your assessment of their current air fighting capabilities?



Aww ta. I know nothing more than what can be found out through usual sources. Regarding China's modern capabilities, I'd be worried! The Chinese are playing catch up rather quickly and although this might mean qualitatively they don't have an edge yet, numerically they build very quickly what they have. The J-20 is an impressive achievement not to be scoffed at, but it is still hampered by the engine manufacturers not being able to get the big power out of the Lyulka Saturn based engines, so they are flying around with lower powered engines than they were designed for. Also, we don't really know anything about its avionics, nor its exact weapons carriage capabilities. It is also only 'stealthy' from the front on aspect, look at those big exhaust nozzles. Nevertheless, it is a threat not to be dismissed in the long run.

Continuing production and development of the Tu-16 bomber is something that still surprises the west, but the latest variant, the H-6K is a capable cruise missile platform, which in operation from the disputed Nine Dash Line islands the Chinese have built would pose a serious threat to any hostile navies in the region. Again, avionics for these aircraft are not known comprehensively, but it's safe to assume the Chinese have perfected miniaturising digital electronics, so it's probably best not to presume too much.

The best use for a former nuclear bomber I've seen - the centrepiece for a go-cart track! Xian H-6.





Xian H-6

The Sukhoi Su-27 production was done quickly and was based on fighters acquired from the Ukraine, which meant manufacture was done without Sukhoi expertise, which means quality is not up to standard and allegedly the navy is having issues with serviceability within its carrier air wings as a result.

The J-10 is a formidable indigenous fighter that is so easily overlooked, but is an impressive achievement for China, and yes, it was developed with Israeli help from their cancelled Lavi programme, it is a bigger airframe developed primarily within China and being available in numbers means it would be a considerable threat to any country pushing into China's Sovereign borders.

The J-10.




Military Museum 03 1

As for the old MiG-21 developments the Chengdu J-7, it is still in service in large numbers, with upgrades, such as improved radar, digital avionics and glass cockpit etc. Yes, the Chinese armed forces are still lumbered with equipment based on 1950s and 60s technology, see the Ming Class Type 035 submarines based on the Soviet Romeos, but upgrades and proliferation in numbers mean there are lots of combat capable assets available and ready for action. This is unlike the former Soviet Union, where a large portion of its older fleets of ships and aircraft have been left to rot, but are still sitting about.

Type 035 submarine. These are still in service.




Type 035 1

By the way, all these photos included with these posts are mine.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Aww ta. I know nothing more than what can be found out through usual sources. Regarding China's modern capabilities, I'd be worried! The Chinese are playing catch up rather quickly and although this might mean qualitatively they don't have an edge yet, numerically they build very quickly what they have. The J-20 is an impressive achievement not to be scoffed at, but it is still hampered by the engine manufacturers not being able to get the big power out of the Lyulka Saturn based engines, so they are flying around with lower powered engines than they were designed for.



That is such a common story in aircraft design, eh Shortround6?



> Also, we don't really know anything about its avionics, nor its exact weapons carriage capabilities. It is also only 'stealthy' from the front on aspect, look at those big exhaust nozzles. Nevertheless, it is a threat not to be dismissed in the long run.



Considering how much US electronics the Chinese have been manufacturing in recent years and the pre-eminence of firms like Huawei in certain important tech fields...



> Continuing production and development of the Tu-16 bomber is something that still surprises the west, but the latest variant, the H-6K is a capable cruise missile platform, which in operation from the disputed Nine Dash Line islands the Chinese have built would pose a serious threat to any hostile navies in the region. Again, avionics for these aircraft are not known comprehensively, but it's safe to assume the Chinese have perfected miniaturising digital electronics, so it's probably best not to presume too much.



This kind of echoes old Soviet Tactics from the Cold War era, if you can't afford Aircraft carriers, the alternative is fleets of more or less mediocre bombers (and a few more impressive ones) festooned with dozens of very fast, very potent cruise-missiles. I was always struck by how fast the Soviet cruise missiles were, the Russian ones still are, compared to ours. Certainly not so easy to shoot down a missile that goes mach 2.5 or faster even with a good air defense system, let alone one of the hypersonic types.



> The best use for a former nuclear bomber I've seen - the centrepiece for a go-cart track! Xian H-6.
> 
> View attachment 555986
> Xian H-6
> ...



Fantastic!!! 

Perhaps this may not be the most cheerful place I don't know, but the kids who live tehre have the best go-cart track in the world. Only way to make it better would be route the cars through the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Something about old rusty submarines always creeps me out on some near-subliminal level I can't quite put my finger on...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

I should add that where Chinese development is rapidy accelerating is in its missile and rocket technology. They have been evolving cruise missiles since undertaking production of the Soviet Termit missile as the Silkworm, and have successfully developed supersonic ship and air launched cruise missiles, which is a concern. Their ballistic missile technology is also to be feared. The latest Dong Feng 31 long range ICBMs have ranges of over 8,000 kilometres and are capable of carrying MIRVs, so they are not being left behind in strategic capability - China's ballistic missile force is larger than Britain's and France's.

From this - Silkworm...




Silkworms

To this - HY-3 supersonic cruise missile.




DSC_5199

DF-31 in its carrier.




Military Museum 11

Bear in mind the Chinese started like everyone else developing rockets with copies of the A-4 V 2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> the alternative is fleets of more or less mediocre bombers (and a few more impressive ones) festooned with dozens of very fast, very potent cruise-missiles.



It kinda works though, it's a cheap(er) and effective means of power projection. Look at Russian heavy cruisers of the Soviet era, they crammed missiles all over their big ships giving them a formidable capability. It's only natural the Chinese would go down this path; the US carrier fleet is an astounding capability, but one that has its vulnerabilities, such as a massed attack by supersonic cruise missiles launched from sea and air assets combined. Not to mention their sheer expense, which means only the US can really field such a force in numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Does it mention stretching the fuselage or extending the wings?


Does mention as a stretch using another engine..changing it from a CAS Dive Bomber into a the best full fledge fighter manufactured.
The Stretch of a stagnant Logistics and Procurement process that ignored the Mustang.
Did you read it?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> It kinda works though, it's a cheap(er) and effective means of power projection. Look at Russian heavy cruisers of the Soviet era, they crammed missiles all over their big ships giving them a formidable capability. It's only natural the Chinese would go down this path; the US carrier fleet is an astounding capability, but one that has its vulnerabilities, such as a massed attack by supersonic cruise missiles launched from sea and air assets combined. Not to mention their sheer expense, which means only the US can really field such a force in numbers.



Plus it's all very old, kind of like Battleships in the 30's, and we are having a ton of procurement problems with our newer stuff that is supposed to be the next gen

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

I've always thought the biggest threat to our nations' armed forces is our own governments!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Kinda unrelated, but in the vein of air superiority combat in the MTO, somebody sent me this, very impressive video of a Fw 190 and a (Griffon engine, I think) Spit chasing each other. BMW 801 startup and takeoff is particularly impressive. Wow!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2019)

Very cool clip! That's the Hangar 10 Collection on Usedom, the former Peenemunde airfield. That '190's departure was a bit hairy!


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Noticed that, a lot of rudder (crosswind? more torque than he expected?) and then a little dip before the wheels came up. Wasn't sure if that was the pilot hot-rodding or having trouble...


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 10, 2019)

Gentlemen, 

I am fairly certain that the FW 190 in that video sequence was not actually equipped with a BMW 801 engine. The aircraft looks like one of the Flugwerk replicas in which case it is most likely using a copy of a Shvetsov M-82 of some flavor.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

Interesting, it's apparently a Ash-82 from a Tu-2. 1,850 hp, that is probably more than the original.

My respect for the La 5 definitely increases, that has to be one of the most aggressive sounding engines I've ever heard.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

It's funny, they are making Yak-9s with Allison engines and Fw 190s with Shvestov engines. Somebody needs to start making some WW2 aircraft engines, there is clearly a market!


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Interesting, it's apparently a Ash-82 from a Tu-2. 1,850 hp, that is probably more than the original.
> 
> My respect for the La 5 definitely increases, that has to be one of the most aggressive sounding engines I've ever heard.



Hello Schweik,

If the original is just running military power, than that is true. You can get an idea for the power level in the test of the "FW 190G-3" test I posted a link for above. I believe it was about 1750 HP. With a power adder, expect something closer to 2050 or 2100 HP with Emergency Power. The problem though is that the M-82 in the La-5 / La-7 has a very low time / altitude limit for 1850 HP. The actual useful rating is closer to 1700 HP. (This is with late war versions of each engine.)
The other thing is that from what I have read elsewhere, these engines are mostly Chinese copies intended for Transport aircraft.
The other BIG gotcha is that the oil cooler in the Flugwerk aircraft was relocated to where the cowl guns originally were.
That cures the issue of an oil leak into the hot engine causing a fire as happened with the originals, but it also required the removal of the gun mounts and associated bracing which were a structural member. My understanding is that this significantly reduces the G load the structure can handle which means nothing in airshow flying but is a difference to note.
(In other words, the aircraft may not be quite as aerobatic as you might think.)

Here is a more extreme variant of the replica FW 190A-9/N types: This one is down at the "Fighter Factory" in Virginia Beach. I believe this is the current one. There has been more than one down there, but I don't believe there was more than one at a time.






Here is what I believe is still the only FW 190 still flying with a BMW 801 engine. It is the A-5 model.


In shots that have the cowl in place, compare the shape of the original to the reproductions. The original is much "rounder" and doesn't have the same angles where the side blends into the front. There are a couple more detail differences, one of which is that the original has a gap between the front ring of the cowl and the rest. I believe this is the exit for the cooling air for the oil cooler.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 10, 2019)

The similarity between the engines of the Fighter Factory FW 190 and this Tu 2 are certainly hard to deny!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 10, 2019)

If we are gonna be pedantic about it, the engines are actually Dongan HS-7s built in China, which are licence copies of the ASh-82 - all the Flug Werk '190s are powered by this engine, as far as I know, so the piccie you should be posting of the aircraft powered by one is this!




DSC_6683 

Harbin Z-5 licence built Mil Mi-4.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 10, 2019)

Hello Nuuumannn,

Agreed about the source for engines for MOST of the Flugwerk FW 190s.
Note however that at least one owned by Rudy Frasca was powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-2800.
Please take a look at the Fighter Factory aircraft. I don't know for certain that what is under the hood isn't a Chinese engine, but they seemed to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to graft on the cowling and propeller to make it look like it came from a Tu-2.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

One thing I noticed in the video, the fw has a three bladed prop with kind of wide blades, like the original. Some of the Tu-2 derived ones have four blade props.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 11, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, Yak-9T is the greatest thing since borscht using a 170kg gun that is 341cm long with 30-32 rounds of cannon ammo and a single 12.7mm machine gun (200 rounds) while the Yak-9K using a 170kg gun that is 341cm long with 29 rounds of ammo and a single 12.7mm machine gun (200 rounds) needs escorts?
> 
> I am confused
> 
> ...



Hello Shortround6,

I will blame YOU for this little continuation. 
I remembered reading your comment above about large fuel tanks and greater fuel load but could not find it in the data table I use the most for a reference. The two versions of the Yak-9 were close enough in specs to be twins off the same production line so there had to be a reason why 2748 Yak-9T were built as opposed to only 53 Yak-9K.
The data table in "Yakovlev's Piston Engine Fighters" suggests that the two aircraft were near twins as far as performance as well, but not all sites agree, so there had to be something else going on.

Here is what I believe was the "Rest of the Story":
The first version of the Yak-9K didn't just swap the big cannon for a bigger cannon. 
It also added about 150 KG of extra fuel in the wings.
The larger cannon bore didn't change the weight of the gun, but it did make the BORE of the gun larger of course and even though the barrel wall was made to be very thin where it went through the propeller reduction gear shaft, it still left much less clearance than the 37 mm barrel did.
Recoil was many times higher, but the muzzle brake was fairly efficient and brought the recoil energy down to BELOW that of the NS-37 cannon.
This was still quite severe recoil and was still causing fatigue damage to the airframe just as it was for the NS-37.
My Note:
I suspect that total energy was lower, but the impulse and peak force was still higher. The vibrations from firing also probably brought the cannon barrel into contact with parts of the propeller reduction gear because the clearance was on the order of fractions of a millimeter.
The performance with the extra fuel tanks was so poor that they were removed and the weight became comparable to the Yak-9T.
Even without the extra fuel, the pilots felt that these aircraft were too heavy to be ideal for fighting other fighters and should work in combination with Yak-3 or Yak-9U.
The effectiveness of the NS-45 in aerial combat was actually better than the NS-37. On average, 10 shots were fired per kill as compared to about 30 shots per kill for the 37 mm.
The problem though was that the NS-45 also had very poor reliability and that was the real reason that the aircraft never went into production.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> One thing I noticed in the video, the fw has a three bladed prop with kind of wide blades, like the original. Some of the Tu-2 derived ones have four blade props.



Hello Schweik,

I believe Nuuumannn is generally correct. I was following the Flugwerk aircraft very early on and the engines that were being used were Chinese made, not Soviet. I heard it mentioned that they were crate motors intended for transport aircraft. I just didn't realize those "transport aircraft" were really helicopters!

Another difference is that the engine cooling fan is running at propeller speed and not faster as it would be on the BMW 801, but then again, it doesn;t have to blow air through an oil cooler either.

As for replacement engines, don't forget the many A6M that are using Pratt & Whitney R-1830s.

- Ivan.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 11, 2019)

though it happened post war, the B-29 evolving into the B-50 was a successful stretch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortround6,
> 
> I will blame YOU for this little continuation.
> I remembered reading your comment above about large fuel tanks and greater fuel load but could not find it in the data table I use the most for a reference. The two versions of the Yak-9 were close enough in specs to be twins off the same production line so there had to be a reason why 2748 Yak-9T were built as opposed to only 53 Yak-9K.
> ...



interesting theory but that is basically speculation.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> interesting theory but that is basically speculation.



Only one part is speculation and I commented it as "My Note:"

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2019)

On the engine used by the reproduction Fw 190s,

From Wiki so take as you will.

"*ASh-82V (M-82V)* - Helicopter version of the ASh-82T developed in 1952, with axial-flow fan mounted in the fuselage's front. The engine was connected to a *R-5 two-stage planetary primary gearbox *with the help of a* shaft (which was between the pilots seats). *This engine was used in the *Mi-4 and Yak-24 helicopters*.[4] "

Bolding in the body of the text is by me.

"*Dongan HS-7* A Chinese license built copy of the ASh-82V, and the chosen engine for powering modern 21st century reproductions of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A built in Germany.[_citation needed_] "

"*Dongan HS-8* A modified version of the Dongan HS-7 which "combined the main body and supercharger of the HS-7 with the *reduction gear and propeller drive of the Shvetsov ASh-82T*". 

"*ASh-82T (M-82T)* - New version of the ASh-82FNV developed in the early fifties for civilian aircraft ............................. A four-blade high efficiency propeller, the Typ AV-50m, was developed for the 82T version. ..............................." 
Bolding in the body of the text is by me.

something seems a little off, The engines in the FW 190 reproductions may very well be Dongan HS-7 power sections but reduction gears on helicopter engines were seldom the same as the reduction gears on a fixed wing engine and the reduction gears have to come from somewhere. 





Helicopter engine with cooling fan. 




ASh-82T with fixed wing reduction gear. 

Another picture of the Helicopter engine.




Notice the mounting flange or drive shaft attachment plate in the middle of the fan. 
One book claims the helicopter engine had the master clutch in the crankcase nose.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 11, 2019)

Hello Shortround6,

Global Security has a couple entries on the HS-7 and HS-8. It seems like the two differ a bit in the power section (obviously) but the difference is only 5.7% of parts. With the correct reduction gear arrangement, there must have been some reason why the HS-8 was not used instead.

- Ivan.


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 15, 2019)

What was the original topic, again? Ah, well... 

Probably, Me 410 is a good example of successful "stretching" of the earlier model and not just in lengthening the fuselage?

Stretching in the Soviet aviation of WWII.
Successful:
LaGG-3 =>LaGG-5/La-5 => La-7 => La-9
Yak-1 => Yak-3
Yak-7 =>Yak-9 with many modifications
VI-100 => Pe-2
Il-2 => Il-10

Probably successful but not proved due to short operational history:
SB-2 => Ar-2

Not successful (IMO):
DB-3 => DB-3F/IL-4
numerous attempts to improve original Il-2


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 15, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> What was the original topic, again? Ah, well...
> 
> Probably, Me 410 is a good example of successful "stretching" of the earlier model and not just in lengthening the fuselage?
> 
> ...



Yak-3 was probably closer to all-new aircraft, rather than just a modification of the Yak-1. Ditto for the Il-10 vs. Il-2.


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Yak-3 was probably closer to all-new aircraft, rather than just a modification of the Yak-1. Ditto for the Il-10 vs. Il-2.


Not just another modification, of course. I use the term "stretching" here as it was defined in the first post.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 15, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Not just another modification, of course. I use the term "stretching" here as it was defined in the first post.



I'd still be of the opinion that at least Il-2 and Il-10 were two different aircraft.


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd still be of the opinion that at least Il-2 and Il-10 were two different aircraft.


A matter of definition, I think. 
According to Oleg Rastrenin (the best expert in the field of VVS attack aircraft, probably), the idea of Il-10(Il-1 initially) was formulated by Ilyishin after the Stalingrad. He asked Shakhurin to approve the concept of the "armoured fighter" developed on the basis of Il-2. GKO decided not to put all eggs in one basket and ordered several (five at least) prototypes of "fighter variant of shturmovik" and of "improved aerodynamic variants". At the end, it was just Il-1(Il-10) which survived but changed its designation from fighter to "shturmovik" and the development continued in three factories already engaged in Il-2 production. 
On one hand, Il-10 looked very different from Il-2, indeed, inside and out. I see your point. 
On the other hand, it's common in Russian language sources to name Il-10 as "a result of deep modernisation of Il-2" or something like that. And I did not find (so far) any claims about Il-10 development from the "clean sheet", so to say.
Rastrenin himself did not clarify that matter. May be we'll learn more in one of his next books.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 16, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> If we are gonna be pedantic about it, the engines are actually Dongan HS-7s built in China, which are licence copies of the ASh-82 - all the Flug Werk '190s are powered by this engine, as far as I know, so the piccie you should be posting of the aircraft powered by one is this!


The Flugwerk FW-190 in NZ has an Ash82-T engine fitted. I can't find my photos of the data plate, but all my other records state the Ash-82T, and the manuals supplied with it were Russian.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Oct 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of the "mission creep" started fairly early. In part because the B-25 and the B-26 were in the design stage before WW II started in Poland.
> "on August 10, 1939, the Army issued a contract for 201 Model 179s under the designation B-26 "
> The plane was ordered off the drawing board with no prototype.
> Combat experience by the French and British showed that the original set up as designed had several flaws or gaps in capability. (no armor or self sealing tanks for one thing)
> ...


I think that combat weight was based on the idea that the aircraft would perform at that weight at the target. Take off weight included the full 962 gallons of fuel, or a bit less. Max takeoff weight was restricted to 36,500 lbs. in the short wing versions. The long wing versions had no such restriction, so I assume that meant that you could cram them full and still have a margin of safety. They did of course reduce the maximum # of bombs the plane could carry by eliminating the rear bomb bay.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> The Flugwerk FW-190 in NZ has an Ash82-T engine fitted.



Oh, just discovered your response, Aaron. Yes, I know and there are one or two others built with the ASh-82 as well, apparently. Was the Russian engine originally fitted though?


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 21, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Oh, just discovered your response, Aaron. Yes, I know and there are one or two others built with the ASh-82 as well, apparently. Was the Russian engine originally fitted though?


From memory, the aircraft only had test flying hours on it when it came into the country, and it was all done on the Ash-82, so it was fitted from new.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

Ah, interesting. I had read that the intent was to fit the Chinese engines, perhaps after the Chariots aircraft, since it was the next production one? Cost perhaps?


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 22, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Ah, interesting. I had read that the intent was to fit the Chinese engines, perhaps after the Chariots aircraft, since it was the next production one? Cost perhaps?


Not sure. For some reason I didn't take copies of all documents like I normally do.
If the situation was anything like the Housai 6 engines, then the Russian engines were probably significantly cheaper. A new M-14 is a lot cheaper than the Housai, althoug hI think that is about to change with the Chinese starting production of the CJ-6 for the civilian market.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 27, 2019)

The B-24 was stretched into the PB4Y. Seven feet added to the fuselage, an additional Bendix top turret, and the redesigned tail that would probably have been used on all B-24s if production had continued.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 27, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I would have liked the Spitfire stretched like the FW190 for no other reason than to give it more internal fuel capacity.


AIUI, the core fuselage of the Merlin—powered Spitifre had very few changes throughout its production. A good use of jigs and tooling if true.


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 12, 2019)

Before viagra...

View attachment 555879


After...

View attachment 555878


----------



## P-39 Expert (Nov 13, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Before viagra...
> 
> View attachment 555879
> 
> ...


Hilarious.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 13, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I think the question is whether the airframe can be modified/upgraded to suit the later war high H/P engines successfully, the Spitfire P51 FW190 P47 are examples that did.


I've read somewhere that the main fuselage of the Spitfire (from the firewall to the tail attachment) remained unchanged from the first to the last unit.







I'm trying to find that reference, I assume the bubble canopy ones were different for a start. Perhaps this only applied to the Merlin-powered Spits.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 13, 2019)

This is one of those cases where you have to read very carefully, and some writers may have interpreted the original and not very well.






_Similar method of construction_ is not the same as _remained unchanged from the first to the last unit_ 

Now in the picture above note the top and bottom longerons and the datum longerons on each side.

There are a number of references to these longerons being strengthened as more powerful engines were fitted. 

I have no idea if the skin thickness was ever changed in any areas. That would be a change but not a change in the method of construction or even a change in the number of parts or operations needed to assemble the fuselage.


----------

