# Best radial fighter of '42



## Vincenzo (Apr 3, 2009)

What's the best radial (with a radial engine) fighter of '42 and why? 
Best in fighter vs fighter mission, only fighter actually fightning in '42.

for memory a list of radial fighters on '42, maybe incomplete. i exclude biplane.
P-35
P-36/Hawk 75
P-43
Vanguard (they flying 20 interception sorties in '42 with no claims)
Wildcat
Buffalo
IAR 80
La-5 
Fw 190 (until A-4 variant)
Army Type 1 Fighter "Oscar" (I variant)
Army Type 2 Fighter "Tojo" (I variant)
Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter "Zeke" (until model 32)
Reggiane Re.2000
Fiat G.50
Macchi M.C.200

add
I-16
CW-21
were also some "transition" fighters with radial:
Navy Type 96 Carrier Fighter "Claude"
Army Type 97 Fighter "Nate"
Fokker D XXI


----------



## davebender (Apr 3, 2009)

The F4U doesn't quite make the cut off date as VMF-124 entered combat with the Corsair on 13 Feb 1943. That leaves the Butcher Bird without serious competition during 1942.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 3, 2009)

Hi Dave,

>The F4U doesn't quite make the cut off date as VMF-124 entered combat with the Corsair on 13 Feb 1943. That leaves the Butcher Bird without serious competition during 1942.

You're probably right, but the Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki is a rather highly performing fighter too.

Might be #2 in 1942, I believe.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Amsel (Apr 3, 2009)

Fw-190 and the Macchi M.C.200. Though the M.C. 200 required a very good pilot to master it.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 3, 2009)

Fw-190 and La-5, IMO. The Lavochkin fighters were good, right up there with the Yaks.


----------



## Glider (Apr 4, 2009)

Has to be the Fw190 for me.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 4, 2009)

A6M2 Zeke for me. The Fw-190 was a rare bird by 1942 and still plagued from lots of engine overheating issues, which made it mechanically unreliable. The A6M was aviable in large numbers, mechanically reliable and made a significant impact in aerial warfare over the Pacific theatre. 
Not technically better than a Fw-190 but quantity had it´s own quality.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 4, 2009)

delcyros said:


> A6M2 Zeke for me. The Fw-190 was a rare bird by 1942 and still plagued from lots of engine overheating issues, which made it mechanically unreliable. The A6M was aviable in large numbers, mechanically reliable and made a significant impact in aerial warfare over the Pacific theatre.
> Not technically better than a Fw-190 but quantity had it´s own quality.



I believe there weren't that many Zeke's either. But they made significant impact, so I agree with you.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

delcyros said:


> A6M2 Zeke for me. The Fw-190 was a rare bird by 1942 and still plagued from lots of engine overheating issues, which made it mechanically unreliable. The A6M was aviable in large numbers, mechanically reliable and made a significant impact in aerial warfare over the Pacific theatre.
> Not technically better than a Fw-190 but quantity had it´s own quality.



1st julliet ~350 Fw 190 on strenght, not many but surely enough


----------



## davebender (Apr 4, 2009)

*A6M fighter production April 1942 to March 1943.*
Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter)
1,689. (this does not included the float version)

*Fw-190 fighter production during 1942.*
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1,850. (this does not include ground attack variants).


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi again,

>You're probably right, but the Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki is a rather highly performing fighter too.

>Might be #2 in 1942, I believe.

Hm, I hit the books, and the Ki-44-I which appears to have been the relevant version in 1942 did in fact have a less powerful engine with a single-speed supercharger that did not perform quite as well as the more advanced engine of the later Ki-44-II.

Additionally there seems to be some confusion about the flying weight of the Ki-44 variants - one usually finds 2993 kg "maximum take-off weight" for Ki-44-II, which is quite a bit more than the 2764 kg listed by the TAIC manual. Likewise, the Ki-44-I is listed with 2886 kg. This weight increase over my expectations (if I assume that the maximum take-off weight is in fact clean configuration, no exterior loads, full fuel and ammunition) does of course have a negative impact on performance.

Here is a comparison between the Ki-44-I, Ki-44-II and the Mitsubishi A6M3 (which I think is the proper 1943 variant of the Zero).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

...


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

if you talking of model 22 yes it's for '43 but model 32 was fightning in '42 (both are A6M3 with same sakae engine, with different airframe, the 22 back to old)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

maybe beautiful have your charts for the others, almost for more advanced models


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>model 32 was fightning in '42 (both are A6M3 with same sakae engine, with different airframe, the 22 back to old)

You're right of course, I meant to write "the proper model for 1942" and made a typo there.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

back to type 2 weight, the indicated maybe the weight with bombs?? i think they can laod a 250 kg bomb


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2009)

There were better or equal 'radial' fighters then early Fw-190s, but those appeared in 1943 
So, the 190 wins the 1942 by a large margin; the La-5 lacked power and Shoki lacked weapons and power to compete. Other are nice for 1940, but not for 1942.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 4, 2009)

No love for the Lavochkin fighters at all?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> There were better or equal 'radial' fighters then early Fw-190s, but those appeared in 1943
> So, the 190 wins the 1942 by a large margin; the La-5 lacked power and Shoki lacked weapons and power to compete. Other are nice for 1940, but not for 1942.



For me, but surprises, the competitors are Fw 190, La-5, Shoki and the Zero (it's not bad in HoHun graphs, on that i preferee it on Shoki I)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>For me, but surprises, the competitors are Fw 190, La-5, Shoki and the Zero (it's not bad in HoHun graphs, on that i preferee it on Shoki I)

I have now added the La-5 and the F4F-4. I'd say the P-35, P-36 and Buffalo probably are not worth considering for the "best radial in 1942".

Likewise, there is no doubt that the Fw 190A-4 with a speed advantage of more than 50 km/h over the rest is #1 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

...


----------



## renrich (Apr 4, 2009)

Depends on the mission. If it is long range escort or carrier borne it has to Zero 32, A6M3. For interceptor or fighter bomber the FW190A8.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

as i writed at 1st topic mission is fighter vs fighter

the news in the graphs, left my preference to zero, also if la-5 weaponry it's best


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2009)

renrich said:


> Depends on the mission. If it is long range escort or carrier borne it has to Zero 32, A6M3. For interceptor or fighter bomber the FW190A8.



The mission requirement is a big issue indeed. Wonder how the 190 would perform as a carrier bird...


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi, Henning,

Was the A6M3 really capable of making 575km/h in level flight, as one might read from the above graphs?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> No love for the Lavochkin fighters at all?



I do love them, but it took Russians to produce the La-5FN (so, summer of 1944) in order to give their pilots the tool against Fw-190As, when it comes down to one-vs-one comparison.


----------



## Tempik (Apr 4, 2009)

Supermarine Spitfire mk.IX
Good speed
Good climb
Good handling
Good weapons

Only FW 190 may be better. This planes is both good.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

Tempik said:


> Supermarine Spitfire mk.IX
> Good speed
> Good climb
> Good handling
> ...



you need to read the thread title and/or the first topic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2009)

Tempik said:


> Supermarine Spitfire mk.IX
> Good speed
> Good climb
> Good handling
> ...




Best *radial *fighter of '42


----------



## imalko (Apr 4, 2009)

In my opinion the best would have to be Fw 190A.


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2009)

Hello Tomo
wasn't it summer 1943 when La-5FN began its combat career. 
And yes it was the most deadly opponent of Finnish AF Bf 109Gs.

IMHO the best radial fighter of '42 was Fw-190A

Juha


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 4, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> I do love them, but it took Russians to produce the La-5FN (so, summer of 1944) in order to give their pilots the tool against Fw-190As, when it comes down to one-vs-one comparison.


Well, I didnt realize the difference was that great. So the La-5 listed is essentially an infant La-5?


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2009)

Hello HoHun
thanks for the Ki-44 graphs, I have since very late 60s liked Tojo (and Jack), even if maybe they sacrified a bit too much for their climb rate and speed. At least Ki-44 was an excellent gun platform as shown in shooting competitions at Agano? flying school.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2009)

I will have to go with the Fw 190A here. In my opinion it was the best fighter in the skies at the time. It combined great performance, armament and maneuverability. What more can you ask for?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi Tomo,

>Was the A6M3 really capable of making 575km/h in level flight, as one might read from the above graphs?

I'm pretty sure it was. I know that this is more than what you usually read in the glossy books, but if you look at the various tests that have been conducted with the A6M3 and the very similar A6M5, they were usually not using full power and additionally often had problems preventing them from achieving best performance.

My conclusion from the complex (and sometimes confusing) test data was that the A6M3 airframe was essentially identical with regard to its parasitic drag to that of the A6M2, and accordingly the higher-powered engine would directly increase performance as shown.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

Let me re-organize your list a bit:

Hopeless Cases

P-35
P-36/Hawk 75
P-66 Vanguard
F2A Buffalo
I-16
A5M Navy Type 96 Carrier Fighter "Claude"
Ki-27 Army Type 97 Fighter "Nate"
Fokker D XXI

Possible Contenders

P-43?
IAR 80?
Ki-43 Army Type 1 Fighter "Oscar" (I variant)?
Reggiane Re.2000?
Fiat G.50?
Macchi M.C.200?
MB 152 on FARR?
F4F-4 Wildcat

(Question marks denote types which I haven't had a close look at yet.)

Definite Contenders

La-5 
Fw 190A-4
Ki-44-I Army Type 2 Fighter "Tojo" (I variant)
A6M3 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter "Zeke" (until model 32)

Of course, everyone is invited to disagree with this assessment  I'm merely trying to decrease the workload for my analysis.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>thanks for the Ki-44 graphs, I have since very late 60s liked Tojo (and Jack), even if maybe they sacrified a bit too much for their climb rate and speed. 

I'm afraid I once posted a misleading diagram showing Ki-44-I performance based on the wrong assumption that the earlier engine had a two-speed supercharger drive too, for which you also thanked me - sorry for the bad "gen" there, as I recognized today I had screwed up!

>At least Ki-44 was an excellent gun platform as shown in shooting competitions at Agano? flying school.

Sounds highly interesting! Details would be highly appreciated 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 4, 2009)

nearly agree with you
i add at hopeless G 50 (the M.C. 200 was superior in all aspect but easy production and ceilling, and three italian plane in same category are too, also if re 2000 was more a hungarian plane as utilization), i am not so sure that vanguard was hopeless, almost on paper, but i readed of it fragile airframe. i know a very little on IAR 80. for clear MB 152 on FARR was for in service in romania air force.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 4, 2009)

The IAR 80B was a good plane for 41 and 42' but it was not that great for the long run. A good aircraft though especially the mid 1942 model with new longer wings and heavier-caliber 13.2mm machine gun armament for added firepower. A contender I believe.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

Hi again,

OK, so the new list:

Third Rate

P-35, P-36, F2A, I-16, A5M, Ki-37, D.XXI, Fiat G.50

Second Rate:

P-43, F4F-4 Wildcat

(P-43 had unprotected wet wings and was thus very vulnerable.)

Possible Contenders

P-66?, IAR 80?, Ki-43?, Reggiane Re.2000?, Macchi M.C.200?, MB 152 on FARR?

(Question marks denote types which I haven't had a close look at yet.)

Definite Contenders

La-5, Fw 190A-4, Ki-44-I, A6M3

Two more included in the list. The P-43 is "shot from the hip" because there is so little information on the type, everything you have would be welcome! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 4, 2009)

...


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2009)

Hello HoHun
From Green’s and Swnborough’s Japanese Army Fighters Part 2, p. 41 “…when, pitted against all types of Army and navy fighters in firing contents at the Akeno Flying School, the Shoki invariably scored the highest points.”

And both the above mentioned booklet and Francillion’s Japanese A/c mentioned that already the JAAF HQ design requirements demanded that the new fighter should be a good gun platform . The wing design, substantial side area and the putting of the horizontal tail surfaces well forward all originated from that requirement.

Juha


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 4, 2009)

Hello HoHun,
From the P-40 threads, your graph of the A6M2-21 put its maximum speed with WEP at 328 mph. Your graph here puts a A6M3 Model 22 or 32 at 357 mph. Clipped wings or not, the airframes of all three aircraft are VERY similar, so I am curious as to what your engine power / altitude graph looks like. Keep in mind that the A6M5 with ejector stacks would be even faster than either version of A6M3.

The P-43 by numbers sounds like a pretty good aircraft, but in service in China, it had so many faults as to be useless. These planes were generally unserviceable from what I have read about the type.

The F4F-4 really should not be here. Instead, replace it with the F4F-3 which has better armament (duration) and much better performance.

I have seen "in service" dates for the F4U Corsair as December 1942. If that is accurate, it would certainly be a contender.

FWIW, my vote goes to the FW 190A. Nothing else (except the Corsair) had anywhere near the same speed and few of the other aircraft had close the same climb rate. I believe that for 1942, the FW 190A is the best fighter regardless of engine type.

- Ivan.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 5, 2009)

Thought I would give a plug for the Ki43 Haybusa. 
The 2nd model with two 12.7mm machine guns came out in November of 42, so fits the bill for this discussion. 
Fighter vs Fighter, this little plane was plenty dangerous, it's dogfighting ability probably superior even to the Zero. Not as fast as some of the others, in dive or level speed, but it climbed better than most, if not all the radial engined fighters of 1942. 
I'm not saying it was the best in 1942, but the Oscar definately was a serious opponent and deserves at least an honorable mention if not serious consideration.
Besides, I like it!


----------



## HoHun (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>From Green’s and Swnborough’s Japanese Army Fighters Part 2, p. 41 “…when, pitted against all types of Army and navy fighters in firing contents at the Akeno Flying School, the Shoki invariably scored the highest points.”

>And both the above mentioned booklet and Francillion’s Japanese A/c mentioned that already the JAAF HQ design requirements demanded that the new fighter should be a good gun platform . 

Thanks a lot!  I've always thought the Ki-44 was a pretty good aircraft whose good qualities are usually missed because it doesn't fit into the "nimble but underpowered" stereotype of a Japanese fighter.

If you're a fan of the Ki-44 too, here some interesting comments by Mustang pilot 'Ax' Hiltgen of the 530th Fighter Squadron (from Roger Freeman's "Combat Profile: Mustang"):

"Altitude was important to get over the bad weather in combat and when we encountered 'Tonys' and 'Tojos' - particularly the latter."

"Fortunately for us, as the Japanese planes got better - with the 'Tojo' the best - their fighter pilot quality plummeted."

"As mentioned earlier, the only Japanese plane that came close to the characteristics of the P-51 was the 'Tojo'. With the 'Oscar' and 'Zero', if you stayed out of tight, slow manoeuvres and used the advantages of the Mustang you would win."

Of course, he's thinking of the better-performing Ki-44-II, not of the Ki-44-I relevant in the context of this thread, but the handling charactieristics probably didn't change much between the versions.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi Ivan,

>Clipped wings or not, the airframes of all three aircraft are VERY similar, so I am curious as to what your engine power / altitude graph looks like. 

Remember that the Sakae 21 had a two-speed supercharger while the Sakae 12 had only a single-stage one, so the difference between the A6M2 and the A6M3 is a bit like the difference between the Spitfire V and the Spitfire IX.

Here are the engine graphs ...
 
>The P-43 by numbers sounds like a pretty good aircraft, but in service in China, it had so many faults as to be useless. These planes were generally unserviceable from what I have read about the type.

Well, they might not have had the fully equipped and trained support in China they'd have had with a regular USAAF unit.

>The F4F-4 really should not be here. Instead, replace it with the F4F-3 which has better armament (duration) and much better performance.

Hm, cosmetic change only 

>I have seen "in service" dates for the F4U Corsair as December 1942. If that is accurate, it would certainly be a contender.

Vincenzo said "only fighter actually fightning in '42" 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>i add at hopeless G 50 (the M.C. 200 was superior in all aspect but easy production and ceilling, and three italian plane in same category are too, also if re 2000 was more a hungarian plane as utilization), i am not so sure that vanguard was hopeless, almost on paper, but i readed of it fragile airframe. i know a very little on IAR 80. for clear MB 152 on FARR was for in service in romania air force.

Do you have some top speed at altitude figures for these?

I added some more fighters to the diagrams ... the Fokker G.I is an extra since I don't think it was still fighting in 1942.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 5, 2009)

...


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi again,
> 
> OK, so the new list:
> 
> ...



Methinks that italian G-50/Re-2000/MC-200 should be on par with Buffalo, F-4F and I-16 (late models that do fit in our 1942 time frame), or even under those. With circa 500km/h and 2 HMGs on board, neither their performance nor armament allows for a better score. (I know what that '?' means  )


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 5, 2009)

I've from italian test of 39, 
G 50 max speed 483 km/h at 4500 meters, 451 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2330 kg) (climb at 6 7'3'', at 4 4'14'')
Re 2000 max speed 518 km/h at 5250 meters, 506 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2529 kg) (climb at 6 km 6'23'', at 4 3'57'')
M.C.200 max speed 502 km/h at 5000 meters, 493 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2208 kg) (climb a7 6 km 6'29'', at 4 3'54'')

engine power for G 50 and M.C. 200 (have same engine) 840 HP at 3800 meters (it's not wep also the italian can up the hg pression the called +100 (mm of hg)), for Re 2000 1000 HP at 4000 meters.

for others from source on internet
MB 152 515 km/h at 4000 (as in '40 in france)
IAR 80A 510 km/h at 4000 (probably also less, also if some sources report more at higher quote, but i don't think that rated altitude of engine can done this)

we need add PZL P.24 to hopeless category


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 5, 2009)

found this on P-43 (the A-1 chinese variant was only used in fightning) 
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: P-43 Lancer, U.S. Fighter
Republic P-43 Lancer
Republic P-43 Lancer fighter plane in Chinese service (Richard Dunn)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi HoHun


HoHun said:


> I added some more fighters to the diagrams ... the Fokker G.I is an extra since I don't think it was still fighting in 1942.


sure too late for G.I but for true there was a twin engine fighter with radial the Beaufighter but i think it's not a match also for the 2nd category


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 5, 2009)

Hello HoHun,

Thanks for the engine power graph on the Sakae versions. I will check if the data points match what little documentation I have.

Regarding the F4F-3 versus F4F-4, the differences are FAR from cosmetic. The F4F-3 did not have folding wings or anywhere near as much armour. It was 15-20 mph faster, weighed about 500 pounds less and only had 4 MGs with more ammunition instead of 6. Best climb rate was also well over 1000 fpm faster, so it is hardly the same aircraft. Depending on your preference, there is also the F4F-3A with a slightly lower rated altitude with IIRC a R-1830-92 instead of the R-1830-76 engine. I have seen comments that the excessive supercharging of the -76 engine was not really needed out in the Pacific.

The information I saw on the P-43 was actually found while looking for data on the Curtiss-Wright CW-21B. The CW-21B never did particularly well in combat, but was quite competitive for performance and perhaps should be included here as well?

- Ivan.


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2009)

Hello HoHun
And thanks for the Ki-44 comments from Freeman’s book.

I have always liked also Ki-43 and even more so after learning RAF/RAAF problems with it in Burma. Dissimilar combat have always had its problems. RAF/RAAF maybe suffered more than USAAF because they needed different tactics in Asia than in Europe. USAAF principles, keep the speed up and don’t be sucked in low speed horizontal or vertical combat, worked well against both Japanese and Bf 109. Maybe also USAAF succeeded better to indoctrinate its pilots to the importance of teamwork.

Experienced JAAF pilots seemed to have liked Ki-43 but of course they were forced to play defensive role and to try to lure the opponent to make mistakes.

Finns definitely thought that Brewster Model 239 was better than Fiat G.50. Judging from Finnish tests I have came to conclusion that max speed of G.50 (483km/h) was for an early plane with canopy and the latter open cockpit planes were probably a bit slower as they were more draggy.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2009)

Hello Ivan
from what I have read I have got impression that F4F-3A was produced because there were difficulties to supply enough 1830-76 engines.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 5, 2009)

G.50, and all the other, was with canopy at italian test of '39


we need add also the CW-21, surely not in top category


----------



## davparlr (Apr 5, 2009)

I haven't done detailed research, but I would say that I would climb into the cockpit of the Fw-190A-3 any day over any of the other 1942 radials. 1943 is a different story.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 5, 2009)

I was going to say the Swedish J22, first flew in '42. Managed to 575 Km/h with 1.065 engine and could hold its own against the P-51D's that we used in our airforce....

But then reason and common sense kicked in....and I'm not so sure!  

I think that I'll have to go with the '190 here, just look what came out of it later, the Doras!


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2009)

Hello Lucky
J22 began its first line service in Autumn 43 and it definitely wasn’t equal to Mustang, J26 in Swedish AF service.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 5, 2009)

J-22 is out timeline and out of fightning


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 5, 2009)

Hello Juha,
I believe you are correct. I only mentioned it because I remembered a discussion somewhere that commented that the F4F-3 with the -76 engine had much more supercharging than it needed to be effective as a Pacific fighter.

- Ivan.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2009)

relist (comment on graphs performances)
Transition design
D XXI (Finland) level speed very low, climb low, enough in low-middle altitude , turn good, comment on performance on original D XXI, that in use was bad) 4 .3 mg
P.24 (Romania) 2 .3 mg 2 20 guns
Army Type 97 Fighter (Japanese Army and Thailandia) 2 .3 mg 
Navy Type 96 Fighter (Japanese Navy) 2 .3 mg
Hawk 75N (Thai) 1 .5 1 .3 mg + 4 .3 mg or 2 23 guns

Low grade
Buffalo (US Navy, NEI, Finland, RAF) 4 .5 mg
P-35A (USAAC) 2 .5 2 .3 mg
Mohawk (USAAC, RAF, Finland, NEI, RIAF) (speed very low, good low altitude, climb very low, good low altitude, turn good until middle altitude on very low) 4 or 6 .3 (CW and NEI) or 1 .5 1 .3 (US) 4 .3 1/2 .5 (Finland)
G. 50 (Italy, Finland) 2 .5 mg (speed very low, climb low, turn mediocre)
I-16 (Soviet Union) 4 .3 (attack version 2 .3 2 20 guns)
CW-21 (NEI) 2 .5 2 .3 mg (speed mediocre, climb mediocre, turn good)

Intermediate grade
Wildcat (USN, FAA) (level speed low, climb low, turn low) 4 or 6 .5 mg
Army Type 1 Fighter (Japanese Army) 2 .3 or 1 .5 1 .3 (low speed, good climb under 4 km after mediocre, good turn)
M.C. 200 (Italy) 2 .5 (opt + 2 .3) (speed low, climb low, turn mediocre)
Re 2000 (Italy, Hungary) 2 .5 (speed mediocre, climb mediocre, turn mediocre)
MB 152 (Romania) 2 .3 2 20 guns
Lancer (China) (level speed mediocre low altitude after good, very good high altitude, climb low, good high altitude, turn low good high altitude) 4 .5
Vanguard (China) 2 .5 4 .3

Top grade
Army Type 2 Fighter (Japanese Army) (level speed good, climb good, turn low) 2 .5 2 .3 mg
Navy Type 0 Fighter (Japanese Navy) (level speed good, climb best, turn best) 2 .3 mg 2 20 guns
La 5 (Soviet Union) (level speed good, climb good, turn low, good over 6000) 2 20 guns
Fw 190 (Germany) 4 20 guns 2 .3 mg


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 6, 2009)

Whatever the merit of the other types in consideration, in my opinion, none of them even come close to the FW-190. 

Like the Spitfire or Messerschmitt of the inline fighters, once the FW-190 was out, it was the measuring stick that all other fighters were compared.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 6, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>sure too late for G.I but for true there was a twin engine fighter with radial the Beaufighter but i think it's not a match also for the 2nd category

I have added a Beaufighter to the diagram. This is an old calculation that is not as accurate as the newer ones - for example, power drop above high gear full throttle height appears too hesitant.

Additionally, I have added a Fw 190A-5 speed graph from a Focke-Wulf chart. It's not calculated since I haven't got around to make a good Fw 190A analysis yet. (The Fw 190A-4 should be very close to the A-5's speed as the difference was just the elongated engine mount and re-positioned cockpit of the latter.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 6, 2009)

...


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2009)

Hi, Vicenzo,

Do you take weapons security features into your ratings?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2009)

surely

i add weapons in the list. for "defence" was more difficult work


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2009)

I am slightly colour blind and I am finding it difficult to read some of the charts, but is the sustained turn rate chart trying to tell me that a Fokker G1 can turn at least as fast as a Zero. Or that a Beaufighter can turn with an F4F4 or a La-5?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> surely
> 
> i add weapons in the list for "defence" was more difficult work



The second part (form "i add") is difficult for me to understand; usage of capital letters and interpunction would help.

Anyway, the only 2x12,7mm armament of the Italian fighters from our thread is only good for "low grade" of your clasification, not for "intermidiate range". Eg. among P-36, I-16 etc. The Hayabusa (Army fighter Type 1) has the same problem; Zero at least had cannons. 

Also, could you provide any info why only the ground attack variants of the I-16 would carry cannons?

Bufalo, at least the version Finns flew was comparale with Wildcat.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> The second part (form "i add") is difficult for me to understand; usage of capital letters and interpunction would help.
> 
> Anyway, the only 2x12,7mm armament of the Italian fighters from our thread is only good for "low grade" of your clasification, not for "intermidiate range". Eg. among P-36, I-16 etc. The Hayabusa (Army fighter Type 1) has the same problem; Zero at least had cannons.
> 
> ...



sorry but i don't understand

yes 2 .5 it's light for '42 standard but i think the strenghtness point of italian fighters are climb and manuvrability, waiting confirmation to HoHun calculation. P-36 and I-16 are in low not only for weaponry.

Commonly russian sources report the Types (17, 27) with cannons as ground attack fighters.I-16 Type 17 by N.N.Polikarpov 

Finn Buffalo are F2A1 with R 1820, and AFAIK in altitude this it's badest of R-1830 of regular F2A1


p.s. Wildcat is in intermediary and not in low only for its strenght, armour, and weaponry, they performance are to low grade, obv if my assumptions on climb and manuvrability of italian fighters are wrong they go in low grade


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 7, 2009)

Technically, the A6M Zeros had cannons. For practical purposes, they didn't have enough of an ammunition load (just 60 rounds each) to be all that worthwhile. It is my opinion, but not a unique one.

- Ivan.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2009)

Glider said:


> I am slightly colour blind and I am finding it difficult to read some of the charts, but is the sustained turn rate chart trying to tell me that a Fokker G1 can turn at least as fast as a Zero. Or that a Beaufighter can turn with an F4F4 or a La-5?



Yup, the G.1 is even faster turning at about 4000. This fits well with the LVA comment that the G.1 could turn as good or better as the D.XXI



Vincenzo said:


> D XXI (Finland) level speed very low, climb low, turn good) 4 .3 mg


If you look at the graph, the D.XXI is somewhere in the middle at climbingspeed.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 7, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> I was going to say the Swedish J22, first flew in '42. Managed to 575 Km/h with 1.065 engine and could hold its own against the P-51D's that we used in our airforce....
> 
> But then reason and common sense kicked in....and I'm not so sure!
> 
> I think that I'll have to go with the '190 here, just look what came out of it later, the Doras!


I wonder how much more impressive it would have been with contract built Jumo 213 engines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2009)

Thanks for the link, Vicenco


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 7, 2009)

Marcel said:


> If you look at the graph, the D.XXI is somewhere in the middle at climbingspeed.



My eyes aren't the best but, on 8 challengers (the G. I was not in operation in '42) the D. XXI is 6th at SL, it's 4th at 2 km, it's 3rd at 3,5 km, it's 4th a 4,5 km, 5th at 5 km, 6th a 6 km, 7th a 7,5 km
so it's not bad from 2 to 5 km, i put a note


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 7, 2009)

Looking info i found that the Fokker XXI in use as fighter in finland in '42 were engined with PW R-1535 with loss of performances, the finnish haven't Bristol engine to put in their production D XXI, the max speed down at 375 km/h at 2 km, the climb at 3 km came 5'27'' and at 5 km 10'12'' (~40% time more of original)


----------



## Glider (Apr 7, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Yup, the G.1 is even faster turning at about 4000. This fits well with the LVA comment that the G.1 could turn as good or better as the D.XXI



I admit to being surprised about the G1, but that wouldn't be the first time. However, the concept of a Beaufighter being able to turn with any of the other aircraft on this chart must be a joke.

There are other anomalies which jump out at me. I have the Fokker D XXI, with a max speed of 460 km/h at 5,100m, not 410 km/h at approx 4,100m.


----------



## Hollywood (Apr 7, 2009)

FW190A...... I really don't see anything close except maybe the A6M2 in air to air combat characteristics.
Except the determining factor is ALWAYS pilot quality..........


----------



## HoHun (Apr 7, 2009)

Hi Ivan,

>Technically, the A6M Zeros had cannons. For practical purposes, they didn't have enough of an ammunition load (just 60 rounds each) to be all that worthwhile. It is my opinion, but not a unique one.

Hm, didn't they upgrade the A6M3 to 100 rounds per gun, using a larger magazine (as the weapon was not belt-fed)?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 7, 2009)

Hi Ivan,

>Regarding the F4F-3 versus F4F-4, the differences are FAR from cosmetic. The F4F-3 did not have folding wings or anywhere near as much armour. It was 15-20 mph faster, weighed about 500 pounds less and only had 4 MGs with more ammunition instead of 6. Best climb rate was also well over 1000 fpm faster, so it is hardly the same aircraft. 

You're right of course - I was just trying to point out that even the F4F-3 would not have a chance to be considered "Best radial fighter of '42", even with its better performance 

>The information I saw on the P-43 was actually found while looking for data on the Curtiss-Wright CW-21B. The CW-21B never did particularly well in combat, but was quite competitive for performance and perhaps should be included here as well?

Good point - any data on that one?

I have added the Ki-43 and replaced the F4F-4 with the better performing F4F-3 ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 7, 2009)

...


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 7, 2009)

Hi HoHun 
for CW-21 Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon Interceptor and can give a look on wiki


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2009)

Tentative of weaponry valutation
don't take in count the ammo reserve.
Type 96 Navy 1
Type 97 Army 1
Type 1 Army 2
G. 50 3,5
M.C. 200 3,5
Re 2000 3,5
D XXI 2,5
Hawk 75 NEI 2
Hawk 75 SF 2 or 2,5 or 3 (various combinations)
Hawk 75 RAF 2,5 or 3,5 (4 or 6 mg)
Type 2 Army 5
CW-21 5,5
P-35A 5,5
I 16 4
IAR80A 5 (3,5 the 80, 6,5 the B)
Buffalo NEI 6,5
Buffalo RAF 6,5
Buffalo SF 8,5
Type 0 Navy 12
Buffalo USMC 10
Lancer 11
Wildcat FAA 11
Wildcat USN 11 or 17 (4 or 6 mg)
La 5 10
Hawk 75N 16 (if it's true that have 2 23 mm madsen or 5,5 with .3s in the wings)
Fw 190 34 (with full M 40)


p.s. the figure was based on wrong assumption i'll correct its tomorrow (my local time) corrected


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 8, 2009)

It was up 5.000 meters I've been told, is that incorrect then?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 8, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>for CW-21 Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon Interceptor and can give a look on wiki

Thanks for the links! I used data from that and from Wikipedia to include the CW-21 in the charts. Climb rate came out rather disappointing after having read about the 5000 fpm marketing hype :-/

I'd say the CW-21 was hampered to some degree by its direct-drive engine.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 8, 2009)

...


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2009)

an other link for CW-21 Curtiss Failures


----------



## Elvis (Apr 8, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> What's the best radial (with a radial engine) fighter of '42 and why?
> Best in fighter vs fighter mission, only fighter actually fightning in '42.
> 
> for memory a list of radial fighters on '42, maybe incomplete. i exclude biplane.
> ...


I'd say its a toss-up between the Zero and the Wildcat.
The Zero had better manuverability and some argue it was better armed.
The Wildcat was a much more resiliant aircraft and tactics were already being developed and used by 1942, that made it somewhat of a match to the Zero.

I guess its sort of a case of, "_You're quicker but I'm tougher_".

I'd throw the Oscar and Buffalo in there, too, for reasons of manuverability (as long as the flaps on the Oscar were working), but I don't think either was as tough as the Wildcat.




Elvis


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> There are other anomalies which jump out at me. I have the Fokker D XXI, with a max speed of 460 km/h at 5,100m, not 410 km/h at approx 4,100m.



De Finish D.XXI definately was no faster than 415 km/h (Fokker test at Schiphol). About the Dutch D.XXI we debated long in the Dutch -.XXI thread. The Dutch D.XXI was modified to reach 460 km/h, in which Fokker seemingly succeeded, the manual at least claims this speed at 5100 m.


----------



## Glider (Apr 9, 2009)

Marcel said:


> De Finish D.XXI definately was no faster than 415 km/h (Fokker test at Schiphol). About the Dutch D.XXI we debated long in the Dutch -.XXI thread. The Dutch D.XXI was modified to reach 460 km/h, in which Fokker seemingly succeeded, the manual at least claims this speed at 5100 m.



I will certainly agree that the Twin Wasp powered DXXI aircraft manufactured in Finland had less performance but the Mercury VIII powered aircraft had the max speed of 460kts at 5,100 m. As the chart is for the Mercury powered aircraft it is an amonaly which I feel should be addressed.

A Max speed of 411kts was anticipated from the prototype which was powered by the much lower rated Mercury VI-S which produced 645hp, a lot less than the 825hp of the Mercury VIII.

My comments on the Beaufighter being able to turn with any of the aircraft on these charts is a joke. The Beau was a lot of things, but a dogfighter it wasn't. I don't know how these charts were calculated but something serious is amiss.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2009)

Not "kts" (knots?), but "km/h"


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> I will certainly agree that the Twin Wasp powered DXXI aircraft manufactured in Finland had less performance but the Mercury VIII powered aircraft had the max speed of 460kts at 5,100 m. As the chart is for the Mercury powered aircraft it is an amonaly which I feel should be addressed.
> 
> A Max speed of 411kts was anticipated from the prototype which was powered by the much lower rated Mercury VI-S which produced 645hp, a lot less than the 825hp of the Mercury VIII.
> 
> My comments on the Beaufighter being able to turn with any of the aircraft on these charts is a joke. The Beau was a lot of things, but a dogfighter it wasn't. I don't know how these charts were calculated but something serious is amiss.



De finnish D.XXI were actually different than the Dutch versions, which were better streamlined AFAIK, on special request of the Dutch government. There is a test with Mercury VIII on Finish Fokkers, it showed a top speed of 415 km/h. 

Greatly discussed in http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fokker-d-xxi-dutch-service-15060-2.html

BTW, the topspeed of the lesser powered prototype was 445 km/h.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

the finnish D. XXI with twin wasp junior run at 375 km/h


----------



## Glider (Apr 9, 2009)

Interesting thread which I missed for some reason. You seem to have setteld for a max speed of 460 kph clean with 435 khp being realistic when equipped for war which is when it counts. At least it explains my confusion. However the chart stills says 410kph, is there any reason why it shouldn't be amended?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

in effect the actual data of mercury D XXI give a little best performance at quotes but the trouble is that is useless as '42 only twin wasp engined were operational


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I'd say its a toss-up between the Zero and the Wildcat.
> The Zero had better manuverability and some argue it was better armed.
> The Wildcat was a much more resiliant aircraft and tactics were already being developed and used by 1942, that made it somewhat of a match to the Zero.
> 
> I guess its sort of a case of, "_You're quicker but I'm tougher_"



What tatics can over the disadvantage of Wildcat?
it's slow in level and climb flight and less manuverable, it's fast in dive so he can run out from fight diving, but this is not enough


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2009)

The tactic which the Wildcat used to defeat the A6M was mutual support between a pair of Wildcats or in some cases a section with two pair. In the early war, the IJN pilots liked to use an altitude advantage and energy tactics. If it was a pair of Wildcats they wanted to be in a line abreast with the leader slightly ahead and a little vertical separation. The AC attacked turned toward his wingman and the wingman turned into the attacker. The IJN did not like headon, especially as the Wildcat guns outranged the Zero's. That was also called the beam defense maneuver or Thach Weave.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

thank for info, but if both were attacked? 
A tatics can help the fightning not make a plane best of other, also biplane can shoot down a moder fighter (ever talking of WWII) but not for this the biplane is best


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I'd say its a toss-up between the Zero and the Wildcat.



And an other question what tatics can use that planes versus Fw 190?


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> Interesting thread which I missed for some reason. You seem to have setteld for a max speed of 460 kph clean with 435 khp being realistic when equipped for war which is when it counts. At least it explains my confusion. However the chart stills says 410kph, is there any reason why it shouldn't be amended?


As I said, the Finnish version was rated 416 km/h, so the chart only has to be adjusted for 5 km.
(Source: D XXI FINNLAND FR 76
GESCHWINDIGKEITSMESSUNGEN IN VERSCHIEDENEN HOHEN
SCHIPHOL 18.8.'37
MASCHINE MIT KANONENKAPPEN UND MIT N.L.L INSTRUMENTEN)
This was the FR-76, Mercury VII



Vincenzo said:


> in effect the actual data of mercury D XXI give a little best performance at quotes but the trouble is that is useless as '42 only twin wasp engined were operational


I believe the Finnish had some Mercury equipped examples on strength.


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2009)

The IJN typically fought in a shotai of 3 AC. A leader and two wing men. In cruise they were in a vic. In an attack they were in a line astern with about 500 meters separation. The leader would make a run from astern high or high side and recover below and then climb to make another run followed by the wing men. When the free Wildcat turned into the lead Zero, that Zero would break away followed by his wing men. When the Zero broke the original attacked Wildcat would reverse with his wing man reversing into him. That was why it was called a weave. The Zeros in IJN did not like to stay on a target's tail unless they were absolutely sure they would not be attacked by another opponent. Remember, they were aware of their AC's vulnerability and did not like to take any hits. This is all from Lundstrom, "The First Team," and explodes some myths about Pacific War air fighting. A Wildcat would have only one hope in a contest with an FW and that was an angles fight where he outturns the FW. The FW could outrun, outclimb and maybe out dive a Wildcat but the Wildcat could turn inside of him.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

Marcel said:


> As I said, the Finnish version was rated 416 km/h, so the chart only has to be adjusted for 5 km.
> (Source: D XXI FINNLAND FR 76
> GESCHWINDIGKEITSMESSUNGEN IN VERSCHIEDENEN HOHEN
> SCHIPHOL 18.8.'37
> ...



need also up the altitude of best speed

yes, but no more in '42


----------



## Juha (Apr 9, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
even on 1.1.1944 1/LeLv 12 of FAF had 7 Mercury-engined Fokker D. XXIs.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 9, 2009)

Hi Juha
true but it's a recce unit almost for my source on Finnish in WW II
FMP - Finnish Defence Forces in WW II - Contents


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2009)

> A Wildcat would have only one hope in a contest with an FW and that was an angles fight where he outturns the FW. The FW could outrun, outclimb and maybe out dive a Wildcat but the Wildcat could turn inside of him.


The Fw-190 also had superior acceleration, superior cockpit visibility, superior range/payload and massively superior firepower. It would take a dumb or poorly trained Fw-190 pilot to throw away all his advantages and engage the F4F in a stall fight.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> need also up the altitude of best speed
> 
> yes, but no more in '42



Of course 
Speed was measured at 5000 meters.

For the rate of climb:

D XXI FINNLAND FR 76
STEIGFLUG NACH 9000 METER
SCHIPHOL 18.8.'37
GESAMT GEWICHT 1970,6 KG
MASCHINE MIT KANONENKAPPEN UND MIT N.L.L INSTRUMENTEN

1000 meter = 1,21
2000 meter = 2,25
3000 meter = 3,37
4000 meter = 4,64
5000 meter = 6,13
6000 meter = 7,93
7000 meter = 10,21
8000 meter = 13,30
9000 meter = 18,08


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo

Quote:"true but it's a recce unit almost for my source on Finnish in WW II"

Yes, it was a recon unit, but they got some aerial victories in 42.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> 
> Quote:"true but it's a recce unit almost for my source on Finnish in WW II"
> 
> ...



so? all aircraft can got aerial victories also a flying boat that don't make it a fighter


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 10, 2009)

Regarding Wildcat versus Zero, what I have read is this:
1 Wildcat versus 1 Zero: The Zero is much superior.
In a group fight, 3 Wildcats are a match for 5 Zeros.

The really surprising tactic was this: The Wildcat pilots are to ignore Zeros that are trailing them. They are to clear the tails of OTHER Wildcats. I believe this is because the Zeros after they have expended their cannon shells (which is pretty quickly done) are not terribly dangerous with two little rifle caliber MGs.

- Ivan.


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2009)

That only works if you are flying CAP. If the Wildcats are escorting SBDs on a strike mission then they must attack Japanese fighters in order to protect the USN bombers.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding Wildcat versus Zero, what I have read is this:
> 1 Wildcat versus 1 Zero: The Zero is much superior.
> In a group fight, 3 Wildcats are a match for 5 Zeros.
> 
> ...



maybe more sure 4 wildcats versus 3 zeros

p.s. sure was wrong word for safe


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

It is a good thing that Joe Foss did not know all that us "experts" know.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

renrich said:


> It is a good thing that Joe Foss did not know all that us "experts" know.



what would you say?


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

In reading about Foss and his exploits at Guadalcanal in a Wildcat, he had, I think, 26 kills many of them against crack IJN pilots in A6Ms and although he flew with a wing man, I don't believe he used the Thach Weave. He seemed to think the F4F4 was superior to any Zero and his tactics were to close with the enemy, often losing his wing man, and clobber him with the 6-50s. He was an excellent shot and outstanding pilot and seemed fearless.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

with "losing his wing man" means that wingman was shoot down?


----------



## Marcel (Apr 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> so? all aircraft can got aerial victories also a flying boat that don't make it a fighter



The D.XXI is a fighter, plain and simple.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

also a Fokker Dr.I was a fighter but wasn't a '42 fighters

p.s. w/o go so early also a C.R. 32 was a fighter but for end of '40 they left the fighter units for the attack, ground support units, so isn't right use it in a comparison of '41 fighter (almost not for R.A.)


----------



## Marcel (Apr 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> also a Fokker Dr.I was a fighter but wasn't a '42 fighters



It wasn't flying operational in 1942, if it would be, it would be a fighter. The D.XXI was flying operational, doesn't matter if it was recce and it was a fighter aircraft. The aircraft were not altered with less guns or so.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

His wing man could not keep up some of the time.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

Marcel said:


> It wasn't flying operational in 1942, if it would be, it would be a fighter. The D.XXI was flying operational, doesn't matter if it was recce and it was a fighter aircraft. The aircraft were not altered with less guns or so.



sorry i'm not agree. a fighter is a fighter is it's used as fighter. lw used arado (lw last biplane fighters) also in '44 in night operation that can't tell that arado 68 is a '44 fighter


----------



## Marcel (Apr 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> sorry i'm not agree. a fighter is a fighter is it's used as fighter. lw used arado (lw last biplane fighters) also in '44 in night operation that can't tell that arado 68 is a '44 fighter



Okay, it's your thread 8)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 10, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>I've from italian test of 39, 
>G 50 max speed 483 km/h at 4500 meters, 451 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2330 kg) (climb at 6 7'3'', at 4 4'14'')
>Re 2000 max speed 518 km/h at 5250 meters, 506 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2529 kg) (climb at 6 km 6'23'', at 4 3'57'')
>M.C.200 max speed 502 km/h at 5000 meters, 493 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2208 kg) (climb a7 6 km 6'29'', at 4 3'54'')

>engine power for G 50 and M.C. 200 (have same engine) 840 HP at 3800 meters (it's not wep also the italian can up the hg pression the called +100 (mm of hg)), for Re 2000 1000 HP at 4000 meters.

>for others from source on internet
>MB 152 515 km/h at 4000 (as in '40 in france)
>IAR 80A 510 km/h at 4000 (probably also less, also if some sources report more at higher quote, but i don't think that rated altitude of engine can done this)

Hm, I've calculated "quick and dirty" data, filling in the gaps with some guesses, for the Italian fighters too, but I'm not entirely happy with them as the engine data and the speed data you provided don't fit together very well. With 3800 m and 4000 m static full throttle height, you're not going to get 5000 m respectively 5250 m dynamic full throttle height at the speeds you listed. 

And I declare the graphs terminally overcrowded now - if you like, tell me which are to remain on the graph as "first rate", and which I should move into a separate "second rate" graph ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 10, 2009)

...


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 10, 2009)

if this help you the fiat was a derivative of twin wasp junior and the piaggio of gnome-rhone 14k


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 11, 2009)

I have been reading more (what little I can find) on the Russian Lavochkin fighters. Very outstanding aircraft, but I can be a little biased because I have a wierd affection for thier equipment.

I know the 1942 requirement makes only the La-5 a consideration as discussed. 

I think I would have to put the La-5 as a close 2nd place to the FW-190.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>if this help you the fiat was a derivative of twin wasp junior and the piaggio of gnome-rhone 14k

Thanks, I already found that out through the Italian Wikipedia, which has some short but very useful engine articles 

I made some guesses on propeller diameters by measuring threeviews, but that's not usually accurate to better than 10 cm, and sometimes less.

Here is a new chart showing the second-rate fighters, newly including the Bloch MB 152 and the IAR 80. For the IAR 80, I found two different weights, and using the lower one gave me the spectacular climb rate indicated in the diagram. If anyone has reliable weight information on the IAR 80B version, I'd love to see it! 

(I'm posting big diagrams to facilitate reading, and to circumvent the forum   bug, I'll put each one in a separate post.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

....


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2009)

the engine of iar 80 it's wrong, it'used 14k like Re 2000

p.s. P-36 maybe best comparison found data for hawk 75 with cyclone, was more common fighter in '42 (the usaac don't fightning)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>the engine of iar 80 it's wrong, it'used 14k like Re 2000

Ah, thanks, I'm going to have to fix that! Any information on the weight so that I don't have to fix it twice? 

Here the diagrams for the "first rate" fighters. Criterion for first rate was a top speed in excess of 520 km/h, except for the F4F-3 which I included only to avoid getting flamed by Grumman fans.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

.....


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

......


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2009)

i think weight are good see here WorldWar2.ro - IAR-80/81 A/B/C


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>i think weight are good see here WorldWar2.ro - IAR-80/81 A/B/C

Thanks!  That made a world of difference. I have re-uploaded the diagrams above (to avoid flooding the thread with even more big diagrams), and though I forgot to change the engine comment, the IAR 80A now uses the same engine data as the Re. 2000 as requested.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 11, 2009)

The engine was not same was like, similar, sure it's best use data on P IX that that of 14N


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2009)

After some research:
i don't found any trial that tha PZL P.24 was actually fighter fightning in '42 so can exclude form our challenge.
i found trial that the MB 152 were never delivered to FARR (Romanian RAF) ans saw that french ones don''t fightning in '42 with this plane also this it's out from challenge
i take out also the P-66 saw that they flying war mission but actually not fightning (they try to intercept enemy bombers but don't found its)

later other consideration

p.s. take out also the Hawk 75N because i don't found trial of their fightning in '42,


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2009)

HoHun can you recheck P-36A graphs? (maybe best take out R-1830 variant graphs for R-1820 variant)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2009)

i've collected some info on time to climb (i've not collected data for the top rated: Fw 190, La 5, Type 2 and Type 0)
give some for the best
Type 97 5'22'' for 5 km
I-16 (type 18 ) 5'30'' for 5 km
CW 21 claimed 5' for 5 km 
Type 1 5'30'' for 5 km
MC 200 6'29'' for 6 km
Re 2000 6'23'' for 6 km

p.s., had not remembered: Type 1 army fighter 4'48'' for 5 km


----------



## Elvis (Apr 12, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> thank for info, but if both were attacked?
> A tatics can help the fightning not make a plane best of other, also biplane can shoot down a moder fighter (ever talking of WWII) but not for this the biplane is best


Hi Vincenzo,

Sorry for the late reply, I haven't been back to this site for a few days.
Guess I missed your point, but I see what you're saying now.
You're asking about the best _fighter_, not the best tactics. 
My apologies.
Being that as it may, I guess my answer would be the Zero, followed closely by the Buffalo.
From what I can determine, it appeats both planes were near equals in manuverability, although the Zero had a little better climb rate.
Both planes were fairly equal in speed, around 335 MPH, so I think this is a close match, but the American plane was better armed (MHO).

As for the FW190.
Since we're talking about _radial-engined_ fighters, the best way I can think of to down an early 190 is to play with him until his engine won't run anymore.
...that's why the German's switched the 190's power to a liquid cooled V-12.
The cowliing didn't allow sufficient cooling of the raidial engine.
If you can keep from getting shot up, then you could tangle with him long enough so that his engine wouldn't perform as it should.
Now he's a "lame duck", whose probably running for home, and you can go in for the kill.
I know, helluva way to shoot down the enemy, but a kill's a kill.



Elvis


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 13, 2009)

Hello Elvis,
The early model FW 190As had engine overheating problems. The last radial engine versions didn't. I believe the issue was the routing of the exhaust. (Look at the bottom of the cowl on a late model 190A.) I once wondered why there was no improvement in BMW 801 engine performance after about 1943. Turns out that there WAS a serious improvement though it is a bit more difficult to quantify than most. "C3 Einspritzung" was a means for this engine to essentially run WEP for as long as it had fuel. Output was in the 2000-2100 HP range WITHOUT MW-50.

From what I have read, it appeared more that the FW 190's engine was replaced to improve the high altitude performance, though the FW 190A-9 wasn't bad at high altitude either.

Happy Easter!
- Ivan.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>HoHun can you recheck P-36A graphs? (maybe best take out R-1830 variant graphs for R-1820 variant)

Hm, I think the Mohawk IV would be the best choice, but I don't have good data on the R-1820-G205A it used.

Here is some basic data, but it doesn't give full throttle heights or power at full throttle heights:

Reference

What is the propeller diameter of the Mohawk IV? 9' 9" like for some earlier variants?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>i've collected some info on time to climb (i've not collected data for the top rated: Fw 190, La 5, Type 2 and Type 0)

Without weight and power setting data, such climb figures don't tell us much, I'm afraid.

They are not so important for my analysis anyway as it does a rather good job of calculating it from other data.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Elvis,

>Since we're talking about _radial-engined_ fighters, the best way I can think of to down an early 190 is to play with him until his engine won't run anymore.

Hm, the initial overheating problems were long cured by the time the Fw 190A-4 relevant for our comparison came out. Besides, the performance advantage of the Fw 190A is so serious that it would probably be able to beat most other fighters at a reduced power setting too 

>...that's why the German's switched the 190's power to a liquid cooled V-12.

No, it's not. The DB 603 and Jumo 213 simply were all-around more powerful engines with less frontal area as a bonus, that's all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Ivan,

>I once wondered why there was no improvement in BMW 801 engine performance after about 1943. Turns out that there WAS a serious improvement though it is a bit more difficult to quantify than most. "C3 Einspritzung" was a means for this engine to essentially run WEP for as long as it had fuel. Output was in the 2000-2100 HP range WITHOUT MW-50.

From what I've read in Dietmar Hermann's articles, it appears that there was a "hidden" performance improvement over time that was not documented in manuals. Initially, the BMW 801D-2 was only cleared for emergency power for 3 minutes (when it was finally cleared for that power setting at all), but when the trials for C3 injection were ran, the engines were able to be run at emergency power for a much longer time even without the additional injection.

Difficult to track, of course, but I think this was evolutionary improvement of the basic engine without change of designation. The BMW 801E/F engines that were supposed to be leaps forward in performance ran into difficulties and never really went into series production, though the engine of the Fw 190A-9 was a "bastard" with some features of the new models applied to the old BMW 801D-2.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2009)

Maybe usefull a new list of challengers with explanation 
Transition fighter
D. XXI (Twin Wasp Jr SB4-C or G variant in a squadron (it's called fighter squadron but principally used in naval attack) of Finnish Air Force, there are also a few with Mercury VII in a recce squadron) 2,5
Type 96 Navy Fighter (model 24 and 34) (engine kotobuki 41 o 41 kai) (japanese navy principally ground unit) 1
Type 97 Army Fighter (engine Ha-1b (army name for kotobuki) (japanese army, thay and manchurian air forces) 1

Low/intermediate
F2A-3 (engine R-1820-40) (USMC) 8,5
Model 339C (engine R-1820-G105) (nederland east indies) 6
Model 339D (engine R-1820-G205) (nederland east indies) 6
Model 339E (engine R-1820-G105) (RAF and CW air forces) 6
Model 239 (engine R-1820-G5) (Finnish air force) 7,5
P-35A (engine R-1830-45) (USAAC) 5,5
Mohawk IV (engine R-1820-G205) (RAF) 4
Hawk 75A-7 (engine R-1820-G205) (nederland east indies) 2,5 
Hawk 75A (engine R-1830-SCG and 1G, 2G, 3G) (finnish air force) 2,5 or 3,5
H-75 C1 (engine R-1830 as finnish) french name for A-1/A-3 2,5 or 3,5 
CW-21B (engine R-1820-G5) (nederland east indies) 5
Lancer (engine R-1830-57) (chinese air force) 9,5
I-16 Type 18 and 27 (engine M-62 it's a derivative of Cyclone) (soviet air forces, maybe some allied air forces) 4,5 (18 ) o 13,5 (27)
I-16 Type 24, 28 and 29 (engine M-63, as above) (soviet air forces maybe some allied air forces) (the use of old variant with M-25 engine it's possible, but i think it's very hard that were in fighter unit. also for this more recent variant the use on attack unit was common) 4,5 (24) 13,5 (28 ) 6,5 (29)
F4F-3 (engine R-1830-76) (USN) 9,5
F4F-3A (engine R-1830-90) (USN) 9,5
F4F-4 (engine R-1830-86) (USN) 14,5
Martlet I (engine R-1820-G205) (FAA) 9,5
Martlet II (engine R-1830 SC4G) (FAA) 14,5 
Martlet III (engine R-1830-90) (FAA) similar to F-3A 9,5
G.50 (engine A-74 RC38 it's a derivative of R-1830) (italian air force, finnish air force) 2,5
M.C.200 (engine A-74 RC38 it's a derivative of R-1830) (italian air force) 2,5
Re. 2000 (engine P.XI RC 40 it's a derivative of G.R. 14K) (hungarian air force, italian air force, principally variant with more fuel and less performance) 2,5
Type 1 Mark I Army Fighter (engine Ha-25 (army name for sakae)) 1,5
IAR 80 (engine IAR 14K, it's a copy of G.R. 14K, from 80A 14K 1000, firsts 20 IAR 80 14K III, and the others 30 14K IV) (romanian air forces) 3,5 (80)
5,5 (80A) 12 (80B)

Top
Type 0 Navy Fighter (engine: model 21 sakae 12, model 32 sakae 21) (japanese navy) 10
Type 2 Mark I Army Fighter (engine Ha-41) (japanese army) 4,5
La 5 (engine M-82, a development of M-62) (soviet air forces) 11
Fw 190 (engine BMW 801 D-2 for A-3/4, C-2 on A-2 (early variant no more in operations)) (luftwaffe) 31,5


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2009)

HoHun
sorry have not info on propeller of Mohawk IV


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2009)

for G-205 see here
Wright Cyclone 1820 radial engine
but table in your link trial that G-205 was not the engine of US buffalo (the 205 was best)


----------



## Amsel (Apr 13, 2009)

Great work, Vincenzo.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>but table in your link trial that G-205 was not the engine of US buffalo (the 205 was best)

I'm still trying to find some data on the Mohawk IV, but the R-1820-G205A seems to have been very similar to the R-1820-56, and the commonly reported 520 km/h @ 4600 m top speed for the Mohawk IV just doesn't match the engine's critical altitude.

I would also think that if the P-36A data is realistic, an engine with a two-speed supercharger would yield a much higher speed due to power remaining high at altitude while air resistance drops, so I'd have expected the Mohawk IV to be markedly faster in absolute speed than the P-36A.

No idea how to fix this ... more data would be required. Didn't the Finns operate Hawks with the R-1820-G205 engine? It would be interesting to know whether they made any speed measurements (and at which power settings, of course).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2009)

from my link "1000 hp at 2500 rpm at 14,200 ft." , 4600 are 15100 ft i think it's right.
Yes finns operated with hawk with cyclone but in late '41 they replaced the engines. (finns data for hawk 75 with cyclone: 462 km/h at SL, 520 km/h at 4600, climb a 3 km in 3'12'' a 6 km in 7'36'')

p.s. back to P-36 in the graphs i think that the best speed altitude it's too low, under 1 km.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>from my link "1000 hp at 2500 rpm at 14,200 ft." , 4600 are 15100 ft i think it's right.

Hm, according to enginehistory.org, the R-1820-G205A is almost the same as the R-1820-56, and I have a good engine chart for the latter so that I was able to confirm that the full throttle height is close.

However, there is one aspect not covered by the enginehistory.org summary, and that' the supercharger diameter. If the R-1820-56 had a larger supercharger diameter, my assumption might be off, but I don't have any data on that. Did the R-1820 line change supercharger size at some time?

>Yes finns operated with hawk with cyclone but in late '41 they replaced the engines. (finns data for hawk 75 with cyclone: 462 km/h at SL, 520 km/h at 4600, climb a 3 km in 3'12'' a 6 km in 7'36'')

Cyclone is R-1820, isn't it? My data matches the times to altitude very closely (3:08 instead of 3:12, 7:25 instead of 7:36). However, if I drop the full throttle heights to match the horizontal speed, I end up with 9:03 min to 6000 m. Of course, it depends a lot on aircraft weight, and I'm using an aircraft weight of 2608 kg - what did the Finns use?

>p.s. back to P-36 in the graphs i think that the best speed altitude it's too low, under 1 km.

That's correct, it's the standard R-1830-17 using 100 octance, running at emergency power with 2700 rpm. It gave high power but only at very low altitude. Curtiss data for the P-36A is just above 500 km/h @ 3 km, so a P-36 with an engine capable of achieving the same power at 4.6 km should be a lot faster in terms of absolute speed.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2009)

i don't know
R-1820-G205, not reported weight (almost not in that web page)
-13 was SC-G (if i understand the enginehistory) it's in hawk 75A-1 so they are few raf take 29 A-1/A-2 (this with -19) so and easy that for '42 the engine was replaced or take out from operation.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi again,

>i don't know
>R-1820-G205, not reported weight (almost not in that web page)
>-13 was SC-G (if i understand the enginehistory) it's in hawk 75A-1 so they are few raf take 29 A-1/A-2 (this with -19) so and easy that for '42 was engine replaced or take out from operation.

Hm, I have now found on the enginehistory.org page the second document listing the same engine as R-1820-87 with the R-1820-G205A designation in brackets, and now I understand the confusion. (Besides the typo in just that engine's full throttle height!)

The ratings in the more detailed documents are for "Continuous", showing just 2300 rpm. This results in a lower full throttle height.

"Take-off" is achieved at 2500 rpm though where the engine yields 1200 HP instead of its usual rating of 1000 HP. The "military" rating is given as "none" in the document, but if you look at the list of aircraft types the engine was used in, you'll find that they are all training aircraft (or at least were used as such by the USAAF).

Accordingly, the military rating was not allowed for use, and maybe the aircraft were not even fueled with 100/130 grade petrol as listed in the engine overview, but with lower grade fuel to preserve the high octane for combat operations.

The RAF Mohawk IV however would probably have had access to 100 octane fuel, and accordingly used the "military" power rating and performed much better as a result. I'm not sure if the Finnish Air Force had 100 octane fuel available, though.

To get back to the reported 520 km/h @ 4.6 km, this is closer to what I get from the "continuous" rating, though it requries the assumption that the P-36 did not exploit zero ram effect, which contradicts my data on the P-36A. Some engine ratings are given with ram effect, but that would surprise me as the list these ratings are from lists different and fairly slow aircraft types where no coherent assumption on a generic high-speed situation would be possible, so it would be best to list the ratings for static pressure.

Even more importantly, the 2608 kg weight I am using appear to fit the data I have on the P-36 quite well, and with the "continous" power rating I get nowhere near the climb rates you listed while the "military" power rating I derived from the R-1820-56 chart matches them rather well.

My conclusion is that the top speed and the climb rate data is not for the same power setting, and that the Mohawk IV with 100 octane fuel using the military power setting would in fact be much faster than 520 km/h at 4.6 km.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 13, 2009)

i think that listed speed (520 km/h) for mohawk IV/hawk 75 with G205 it's not for 100 octane fuel.


----------



## Juha (Apr 13, 2009)

Hello
the figures Vincenzo gave for FAF H75A are not figures Finns got from their own tests.
CUw-551 max speed at sea level was 429km/h and for CUw-557 max at 1500m was 425km/h. CUw-572 max at SL was appr. 415km/h and max at 3000m appr 438km/h. Max for CUc (c=Cyclone) was appr 480km/h at FTH.
According to British test in Apr 41 max for H75A-4 was 486km/h at 4300m, max climb at 2870kg 13,2m/s and ceiling 10 300m

The propeller was 3 blade Curtiss Electric constant speed, diameter 3,07,m blade angle moved between 29-52 deg

On 100oct, maybe German C3, LeR 1 had a small secret cache of it to be used in Curtiss for to hunt high speed Pe-2 recon planes, but 87 oct was the standard fuel of FAF

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>the figures Vincenzo gave for FAF H75A are not figures Finns got from their own tests.

Ah, very important to know!

>Max for CUc (c=Cyclone) was appr 480km/h at FTH.

Was the full throttle height also given?

>According to British test in Apr 41 max for H75A-4 was 486km/h at 4300m, max climb at 2870kg 13,2m/s and ceiling 10 300m

Hm, I can't quite understand the 4300 m full throttle height, and how the aircraft could be so much more draggy than the official Curtiss numbers would indicate, but 13.2 m/s and 10300 m ceiling at this weight appear perfectly in line with the powers given for 2300 rpm.

>The propeller was 3 blade Curtiss Electric constant speed, diameter 3,07,m blade angle moved between 29-52 deg

Thanks! Another vital bit of information 

>On 100oct, maybe German C3, LeR 1 had a small secret cache of it to be used in Curtiss for to hunt high speed Pe-2 recon planes, but 87 oct was the standard fuel of FAF

I see. No idea what the 87 octane power limits were on that engine if combat use was considered ... I'll have to see if the FM-2 manual has something to say on that.

Here is a comparison of my calculations for the Curtiss. #1 is for the 520 km/h @ 4.6 km data point, with some leaps to salvage some logic. #2 is for the 486 km/h @ 4.3 km data point, ignoring the higher full throttle height that appears inevitable even with a modest amount of ram effect - thus the top speed exceeding 486 km/h and being reached at almost 5 km.

#2 shows good agreement in the climb data with the British test results you provided if we consider it to be valid for 2300 rpm. At the full 2500 rpm that the R-1820-87 probably used for Military power, performance would be a bit better, as indicated by the thick line.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 14, 2009)

Good info, for clear
CUw551 was a A-2 
CUw557 was a A-6
CUw572 was a A-3
Maybe that the light weight was w/o armour? weight ~2600 kg put with weights for originals french aircraft (gross weights on baugher pages exactly 2608 kg for A-4).

p.s. i must do something i back on forum 17th evenings (my local time)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi again,

>No idea what the 87 octane power limits were on that engine if combat use was considered ... I'll have to see if the FM-2 manual has something to say on that.

No luck ... it seems that while British Pilot's Notes usually mentioned limitations for a low-octane substitute, the availability of the correct type of fuel was considered a given by the US 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>Maybe that the light weight was w/o armour? weight ~2600 kg put with weights for originals french aircraft (gross weights on baugher pages exactly 2608 kg for A-4).

Hm, so it's:

- French Hawk 75A-4: no armour
- British Mohawk IV: armour
- Finnish Hawk 75A-4: armour???

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Timppa (Apr 14, 2009)

HoHun said:


> ..how the aircraft could be so much more draggy than the official Curtiss numbers would indicate



The Finnish State Aircraft Factory wondered the same thing. It suspected that the Curtiss numbers were obtained with a plane that was polished and waxed, antenna, machine guns and all other protruding parts removed.

It was found that at 6000-7000m the Curtiss had to use full throttle to keep up with PR Bristol Blenheim using its cruise speed.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Timppa,

>The Finnish State Aircraft Factory wondered the same thing. It suspected that the Curtiss numbers were obtained with a plane that was polished and waxed, antenna, machine guns and all other protruding parts removed.

That's highly interesting background!  Maybe Curtiss marketing was indeed a bit optimistic - I don't think the CW-21 had much chance of attaining the advertised 5000 fpm climb either.

>It was found that at 6000-7000m the Curtiss had to use full throttle to keep up with PR Bristol Blenheim using its cruise speed.

Hm, but for which engine version was that observation made? If we'd know the speed of the reconnaissance Blenheim, that might give us another checkpoint for Hawk speeds  Which mark of the Blenheim was used for reconnaissance, and how was it equipped (rear turret, nose barbette etc.)?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Apr 14, 2009)

Hello HoHun
Timppa already answered the question Finnish tests vs official Curtiss figures. Of course that was the conclusion of the staff of the State Aircraft Factory, was that the truth, whole truth… I don’t know.

BTW have you seen the Curtiss’ procure on specs for Curtiss Hawk 75-A, there is a pdf file of one from a Finnish archive/museum/library? One might be even in this site, in manuals section. You can find good Curtiss specs with weight info etc.
For ex at 2582 kg with 1820-G105A 413 km/h at SL, 467 km/h at 2500m (max for low blower) and 488km/h at 5790m.

FAF CUc-502 on 25.6.41 385km/h IAS at 2810m, more Finnish test results flown after major overhauls are in the Fokker D.XXI thread.

FAF H-75As had pilot's back armour until it was removed in 1944 in order to make a/c a bit lighter and so a bit more combative agains new VVS planes. Also the armour plate was too thin to be much use against heavy mg and cannon fire.

HTH
Juha


----------



## Marcel (Apr 14, 2009)

Some info on the CW.21: Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Demon Interceptor


> The CW-21B appeared in the January 1st, 1941 edition of American Aviation where the claim of "greatest climbing plane in the world" and vertical mile in a minute performance were repeated. There seems to be little doubt the CW-21 had excellent climb performance but the claim for an initial climb rate over 5,000 feet per minute is not supported by the data in this article. The author has found no details to substantiate the claim though the prototype CW-21 may have attained a climb rate of 4,800 feet per minute.





> Here it might be worth commenting on the claims of an initial climb rate of over 5,000 feet per minute (Curtiss advertising) or even the slightly lower figure (4,500 feet per minute) mentioned in some sources [13]. The figures above show an average climb rate to both 4,000m and 5,000m as well as between those heights of 3,280 feet per minute. If the CW-21 actually climbed at initial rate approaching or exceeding 5,000 feet per minute but averaged 3,280 feet per minute to both 4,000 and 5,000 meters, its climb performance curve would look very strange when graphed out. In order to average 3,280 feet per minute to 4,000 meters after a start of nearly 5,000 feet in one minute its climb rate between 5,000 feet and 13,200 feet would average barely 2,700 feet per minute. The rate would then increase again to 3,280 feet per minute between 4,000 and 5,000 meters. This unlikely scenario appears even stranger when considering that at 5,600 feet the supercharger would bring the engine rating (850 hp at 2,100 rpm) up to exactly the same figures for sea level. In all likelihood claims for an initial climb rate much in excess of 4,000 feet per minute are probably vastly overstated and fail to represent the aircraft's performance under normal operating conditions. On the other hand an average climb rate of 3,280 feet per minute to 16,400 feet would certainly constitute outstanding performance.





> The R-1820-G5 was rated at 1,000 hp at 2,200 rpm for take off and its normal sea level maximum rating at 2,100 rpm was 850 hp [12]. Normal maximum rating in first supercharger gear was 850 hp at 2,100 rpm and 6,000 feet and 750 hp at 15,200 feet in high supercharger gear. Curtiss credited the fighter with a maximum speed of 333 mph at 18,000 feet and 314 mph at 5,600 feet. Cruising speed was 282 mph at 12,200 feet. Cruising range was 630 miles. Climbing time to 13,120 feet (4,000m) was 4 minutes and to 16,400 (5,000m) was 5 minutes.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 14, 2009)

On the subject of the R-1820-G205, I went over to enginehistory.org and took a look and don't even see the R-1820-56 listed. There's a "-55", followed by a "-57".
This may be due to the records belonging to the USAF and not the USN.

However, further investigation shows that there were actually two "-G205" variations of the Cyclone engine that were used by the USAAF.

One is denoted "GR-1820-G205A", with the other as being the "R-1820-G205A".

The "GR..." engine correlates to an R-1820-87.
The "-87" was a 1200HP powerplant with an 11" two-speed supercharger and the engine weight is listed as 1315 lbs.
The "R..." engine correlates to an R-1820-95.
The "-95" was also a 1200 HP powerplant and apparently, based on the "-87" varient, but differing due to accessory drives and cylinder baffles.
It's also interesting to note that this particular varient is listed as (and I quote), "_Engine purchased by Norway but taken over by U.S._".
The usage is listed as that for the P-36G (noted as _XP-36G_, under the "descprition" for the other engine mentioned here).
It also used a two-speed supercharger, although the diameter is not listed, but the ratios are the same (so it could be surmised that this is the same SC used on the "-87").
The engine weight is listed at 1320 lbs.

On the subject of fuel requirements, the "G205..." engines listed above both show a grade of 100/130 as that to be used.
However, the recent mention of Finnish usage of 87 octane fuel is interesting, because in another section on the Cyclone at the enginehistory.org site, it lists a correlation between the R-1820-G5 and the R-1820-39.
The fuel requirement for this 930HP version is listed as 91/96.
It is entirely possible that the engine could "digest" the small difference in octane ratings with no ill effects, and as I see no notes for different HP ratings for that particular varient, power didn't suffer enough to make a difference to plane's (and engine's) overall performance.
However, engine weight is a bit lighter, being listed as 1198 lbs., compared to the later G-205 varients listed above.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Apr 14, 2009)

Marcel,

On the claims for climb rate of the CW-21, I think that if the writer of the article were closely questioned, he would most likely claim _artistic liberty_ for his "mile-a-minute" comment.
The rate equates to a speed of 60MPH, or almost 100 clicks. 
At the time, that was considered a fairly "quick" rate of speed to the common American citizen, thus it would give the impression of a "high-performance" airplane, which I feel is the overall feeling the writer was most likely trying to convey.
Thus, whether the fact that the plane could actually climb at 5,280 ft./min., or not, would then be irregardless in this case, as it was not being portrayed as a "fact".
It would be more likely that if the claim were being presented as fact, it would be noted as "5,280 ft./min.", and not "a mile-a-minute".

JMHO.



Elvis


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Elvis,

>On the subject of the R-1820-G205, I went over to enginehistory.org and took a look and don't even see the R-1820-56 listed. There's a "-55", followed by a "-57".

Note that there is another overview of Wright engines a bit further down the page, that's what initially confused me too. The second one does include the R-1820-56, but does not have as much detail information as the first.

>One is denoted "GR-1820-G205A", with the other as being the "R-1820-G205A".

Ah, thanks - I had missed that. I agree that the two engines appear to be virtually identical, despite the absence of the supercharger diameter figure in the second dataset (and the typo in the high gear full throttle height for the first).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>BTW have you seen the Curtiss’ procure on specs for Curtiss Hawk 75-A, there is a pdf file of one from a Finnish archive/museum/library? 

No - where can I find it? That would be highly interesting! 

(I have some pages from a USAAF technical order listing data for the P-36A, but it sounds like this is a different dataset.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2009)

Someone may already have commented, but the GR is an engine with a reduction gear up front for the prop. The R is a direct drive by my understanding.

- Ivan.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 15, 2009)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, Ivan.
Thanks for confirming that fact.
-------------------------------------------------



HoHun said:


> Note that there is another overview of Wright engines a bit further down the page, that's what initially confused me too. The second one does include the R-1820-56, but does not have as much detail information as the first.


Sorry HoHun, I do not see what it is you're referring to.
THIS is the page I've been referring to the whole time we've been using it.
Can you show me where the additional Wright info is on this page?



Elvis


----------



## HoHun (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Elvis,

>THIS is the page I've been referring to the whole time we've been using it.

>Can you show me where the additional Wright info is on this page?

Direct link to the one I first referred to:

http://www.enginehistory.org/Wright/CWafter1930_2.pdf

Direct link to the one everyone else referred to:

http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/I3 9.tif

Direct link to superior page that sent us into confusion:

Reference

Good thing you checked the post-war USAF designations - I skipped that page because I was clearly interested in the wartime USAAF! Talk about tunnel vision! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Apr 15, 2009)

Sorry HoHun
if it isn't in the technical section of this forum, I don't have a slightest recollection where I saw it in the net.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2009)

The FW-190 IMO.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 16, 2009)

HoHun,

Thanks for the link.
Guess I'll have to invetigate that site a little closer.

Interesting correlalations between R-1820-56, ...-56WA and R-1820-72A.
All appear pretty much the same, except for production periods.
I wonder what the difference was that changed a "-56" to a "-72"?



Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 17, 2009)

Hi to all 

i found a french site with a manual for H-75A-1, i post the link when i back to home, the fighter configuratio weight it´s 2691kg, it´s with the rear tank empty, the speed is 487,5 km/h at 4000 m.

I think the rated altitude under italian standard was different from international ones. for example DB601A-1 in italian nomenclature was rated at 4100 m. but was at 4500m.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 17, 2009)

this is the link Le Curtiss H 75

other: we need add at challengers H-75 C-1 (the french planes fightning in november against the operatio torch)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2009)

Lets put a visual to it. Poll added (Yeah I know another fricken poll??? Sorry I like them...)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 17, 2009)

i not like

and P-47 is not in challenge

p.s. please if possible remove the poll


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2009)

Hi, Adler,

Perhaps you could make it a multi-choice poll, since the 190 would scoop all the votes? This way we'll see how the other contenders fare (sort of a second-best choice).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2009)

I can not change it anymore. I did not really think of that. I will remove it.

But why would the P-47 not be included? It was in service in 1942.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 17, 2009)

read first topic "actual fightning fighter"


----------



## Magister (Apr 17, 2009)

The P-47 did not see action until 1943.


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
H-75 C-1 was simply the French designation for Curtiss Hawk 75A series, C-1 simply means single-seat fighter.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 18, 2009)

i knew a little of french i knew this, and for true it's designation surely for A-1/3 for A-4 some source report H-751 (obv. ever C1), but where is the problem?


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
I agree, also that H-751C-1 was designation for Hawk 75A-4 (it had a different engine, Cyclone). I only meant that P-36/H-75 has been included from the beginning. 

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 18, 2009)

for true i never included P-36 it's not fightning in '42 but only the export variant that actually fightning with finnish, dutch british/south africans, and french.
in this i don't found nothing on use in fight of mohawk I/III soma had info? if not need delete thsi from challenges.

p.s. i tendo to leave the fighter divided for users for "national" change in it


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
from message #1 onwards P-36/Hawk 75A has been included in this thread. Mohawk I-III were simply British designations to Hawk 75A-1 - A-3 with some British equipments. FAF used those Hawks in 42.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 18, 2009)

The list on 1st topic was provisional there is one update, the US P-36 was not 100% same of export variant. i knew, see my p.s. on my previous topic. true soumen used A-1,2,3,4 (for '42 modified with PW), 6 and they are on challenge.

Juha you can check if all the suomen used models were fightning in '42 (i know the delivery ended in january '44 so maybe that some model entered in fightning after '42)


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
remembering that FAF A-4s had their Cyclones changed to P W Twin Wasps by late 1941 and looking both imports and also the total losses in 1941 , FAF used A-1s, A-2s, A-3s and A-6s in 1942. In 1943 bought 15 Hawk 75As incl A-1s, A-2s and A-3s. One must remember that because FAF standard fuel was 87 oct, max power available to FAF Hawks was 1065hp, so in essence all behaved like A-1s or A-2s.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 18, 2009)

"4 (for '42 modified with PW)" was w/o but i want told same of you. so ok all types were operational in suomi at '42.


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2009)

Firstly
Vincenzo, thanks for the info on Italian fighters early on this tread. And thanks for the link to the French handbook on Hawk 75A.

FAF used Hawk 75A longer as 1-line fighter than Fiat G.50, but that was at least partly because G.50 was technically a problem child.
Hawk 75A and Fiat G.50 had both very strong airframes which usually meant that they could absorb lot of battle damage, 

On horizontal manoeuvrability of FAF fighters in 42, Fokker D.XXI was worst, it was tip staller and lost energy rapidly in turns. The Mercury engined version (which was the better one) needed 25 – 28 sec for 360deg turn. On the other hand its controls remained light even at high speed but same was true also for G.50, Hawk 75A and B-239.

HoHun
I wonder why in your graphs P-36 got its max speed at so low altitude. According to Wagner’s American Combat Planes both P-36C and P-36A had their max speed at 3048m (10000 ft), also according to Finnish tests CU-572 (an A-3 but with 87oct fuel, not 100 oct) achieved its max speed (c. 434km/h) at 3570m when using automatic fuel/air mixture and at appr. 2300m when using over rich mixture (c. 436,5 km/h). French manual gave critical altitude for H-75A-1 as 4000m and according to “Detail specifications for Curtiss Hawk 75-A Airplane” the critical altitude of a H-75A with P&W Twin Wasp S3C3-G geared engine was 4650m.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>I wonder why in your graphs P-36 got its max speed at so low altitude. According to Wagner’s American Combat Planes both P-36C and P-36A had their max speed at 3048m (10000 ft), also according to Finnish tests CU-572 (an A-3 but with 87oct fuel, not 100 oct) achieved its max speed (c. 434km/h) at 3570m when using automatic fuel/air mixture and at appr. 2300m when using over rich mixture (c. 436,5 km/h). French manual gave critical altitude for H-75A-1 as 4000m and according to “Detail specifications for Curtiss Hawk 75-A Airplane” the critical altitude of a H-75A with P&W Twin Wasp S3C3-G geared engine was 4650m.

I'm considering the type to use 100 octane, which allows the use of increased boost pressure, which in turn will only be delivered by the supercharger at low altitude. You should find that the curve I provided runs right through the normally listed top speed figures at 87 octane full throttle height (at least if you rely on the Curtiss figures 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 19, 2009)

if none has info of utilization in fightning (in '42) of mohawk I/III from RAF/SAAF itake out that.
for 100 octane fuel on hawk 75, i've many doubt that users, as this thread definition, of H75/R-1830 can have this.


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2009)

Hello HoHun
thanks for explanation.

Hello Vincenzo
IIRC RAF/SAAF used only Mowawk IVs, SAAF in Eritrea.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 20, 2009)

HoHun if need help for research data, on web, for miss graphs of Fw 190 or other planes, tell me i'm happy to help in the research.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 22, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> if none has info of utilization in fightning (in '42) of mohawk I/III from RAF/SAAF itake out that.



RAF were using their Mohawk IV's in Burma very late in war, 155 squadron used them until January 1944, then they were replaced with Spitfire VIII.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> if none has info of utilization in fightning (in '42) of mohawk I/III from RAF/SAAF itake out that.
> for 100 octane fuel on hawk 75, i've many doubt that users, as this thread definition, of H75/R-1830 can have this.



I think that you will find this of interest.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p36-mohawks-vs-jaf-2922.html


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 23, 2009)

thanks, good reading


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2009)

Anytime


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 24, 2009)

HoHun can explain me why italian fighter climb speed are so different from italian test?
The G. 50 climb at 4 km in 254'' so it's 15,7 m/s average, the max climb in the graphs is ~13,5 m/s
The Re. 2000 climb at 4 km in 237'' so it's 16,8 m/s average, the max climb in the graphs is ~16,2 m/s
The M.C.200 climb at 4 km in 234'' so it's 17,1 m/s average, the max climb in the graphs is ~15,3 m/s

thanks


----------



## Pong (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm going with the FW-190.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 24, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>HoHun can explain me why italian fighter climb speed are so different from italian test?

No idea. At which flying weights were the figures you quoted achieved?

I know that over on Aces High forum, Italian forum member Gatt and Aces High's Hitech discussed climb rate figures for some Italian fighter (of a later generation, I believe) that were too high to be realistic. Gatt had contact to a retired Macchi engineer (I believe - maybe it was an other company), and I seem to remember that after much research, lower figures were accepted as probable.

Maybe this was not type-specific, but systematic for Italian ratings and procedures?

Regards,

Henning (HoHuN)


----------



## Elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

Pong said:


> I'm going with the FW-190.


Thanks for the reminder...I don't think I mentioned this before, so just a word to say I'm changing my vote.
FW-190 for me, too.
I didn't know that the cooling problems were solved, but I guess they were.
That was really the only thing holding me back from voting for it.

...btw, I've never seen shark's teeth on a Spitfire before, Pong.
Interesting picture. 




Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 25, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> >HoHun can explain me why italian fighter climb speed are so different from italian test?
> 
> ...



Hi
Test weight are already give. 
can give me the title of topic on Aces High for find it?
I'm not engineer but, at example, power load of macchi it's good, only 6% more of type 1 (and that it's for WEP), also more near to Type 0 (the best climbing in graphs)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>can give me the title of topic on Aces High for find it?

I'm afraid you'll have to rely on the search engine since I didn't save that thread 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi
i can't use search engine, almost until they not accept my registration, I hope they accept me in short times


----------



## Timppa (Apr 25, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> HoHun can explain me why italian fighter climb speed are so different from italian test?
> The G. 50 climb at 4 km in 254'' so it's 15,7 m/s average, the max climb in the graphs is ~13,5 m/s



Finnish G.50's could not match the book values (as was the case with almost all fighters used by the FAF, the notable exeptions being the Brewster and the Bf109).

Finnish G.50: Speed 380 km/h OTD, 890 mmHg.
403-430 km/h at 5000m (depending on the propeller), boost 790 mmHg.
Best climb rate 14m/s OTD, reducing linearly to around 10m/s at 4000m.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi Timppa
i think that plane of suomen test are heavy and w/o closed clockpit, i don't know if weather condition can influence test but maybe.

for true i see on kurfurst site the test of 109 gustav and also this non match con deutsch test


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 25, 2009)

To Finnish friends 
there is a web page where see (read) the finnish test of old (continous war and or winter war) FAF fighters?

thanks


----------



## ssnider (Apr 25, 2009)

how about some charts with the brewster variants?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi Ssnider,

>how about some charts with the brewster variants?

If you can find good data on weight, top speed at altitude, engine power at various altitudes, reduction gearing and propeller diameter of each version etc., that would increase the chances 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Apr 25, 2009)

Hello HoHun
FAF B-239
Wright R-1820-G5, t/o power 950hp at 2200rpm 104cmHg boost pressure at SL
Combat power 1000hp at SL, 800hp at 4900m, max 5min
Nominal 850hp at SL at 2100rpm 93 cmHg, 750hp 2100 rpm 86 cmHg at 4570m. 2-speed supercharger
3 blade Hamilton Standard constant speed airscrew diameter 2,74m blade travel 13-31 deg
T/o speed 120km/h
Best climb speed 220km/h IAS at low level, 180 km/h IAS at 5000m.Change to high gear at 3000m
Climb with nominal power and at 2275kg 6min to 4572m. At 2387kg 6.7 min.
Max speed 428 km/h at SL 480 km/h at 4750m (in fact a bit higher because of ram effect)
Stall speed clean c. 130km/h, with power on c. 120 km/h

HTH
Juha


----------



## HoHun (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi Juha,

Thanks, that looks like good data!  It's not clear what kind of performance was achieved with which level of power, but I think I could make some good guesses on that.

Climb rate was with 2100 rpm "Combat" power I think since if I use this power, I hit the figures almost dead on.

I have used power figures from AEHS Home, which look quite similar but were easier for me to handle.

For the graphs, I decided to use 2200 rpm, 930 HP for low gear maximum power and 2200 rpm, 775 HP for high gear maximum power. This appears to match the enginehistory.com figures.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 25, 2009)

...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 25, 2009)

....


----------



## Juha (Apr 26, 2009)

Thanks a lot, HoHun!!!
When I typed the info, I noticed that there were gaps, for ex the boost pressure of Milit. Power was lacking. BTW, do you have info on the blower gear ratio of R-1820-G5? The Wright engine specs file on AEHS site lacks pages 7 and 8, where –G5 info should have been. A year ago KK89 gave blower gear info for G-1, -2, -3 and -6 but not for -5.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>BTW, do you have info on the blower gear ratio of R-1820-G5? The Wright engine specs file on AEHS site lacks pages 7 and 8, where –G5 info should have been. A year ago KK89 gave blower gear info for G-1, -2, -3 and -6 but not for -5.

It's on their site, but under the confusing title "Model Designations of U.S.A.F Engines":

ModDesig

The R-1820-39 is identified as the -G5, and is listed with a 10.7" diameter supercharger wheel and 7.14 and 10 gear ratios. Compression ratio is 6.45.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Apr 26, 2009)

Thanks a lot, HoHun!

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2009)

Hello HoHun
Regrettably I must inform that I seem to be suffering a slight reading problem. In my message #211 I wrote that Wright R-1820-G5 had 2-stage supercharger but it had 2-speed supercharger. When I read my source I read kaksivaihteinen as kaksivaiheinen, that’s the reason for the mix up. I corrected the error in the original message.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Apr 28, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>Regrettably I must inform that I seem to be suffering a slight reading problem. In my message #211 I wrote that Wright R-1820-G5 had 2-stage supercharger but it had 2-speed supercharger. When I read my source I read kaksivaihteinen as kaksivaiheinen, that’s the reason for the mix up. I corrected the error in the original message.

Thanks for the heads up!  No impact on the calculations fortunately, as the horse power numbers were the decisive bit of information - a single-stage supercharger is not as efficient, but it requires no special treatment during the analysis.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Elvis (Apr 29, 2009)

Henning,

I was noticing in the "sustained turn rate" chart, it appears you have the B-239 listed at almost 26 deg/sec at ground level, yet the rate has slowed to approximately 21.25 deg./sec @ 2000M.

I thought that was kind of an odd figure, so I looked back at the http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-me-109-a-12342-5.html thread, because I remember quite an indepth discussion about turn rates of different airplanes in there.
In post #73, Ju Ha wrote the following as part of that post...


> Brewster Model 239
> Sustained 180deg at 350kmh (IAS) at 2000m 7sec, no wonder that Finns liked the plane.


That works out to 25.7+ deg./sec.

Why the differences in those figures compared to yours?



Elvis


----------



## HoHun (Apr 30, 2009)

Hi Elvis,

>In post #73, Ju Ha wrote the following as part of that post...

>That works out to 25.7+ deg./sec.

>Why the differences in those figures compared to yours?

I guess that the higher figure is for a combat turn that sustains altitude, but not speed. 

I calculate a sustained turn speed of about 240 km/h TAS, while 350 km/h IAS (calibrated, I assume) works out to 386 km/h TAS. At that speed, the F2A according to my calculations is capable of a 40 degrees per second turn, pulling 7.7 G and decelerating with 6.6 m/s^2. (The deceleration of course reduces G rate, turn rate and further deceleration, so I'd say like my calculations are in the same ballpart for a decelerating turn as those Juha quoted.)

In my opinion, the figure of 350 km/h is what we'd consider "corner speed" in modern technology - the speed at which the F2A can generate the highest instantaneous Gs that can be usefully employed to combat, limited by airframe strength or by the pilot's ability to resist G forces. That's probably the reason it's listed for 180 degrees of turn - if attacked by an enemy from astern, you could make such a turn from corner speed to spoil his attack, and after 180 degrees you'd probably be facing him head-on (depending on the timing of the turn, of course).

A sustained turn at 350 km/h IAS would be much tamer and have a much wider radius - I calculate 14.5 degrees per second compared to the 23.3 degrees per second at 240 km/h TAS for highest sustained turn rate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Hi
> i can't use search engine, almost until they not accept my registration, I hope they accept me in short times



after they accepted me i look in many info on Aces High II forum but i don't found nothing on the italian planes in this challenge


----------



## HoHun (Apr 30, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>after they accepted me i look in many info on Aces High II forum but i don't found nothing on the italian planes in this challenge

Hm, maybe your best bet is to ask Gatt directly then (if he's still active on that forum - I at least am not).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Gatt (May 2, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> >HoHun can explain me why italian fighter climb speed are so different from italian test?
> 
> ...



Hello HoHun and Vincenzo,

I'll be back home on tuesday. I'll try to post some hard data about the G.50, the C.200 and the Re2000. I mean data from official tests and/or performance data from the flight manuals.

Gatt


----------



## HoHun (May 2, 2009)

Hi Gatt,

>I'll be back home on tuesday. I'll try to post some hard data about the G.50, the C.200 and the Re2000. I mean data from official tests and/or performance data from the flight manuals.

Hey, I'm glad to see you here on this board!  I'm looking forward to your input - Italian aircraft are a fascinating topic, but compared to other types, there is so little data on them that we really need your expert input here!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Gatt (May 2, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Italian aircraft are a fascinating topic, but compared to other types, there is so little data on them that we really need your expert input here!
> Regards,
> Henning (HoHun)



Hi HoHun, I dont play AcesHigh 2 anymore. So, instead of shooting down bombers and Spitfire dweebs with my Macchi C.205, I have been searching for italian aircraft documents 
Jokes apart, actually I'm helping the guys of Targetware's "Target Tobruk" mod providing them stuff to build those flight models.
I'll try to dig out a C.200 official report (speed and climb performance at different altitudes). About the G.50 and the Re.2000, so far the only hard data are those provided by the flight manual.
BTW, you are right, we have very few data about our aircraft. But the more we search the more stuff we find: like the original 1944 flight manual of the Fiat G.55 "Centauro". This is the first Series 5 fighters flight manual which shows full power for the license built Fiat-DB605, i.e.: 1.42ata at 2.800rpm ...

See you next week!

Gatt


----------



## HoHun (May 2, 2009)

Hi Gatt,

>BTW, you are right, we have very few data about our aircraft. But the more we search the more stuff we find: like the original 1944 flight manual of the Fiat G.55 "Centauro". This is the first Series 5 fighters flight manual which shows full power for the license built Fiat-DB605, i.e.: 1.42ata at 2.800rpm ...

Wow, sounds like your research is really paying off there!  I remember the discussion about the Italian-built DB 601A engines, pretty hard to tell which power levels they achieved!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Gatt (May 5, 2009)

Ok, here is a comparative study of the performance of different versions of the G.50. Figures are from official Flight and Manteinance Manuals.

G.50 1a Serie:





G.50 2a Serie:





and G.50 Bis


----------



## Vincenzo (May 6, 2009)

beautiful info Gatt, thanks

the info that i posted for I serie (the only with closed cockpit) from '39 Guidonia Test (almost so classified from a my friend) are a bit more conservative, i add and repeat here
empty weight 1900 kg
load weight 2330 kg (test weight) 
max speed 483 km/h at 4,5 km 451 km/h at 6 km
climb at 4 km in 4'14'', at 6 km in 7'3'' 
take off 200 meters
landing 323 meters (no words on w or w/o brakes)


----------



## Gatt (May 6, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo, do you have a scan of the Guidonia trials document?

Regards,
Federico


----------



## Vincenzo (May 6, 2009)

no i've only a my friend e-mail it reported the data i give

p.s. but this are the same of reggiane reggiane web pages


----------



## starling (May 6, 2009)

hawker typhoon or beaufighter,cheers.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 6, 2009)

starling said:


> hawker typhoon or beaufighter,cheers.


Typhoon it's not in challenge, obviously, Beaufigher imho was not good for fighter vs fighter, also if it can match with some of more old design


----------



## Juha (May 6, 2009)

Gatt
Thank You very much for the documents on Fiat G.50.
Greatly appreciated.

Juha


----------



## Waynos (May 6, 2009)

How many Typhoons you seen with a radial engine? I can think of only one so a prototype hardly qualifies.


----------



## Gatt (May 7, 2009)

This is from a february 1940 Guidonia official C.200 test. As you can see they took the average figures from two tests:








BTW, as usual, you have to check carefully for take-off weights and boost pressures before judging these figures.


----------



## HoHun (May 7, 2009)

Hi Gatt,

>Ok, here is a comparative study of the performance of different versions of the G.50. Figures are from official Flight and Manteinance Manuals.

Thanks a lot, that looks very interesting indeed!

Not without the usual problems of first-hand data of course ... did you notice that there is no increase in the quoted "autonomia" of the G-50bis despite the weight data shows it has an increased fuel capacity? 

What is the "motorino" mentioned in some of the documents?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Gatt (May 7, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Gatt,
> 
> What is the "motorino" mentioned in some of the documents?
> 
> ...



"Motorino d'avviamento" means engine starter. 

Regards,
Federico


----------



## Vincenzo (May 7, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Not without the usual problems of first-hand data of course ... did you notice that there is no increase in the quoted "autonomia" of the G-50bis despite the weight data shows it has an increased fuel capacity?



need know how many fuel there was in range test, imho it's not the test was done at max fuel


----------



## Gatt (May 7, 2009)

To better judge what kind of data the official manuals have, here is the performance page from the C.200 official manual (Series I-V from Breda, 1940). As you can see climb data figures are the same from the above post, which are the average of two tests. I find it quite interesting.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 8, 2009)

for the Macchi the difference was large, but if i not wrong the Breda production it's from '40, summer?, so obv. was different from a '39 aircraft (ever if the tested plane was not the prototype)
weight 1778-2208
speed 502 km/h at 5 km, 493km/h at 6km
climb at 4 km in 3'54'' at 6km in 6'29''
takeoff 225 meters landing 338 meters


----------



## Vincenzo (May 10, 2009)

Gatt have you info on pressure boost? (talking on "italian" engines on italian fighters)

io ho letto da qualche parte, al momento non ricordo dove ma penso su qualche articolo in qualche rivista di settore, che c'era al possibilità di aumentare la pressione del flusso carburante, se non ho capito male, e nel caos dell motore fiat A 74 era chiamata + 100 (nome dovuto al fatto che si aumentava di 100 m di mercurio la pressione forse a cmq) 
ciao e grazie ancora per l'aiuto


----------



## Gatt (May 11, 2009)

Well, generally speaking, the Fiat A74 RC38 was used with a boost pressure of about 790mm Hg (about 1.1ata and 2.400rpm). However, the pilot could use the +100 option for a short time pushing the boost at 890mm Hg (about 1,2ata and 2.520rpm).

According to the C.200 manual the +100 was allowed for short take-offs but forbidden during the climb to altitudes. We dont know for how long time the italian pilots used the +100 in combat.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 11, 2009)

I saw the different power setting for C.200 e G.50 in the your posted manuals.

ho notato i giri differenti per il macchi e il fiat, sembrerebbe che il macchi era limitato a 2400 giri ma il fiat andava a 2520, forse c'erano problemi di robustezza dell'installazione o dell'aereo? 

mi dai un anteprima dei dati dal manuale del reggiane? , vabbo lo ammetto era solo un tentativo per ricordarti che sto/stiamo ancora in attesa della scansione dal manuale

ciao


----------



## Gatt (May 12, 2009)

Nope, the A74 mounted on the C.200 had no limitation. Max allowed settinges were the same, i.e. 2520rpm at 890mm Hg.

Later I'll post the Re.2000 manual pages about performances.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 12, 2009)

Gatt said:


> Nope, the A74 mounted on the C.200 had no limitation. Max allowed settinges were the same, i.e. 2520rpm at 890mm Hg.



Saw the macchi test on climb at 2400/1' and on speed at 2430-70/1' and fiat manual speed on 2520/1' how you explain the difference? trouble in test or other?


----------



## Vincenzo (May 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> that FAF A-4s had their Cyclones changed to P W Twin Wasps by late 1941 and looking both imports and also the total losses in 1941 , FAF used A-1s, A-2s, A-3s and A-6s in 1942.



I'm not sure of understand, so FAF don't used A-4 (obv. reengined) in '42?

Please can give info on the FAF speed test on Fiat G.50? with info on power setting and weights if possible


----------



## Gatt (May 12, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Saw the macchi test on climb at 2400/1' and on speed at 2430-70/1' and fiat manual speed on 2520/1' how you explain the difference? trouble in test or other?



Aircraft are seldom or never tested at their max engine settings. They usually are tested at their continous allowed engine setting. For the A74 it is 2.400rpm at 790mm Hg.


----------



## Juha (May 12, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
yes, FAF didn't have Cyclone engined Hawk75As after late 1941, all were re-engined by then.

FAF, the best G.50 speed recorded was flown by FA-15 on 16.6.42,430km/h boost 790mmHg, worst test flown max speed at FTH was 403 km/h, the size of the airscrew and how well pitch was correct. Speed at sealevel usually ca. 380km/h with 890 mmHg. Only observations on weights is the general observation that empty weight 1920kg, max 2350 kg. 

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (May 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> yes, FAF didn't have Cyclone engined Hawk75As after late 1941, all were re-engined by then.
> 
> FAF, the best G.50 speed recorded was flown by FA-15 on 16.6.42,430km/h boost 790mmHg, worst test flown max speed at FTH was 403 km/h, the size of the airscrew and how well pitch was correct. Speed at sealevel usually ca. 380km/h with 890 mmHg. Only observations on weights is the general observation that empty weight 1920kg, max 2350 kg.
> ...



thanks for the data on FAF's G.50

for the first question you don't understand my question, or best you don't understand my badest english, the A-4 airframes (with the P&W) were used in '42? (i know with the P&W they are same of older variant my i'm curious)

p.s. data on rpm of fiat engine?


----------



## Juha (May 12, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
yes, A-4 airframes with P&W engines were in use in 42.
On Fiat, Max rpm 2520rpm


----------



## Elvis (May 12, 2009)

Hey Henning,

Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you.
I recently moved and only have 1 hour a day for "computer time".
Thanks for clarifying the differences in the turn rates.
IIRC, the figure I quoted was for a certain altitude and a certain speed (1000M @200kts., I think), so I guess what my figure is showing is just how_tight_ of a turn that plane could make.
Yours, if I understand correctly, seems to be more of an "outright speed" figure. I.e., the tightest turn the plane could make, at the highest possible speed, given a certain altitude.

Elvis

P.S. Nice new look. I don't recognize the old place! 




HoHun said:


> Hi Elvis,
> 
> >In post #73, Ju Ha wrote the following as part of that post...
> 
> ...


----------



## Gatt (May 12, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> I saw the different power setting for C.200 e G.50 in the your posted manuals.
> 
> ho notato i giri differenti per il macchi e il fiat, sembrerebbe che il macchi era limitato a 2400 giri ma il fiat andava a 2520, forse c'erano problemi di robustezza dell'installazione o dell'aereo?
> 
> ...



Here are some pages from the english version of the Re.2000 flight and manteinance manual:


----------



## Elvis (May 12, 2009)

Nice docs, Gatt.
Thanks for posting those.

Someone recently asked about P&W Twin Wasp powerplant for FAF.
I think all of the Twin Wasps that were used by other nations was the "STWC3-CG" version (I think that's how it goes), which made approximately 1050 HP.
I believe it's American equivelent was the R-1830-90.
The American version made 1200HP and I believe the difference in power was due to the lower octane rating of the fuel used by other nations.
I just viewed a site on the Swedish J-22 and the author there believes that if the same high octane fuel was used for that engine, that the American's used, the powerplant would've made 1200HP.
He even has some graphs that depict the difference in performance that the higher octane fuel would make.



Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (May 14, 2009)

Two questions

for aerodyamical experts can the open canopy of finnish G.50 down the speed from 480 to 403/430 km/h?

for italian experts why in the G.50 was available 2520 rpm on flight (as FAF test and italian manual) and for C.200 not (was available only for takeoff)?

thanks


----------



## Vincenzo (May 14, 2009)

Two questions

for aerodyamical experts can the open canopy of finnish G.50 down the speed from 480 to 403/430 km/h?

for italian experts why in the G.50 was available 2520 rpm on flight (as FAF test and italian manual) and for C.200 not (was available only for takeoff)?

thanks


----------



## Gatt (May 14, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Two questions
> 
> for aerodyamical experts can the open canopy of finnish G.50 down the speed from 480 to 403/430 km/h?
> 
> ...



Vincenzo, the limitation of 2.520 and 890mm Hg was valid for the G.50 as well. Actually, for all the fighters with the A74. 
You could fly at 2.500rpm but not exceeding the 790mm Hg boost limit and for a limited time.
From the G.50 flight operating instructions:


----------



## Vincenzo (May 14, 2009)

I'm sorry for not use of official language. if somebody can transtlate i'm thank him.

allora il manuale del G.50 e i test finlandesi danno la velocità massima dello stesso a 2520/1', il manuale del C.200 e i test italiani a 2400/1'. Dato per scontato che le potenze massime, di emergenza, sono ottenibili per periodi limitati (1'/5' comunemente), dato poi che hai riferito che il manuale del C.200 specifica si usare i 2520/1' solo per ottenere decolli corti, a mio modesto parere, date le informazioni sopra riportate, c'è una diversità fra i due caccia, che fa si tra l'altro che le due velocità massime non sono direttamente confrontabili, in quanto il macchi può mantenere la sua per un periodo più lungo.


----------



## LWulf (May 14, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> I'm sorry for not use of official language. if somebody can transtlate i'm thank him.
> 
> allora il manuale del G.50 e i test finlandesi danno la velocità massima dello stesso a 2520/1', il manuale del C.200 e i test italiani a 2400/1'. Dato per scontato che le potenze massime, di emergenza, sono ottenibili per periodi limitati (1'/5' comunemente), dato poi che hai riferito che il manuale del C.200 specifica si usare i 2520/1' solo per ottenere decolli corti, a mio modesto parere, date le informazioni sopra riportate, c'è una diversità fra i due caccia, che fa si tra l'altro che le due velocità massime non sono direttamente confrontabili, in quanto il macchi può mantenere la sua per un periodo più lungo.



I've tried to translate the best I could with my rusty Italian and poor English. 

So, the manual of the G.50 and the Finnish test give a maximum speed with the 2520 rpm power setting. The manual of the MC.200 and the Italian tests show 2400 rpm. Of course the maximum power, for emergencies, is usable only for a limited time (1 to 5 minutes usually), as you've noted for the MC.200 manual where it says to use 2520 rpm power setting only for shorter take offs, which imho, given the informations I've already mentioned, there seems to be a difference between the Fiat and Macchi fighter. Given this the top speeds of these two fighters are not directly comparable, since the Macchi can hold its max speed for a longer period of time.


----------



## Gatt (May 14, 2009)

Well, my english must be rusty as well .... what I mean is that ALL the A74 engined fighters could get 2.520rpm. However boost pressure could not be pushed above 790mm Hg. This was valid for continuous climb and high speed level flight.

2520rpm at 890mm Hg of boost pressure (the so called "+100") were used only for short take offs, and probably only for short time in combat (IMO).


----------



## Vincenzo (May 14, 2009)

LWulf said:


> I've tried to translate the best I could with my rusty Italian and poor English.
> 
> So, the manual of the G.50 and the Finnish test give a maximum speed with the 2520 rpm for 1 minute power setting. The manual of the MC.200 and the Italian tests show 2400 rpm for 1 minute. Of course the maximum power, for emergencies, is usable only for a limited time (1 to 5 minutes usually), as you've noted for the MC.200 manual where it says to use 2520 rpm for 1 minute power setting only for shorter take offs, which imho, given the informations I've already mentioned, there seems to be a difference between the Fiat and Macchi fighter. Given this the top speeds of these two fighters are not directly comparable, since the Macchi can hold its max speed for a longer period of time.



beautiful translation only both "for 1 minute" aren't in my 2520/1' i just tell 2520 rpm


----------



## Elvis (May 14, 2009)

Vincenzo,

The speed could very well be slowed to that speed, if the canopy is left open.
Open canopy increases drag. Any vehicle (car, plane, boat, etc) is not as fast with open canopy as with closed canopy.

For language translation, try Google's Langauge Translator.
Click the link above, then cut and paste the text you want to translate and set the translation from that language to one you understand.

Works quite well!



Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (May 14, 2009)

oh sorry open canopy it's not the just words, best it's w/o canopy


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (May 15, 2009)

In terms of its dominance over opposing aircraft (in the first six months of 1942), the Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen (Zero). In terms of sheer performance specs (speed, climb, etc.), the Focke Wulf FW-190 or Vought F4U Corsair.


----------



## Elvis (May 15, 2009)

Vincenzo,

Did I interpret your question incorrectly?
Are you asking about the difference between a closed canopy and an _open cockpit_ ? ("open cockpit" = no canopy)


Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (May 15, 2009)

Vought Corsair don't meet the requiremnt: fightning in '42


----------



## Vincenzo (May 15, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Vincenzo,
> 
> Did I interpret your question incorrectly?
> Are you asking about the difference between a closed canopy and an _open cockpit_ ? ("open cockpit" = no canopy)
> ...



yes between closed canopy and open cockpit


----------



## Vincenzo (May 15, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Additionally, I have added a Fw 190A-5 speed graph from a Focke-Wulf chart. It's not calculated since I haven't got around to make a good Fw 190A analysis yet. (The Fw 190A-4 should be very close to the A-5's speed as the difference was just the elongated engine mount and re-positioned cockpit of the latter.)



i saw some graphs for 190A-4 the max speed it's 660/680 km/h


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
on FAF Fiats, some airscrews were smaller, and those planes were a bit slower. Also in some cases pitch control was temperamentical and pitch could be less optimal, so again slower max speed.

I have seen only one test report, that on a test flight after factory repairs, FA-1 on 3 June 1940, 2400 rpm, boost 75, 340km/h IAS, not TAS, at 3800m.

Juha


----------



## Elvis (May 15, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> yes between closed canopy and open cockpit



I thought so.
Thanks for clarifying your question.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised at that much difference in speed between the two configurations, again, for reasons of increased drag with the open cockpit (streamling can do a lot for performance!)
Also, an _enclosed cockpit_ (i.e., "closed canopy") can offer better PILOT performance, as the pilot is less fatigued by much less exposure to the elements.


Elvis


----------



## Airbone Bunny (May 15, 2009)

I prefer the FW 190 any day. My impression is that in a "what if?" scenario, had Germany and Japan fought each other, the Zero would have been in disadvantage against the FW 190. 

I know this is an hypothetical issue, but I can't help myself but thinking that the Zero is "overrated".

Nope, I am not saying that the Zero was a bad o regular plane. I agree that the Zero was a great plane. What I am saying is that I feel that the Zero is kinda overrated against other great planes like the FW 190.

Sure the zero had incredible maneuverability, decent firepower and long range. But the plane was very lacking in protection. I understand that the Zero design was in line with Japan's military doctrine putting agility and speed over all... but, no pilot armor? no engine armor? no self-sealing tanks? no fire suppressing system? 

Too vulnerable for my likes to consider the Zero as the best. Sure a great plane, but not the best.


----------



## Elvis (May 16, 2009)

Airborne Bunny,

First off, welcome to the forum.

I agree with you, on most points. 
The Zero is an older design and suffers from the same differences that would exist between other "match-ups".
The Zero was designed in a time when "fighter performance" was based on info gained during the first world war.
However, the 190 was a child of the conflict for which it was used, thus it was a more "timely" design.
That being said, the Zero could probably dispatch a 190, if the Zero pilot could coerce the 190 pilot into dogfighting.
However, the 190 could always firewall the throttle and simply walk away from the Zero.
Oddly enough, both planes, from that time, have similar climb rates (around 4K + ft./mi.), so "zoom-n-boom" tactics would still prove the Zero to not be quite as easy-to-dispatch foe as might be initially believed.
Still, as the designer of the 190 once said, "..._the 190 is a FIGHTING aircraft_...", and a _smart_ 190 pilot could easily dictate the fight by flying to his plane's strengths.


Elvis


----------



## ssnider (May 16, 2009)

I think the Zero first flight was in March 1939 while the FW-190 first flew in June 1939


----------



## Elvis (May 17, 2009)

Yes, it appears you are correct.
My apologies. I was thinking it was developed in the mid - late 1930's (probably confusing it with the 109).
Still, the fact remains that the Zero seems to be more suited to WWI dogfighting tactics, while the 190 appears to be a more "advanced" design.
Regardless of time period, it seems thinking was a bit different between Japanese and German designers, thus the way those planes turned out (or course, those respective governments also asked for a _machine_ with certain performance specs, and that would influence design as well).


Elvis


----------



## Gatt (May 18, 2009)

Dont forget the roll rate at high speeds. Togehter with higher speed, these allow the 190A to dictate the dogfight.

No decent 190A pilot would engage a Zeke co-E and co-alt. He would probably B&Z the japanese fighter from a higher state of E or attract him in a high speed shallow dive, then roll fast, zoom and regain an advantage on him.


----------



## renrich (May 18, 2009)

Those tactics described for the FW are the same used by IJN pilots in A6Ms in the Pacific.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i saw some graphs for 190A-4 the max speed it's 660/680 km/h



unlucky i don't remember where i saw it but here there are that for A-3 and A-5
A Complete Waste of Space


----------



## Airbone Bunny (May 19, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Airborne Bunny,
> 
> First off, welcome to the forum.
> 
> Elvis



Thanks for the greetings 

In any case, what I understand is that the Zero was great at the beginning of the war. But from 43 on, its vulnerability to enemy fire was evident. Later versions of the Zero tried to address those deficiencies incorporating armour, self sealed tanks, etc.


----------



## HoHun (May 20, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>unlucky i don't remember where i saw it but here there are that for A-3 and A-5
A Complete Waste of Space

Thanks - this shows that I accidentally mislabeled my Fw 190A-5 speed graph as it's for 1.32 ata/2400 rpm only: Steig- und Kampfleistung or 30 min power, not war emergency power.

This explains the low Fw 190A-5 speed you noticed ... though it's still the fastest of all the fighters included in the comparison.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2009)

Airbunny,

Although the Zero's vulnerability to enemy fire was too high this wasn't what made it obsolete, the Zero was simply too slow. Maneuverability at low medium speeds was excellent, but at high speeds the controls locked up. The climb rate was also good, but top speed was low, and the maximum allowed dive speed was a great deal slower than that of US fighters.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Airbunny,
> 
> Although the Zero's vulnerability to enemy fire was too high this wasn't what made it obsolete, the Zero was simply too slow. Maneuverability at low medium speeds was excellent, but at high speeds the controls locked up. The climb rate was also good, but top speed was low, and the maximum allowed dive speed was a great deal slower than that of US fighters.



The type 0 was not too slow, saw their enemies in '41/42.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> The type 0 was not too slow, saw their enemies in '41/42.



What do you mean ? We're talking about 1943. By that time the Zero was too slow, and the low maximum dive speed and terrible roll rate at high speed really hampered it against the US fighters.

The fastest Zero was the A6M5 A6M5a with a top speed of 560+ km/h, and this type entered service in very late 1942. By comparison the F6F Hellcat had a top speed of 610 km/h, and was only inferior in agility and very slightly in climb rate. And the F4U Corsair was both much faster and climbed faster.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> What do you mean ? We're talking about 1943. By that time the Zero was too slow, and the low maximum dive speed and terrible roll rate at high speed really hampered it against the US fighters.
> 
> The fastest Zero was the A6M5 A6M5a with a top speed of 560+ km/h, and this type entered service in very late 1942. By comparison the F6F Hellcat had a top speed of 610 km/h, and was only inferior in agility and very slightly in climb rate. And the F4U Corsair was both much faster and climbed faster.



first where's write you talking of '43? 
as easy see here also the A6M3 run at ~575 km/h (max emergengy) i don't think that M5 was slower. but surely the new, '43, US navy fighters take advantage on Type 0.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2009)

Vincenzo,

I was referring to Airbunny's post where he was talking about the Zero's competitiveness in 1943.

The Zero was the best fighter in the Pacific up until 1943 where the Hellcat made its' presence felt.


----------



## Elvis (May 20, 2009)

Airbone Bunny said:


> Thanks for the greetings
> 
> In any case, what I understand is that the Zero was great at the beginning of the war. But from 43 on, its vulnerability to enemy fire was evident. Later versions of the Zero tried to address those deficiencies incorporating armour, self sealed tanks, etc.


You 're welcome.

...and yes, just as with our own Brewster Buffalo, addressing those "deficiencies" was pretty much the downfall of that airplane.
The increased weight slowed it down and made it less manuverable and it was the Zero's manuverability and high (for the time) climb rate that were two of its greatest assets.


Elvis


----------



## renrich (May 22, 2009)

The A6M may have been the best fighter in the Pacific until February 1943 when the F4U appeared before the Hellcat got into action. I believe the Hellcat first saw action on August 28, 1943. The Corsair on February 14, 1943.


----------



## Elvis (May 22, 2009)

Yes, I believe you're correct. 
The Corsair did enter service before the Hellcat.

...but an '09 Wright Flyer could run rings around that Zero!...as long as the speed was held to about 40 mph.  (just kidding)

So I guess the consensus is that in the Eastern Theatre, the best radial fighter of '42 was the FW190 and in the Pacific Theatre, it was the Zero.

Right?




Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (May 22, 2009)

i'm agree. is beautiful if the great hohun can put on graphs data on speed, climb, turn of 190.

a question why not rolls rate on graphs?

thanks


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>i'm agree. is beautiful if the great hohun can put on graphs data on speed, climb, turn of 190.

Hmmm ... here are some graphs, but though there is much data on the Fw 190, this doesn't mean that it's easy to make sense of it. I used the compressiblity-corrected Fw 190A-5 chart with the engine data from the Fw 190 Geschwindigkeitssteigerung chart, coarsely reverse-engineering a 2400 rpm power chart to match the Fw 190A-5 data, then plugging in the slightly different parameters for the Fw 190A-3. This is probably inaccurate, so don't say I didn't warn you!

>a question why not rolls rate on graphs?

Not much data, and it can't be easily calculated as it involves specific aerodynamics and structural considerations.

Regards,


Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (May 23, 2009)

thanks, this is at combat and climb power setting?


----------



## Vincenzo (May 23, 2009)

is some people has data on 190 can give it?


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>thanks, this is at combat and climb power setting?

Yes. It appears that early in the history of the Fw 190A-3, full power was restricted for a while, so I chose this setting for the comparison.

Climb Combat is 1.32 ata/2400 rpm while Emergency Power is 1.42 ata/2700 rpm, so the performance increase from the higher setting would be quite significant.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2009)

Would love to see a graph showing the difference though


----------



## Vincenzo (May 23, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> >thanks, this is at combat and climb power setting?
> 
> Yes. It appears that early in the history of the Fw 190A-3, full power was restricted for a while, so I chose this setting for the comparison.



No this trouble on A-4? if not saw the A-4 is on challenge we can put take off power setting for idea of A-4 performance


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>No this trouble on A-4? if not saw the A-4 is on challenge we can put take off power setting for idea of A-4 performance

Hm, is the Fw 190A-4 a 1942 type?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (May 23, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> >No this trouble on A-4? if not saw the A-4 is on challenge we can put take off power setting for idea of A-4 performance
> 
> ...



Obv. yes, or i not put it in this challenge
..looking data, take a raondom unit, I/26, they lost, enemy related, the firsts A-4 in september '42


----------



## renrich (May 23, 2009)

I agree that the FW in the ETO and the A6M in the PTO in 42 were the best with the F4F3 being a very close second in PTO only nosed out by A6M because of range. Pitting the FW versus the A6M would depend on mission. If 300 or more miles from base, A6M is much better. Close to base, FW probably slightly better. Did FW serve in North Africa in 1942?


----------



## Vincenzo (May 23, 2009)

renrich said:


> I agree that the FW in the ETO and the A6M in the PTO in 42 were the best with the F4F3 being a very close second in PTO only nosed out by A6M because of range. Pitting the FW versus the A6M would depend on mission. If 300 or more miles from base, A6M is much better. Close to base, FW probably slightly better. Did FW serve in North Africa in 1942?



I've some doubt as Wildcat as 2nd in the asian threater.
I don't think there were 190 fighter in Africa but i don't checked it


CORRECTION II/2 came in Africa in november '42 and fightning same month


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>Obv. yes, or i not put it in this challenge

OK, so here they are. Still a "rough" analysis, but a bit refined already.

For example, I have reduced power levels above full throttle height as it appears that my simplificated engine graphs based on power dropping proportionally with intake air pressure has reached the limit of its usefullness with the BMW 801D. (Note that the original engine graphs are also based on this or a very similar assumption.)

I have also re-calculated climb rates because I noticed that the Fw 190A-3 data I provided above had the aircraft climb at a speed well below the stall. Oops 

Turn rate still looks a bit funny, dropping much less than that of competing aircraft at high altitude, but I think this is realistic. The Fw 190A-4 is comparatively fast and has its best rate of turn at very high speeds - almost twice that of the Me 109F, for example! (Maybe the use of flaps would help the Fw 190A-4, but my calculations don't take this into account.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi again,

>Turn rate still looks a bit funny

OK, this one left me unhappy, and I re-checked everything to find that I had switched the figures for wing area (symbol S) and wing span (symbol s).

This had a lot of funny side effects, such as having the aircraft climb at its maximum lift coefficient and the extremely high speed for best turn rate. After pointing it out in the above post, it finally dawned on me that it couldn't be correct 

Here are the graphs with the fixed Fw 190A-4 performance.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## claidemore (May 24, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> I've some doubt as Wildcat as 2nd in the asian threater.
> I don't think there were 190 fighter in Africa but i don't checked it
> 
> 
> CORRECTION II/2 came in Africa in november '42 and fightning same month


Hi Vincenzo:

The FW190 did indeed serve in North Africa from November 1942. 
II/JG2 for example flew 190A4s there. 

a good link. 

The Focke-Wulf FW 190 in Afrika


----------



## Vincenzo (May 24, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Hi Vincenzo:
> 
> The FW190 did indeed serve in North Africa from November 1942.
> II/JG2 for example flew 190A4s there.
> ...



have you trouble with visualization of topic?

if not you can noted my CORRECTION also in your quote, sure it's a good link same page i used for the correction.


----------



## renrich (May 25, 2009)

Just ran across an interesting table in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" that I had not digested before since I have only owned the book about ten years. LOL For those not familiar, the book is about the approx. 100000 fighters the US built during WW2 and is voluminous. The part of the table I will tack on here rather than start a new thread shows the date a contract was awarded for that particular fighter and the date of first combat. Here it is:
F4F/FM, July 28, 1936, December, 1940.
F2A, June 22, 1936, April, 1940
P40, July 30, 1937, May, 1941.
P38, June 23, 1937, August, 1942
P39, October 7, 1937, April, 1942
F4U/FG, June 11, 1938, February, 1943
P51, May, 1940, July, 1942
P47, September 6, 1940, , April, 1943
P61, January 30, 1941, June 1944
F6F, June 30, 1941, August, 1943
P63, June 27, 1941, 
The interesting point to me is that every fighter was in development before the war began for the US. Apparently the P63 never saw combat.


----------



## renrich (May 25, 2009)

Vincenzo, as to your doubt about F4F3 being second, the F4F3 and F4F4(not as good a performer as the 3) held their own against the IJN A6Ms in 1942 in the PTO. The only reason I would pick the A6M over the F4F was it's great range. Interesting about the FWs in North Africa. Wonder if there was as much resistance among the LW pilots converting from the ME109 to FW190 as there was among the US pilots converting from Spitfires to P47s?


----------



## claidemore (May 26, 2009)

renrich:
JG2 ,who flew the 'fighter' FW190s in North Africa, was originally a Channel gruppen, and one of the first to use the 190. I haven't ready of any negative opinions regarding the switch from Messerschmitts to 190s, though I'm no expert on JG2. I believe they were quite pleased with the new planes, which definately outperformed the E4's and F2/F4s they had been using and were a quantum leap ahead of the Spitfire MkVs they were fighting at that time. 
I've read that some of II/JG2 (the North Africa unit), switched to 109G6's after they got back to the continent, and then back to FW190D's later on. Lots of switching for some.


----------



## Elvis (May 26, 2009)

renrich said:


> Just ran across an interesting table in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" that I had not digested before since I have only owned the book about ten years. LOL For those not familiar, the book is about the approx. 100000 fighters the US built during WW2 and is voluminous. The part of the table I will tack on here rather than start a new thread shows the date a contract was awarded for that particular fighter and the date of first combat. Here it is:
> F4F/FM, July 28, 1936, December, 1940.
> F2A, June 22, 1936, April, 1940
> P40, July 30, 1937, May, 1941.
> ...



Either that book was written during the war, or you've discovered a typo.

The P-39 was the "Airacobra". It's successor was the P-63 "King Cobra"

Warbird Alley: Bell P-63 Kingcobra


Elvis


----------



## renrich (May 26, 2009)

Elvis, the book is fairly recent and very authoritative. Why are you saying there is a typo? OK, I understand now, I went back and reviewed the text and Dean says that about two thirds of the P63s went to Russia. Apparently he had no date when they first saw combat. An interesting point is that the Russians claimed the P63 had a weak aft fuselage and they had to be strengthened.


----------



## Juha (May 27, 2009)

IIC P-63s which went to Soviet Union were first given to PVO, for air defence for Moscow etc and didn't see combat against Germany. IIRC some saw action against Japanese in 1945, but that was very limited because of very few Japanese a/c around and the short period of the operations. French P-63s saw action in French Indo-China but of course only against ground targets. 

And Dean's book is excellent even if one can find some small errors here and there. 

Juha


----------



## renrich (May 27, 2009)

Juha, interesting about the P63 in Russia. I agree about Dean's book. It is a monumental effort and probably should be in the library of everyone interested in WW2 AC. I would be surprised if any book that voluminous had no mistakes.


----------



## Njaco (May 27, 2009)

SKG 10 also operated the Fw 190 in NA and the Med on jabo operations.

Schnellkampfgeschwader 10


----------



## JoeB (May 27, 2009)

According to "Red Stars vol 4" by Guest and Petrov the 67th Guards Fighter Regiment used a small number of P-63's in the Battle of Berlin, no exact date given nor any examples given of air combat. Several PVO regiments around Moscow were indeed the main early users. Then at least 6 regiments were equipped with P-63's during the 'August Storm' operation against Japan in August 1945. But as mentioned there was very little air combat in that campaign. The only known P-63 aerial claim was by the 17 Fighter Regiment, a Moscow district PVO unit sent east to participate in that campaign. Their Jr. Lt. Miroshnichenko claimed a Type 97 or Type 1 fighter among those attacking A-20’s, and damaging one A-20, near Wangyemiao, Manchuria 15 August 1945. The Japanese claimed at least several Soviet a/c that day, the only day with any known aerial claims by either side in Manchuria proper (Soviet Fleet Air Arm Yak-9's also made some claims over northern Korea). The JAAF sortied 12 Type 4's, 9 Type 2 two seat fighters and 18 Type 1's that day; but their air combat losses aren't mentioned in known references. The JAAF reported a total of around 10 a/c lost to all combat causes in the 1945 Manchurian campaign; they made extensive claims against Soviet material in strafing attacks so ground fire probably accounted for most of those losses. The Manchukuo AF still operated Type 97's in August '45 but their operations aren't known. 

Also, a USAAF P-63 claimed a Japanese balloon bomb over Washington state in March 1945, if that counts as 'combat'.

Joe


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> Elvis, the book is fairly recent and very authoritative. Why are you saying there is a typo? OK, I understand now, I went back and reviewed the text and Dean says that about two thirds of the P63s went to Russia. *Apparently he had no date when they first saw combat.* An interesting point is that the Russians claimed the P63 had a weak aft fuselage and they had to be strengthened.


Maybe Dean should get with the guys over at "Warbird Alley".
Here's a quote from their section on the P-63, which I included in my last post...



Warbird Alley said:


> Production of the P-63 Kingcobra for the USAAC began in October of 1943, and nearly 3,300 aircraft were produced before the end of the war. Under lend-lease, the Russians bought 2,400 Kingcobras, and a further 300 were flown by the Free French. The rest were restricted to training squadrons in the United States by the USAAF.
> About 300 P-63s were turned into RP-63 flying targets for dogfight practice with frangible bullets. All armor and armament were removed from these planes, and a skin of duralumin protected the wings, fuselage and tail. Bulletproof glass was installed, steel grilles were put over the air intake, and a steel sleeve protected the exhaust stacks. A propeller with thick, hollow blades was also installed. When a hit was scored, a red light came on in the cockpit to indicate where the P-63 had been shot.
> Production of the P-63 ended on VJ-Day. Only a half-dozen P-63s remain flying today.





Elvis


----------



## JoeB (May 27, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Maybe Dean should get with the guys over at "Warbird Alley".
> Here's a quote from their section on the P-63, which I included in my last post...


Umm, where does that say when P-63's first saw combat? But I tried to answer that in my post above. In general if you're implying you can save your money on books like Dean's (or Petrov and Guest or the Japanese documents I used in the post above) and get the same quality info on generic websites...I don't agree.

Joe


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2009)

Sorry Joe. I interpreted "first saw combat" and "production began" as meaning the same thing.
Otherwise, I wasn't implying anything other than what I stated.


Elvis


----------



## renrich (May 27, 2009)

Elvis, if you have a chance to see Dean's book, with your interests. I know you would enjoy it. I bought mine about 10 years ago and am constantly finding new info I had not noticed plus there are many photos of AC going back to the 1920s. Dean is an aero engineer who worked for several aircraft companies. JoeB, as usual most interesting and informative posts.


----------



## Elvis (May 28, 2009)

I'm sure I would, Renirich!

Ill keep an eye out for it.
Thanks for the heads up.



Elvis


----------



## Cromwell (May 28, 2009)

Has anyone considered the Henschel HS123 ? 


Seemed to do a great job as a ground-attack fighter-bomber even up to '44


----------



## Elvis (May 29, 2009)

Good call, Cromwell.
I've often wondered about that one, myself.
Always seemed a bit odd to me, the _innovative_ Germans utilizing a bi-plane for so long.


Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2009)

Great aircraft when it first was designed but by 1942 it was rather outclassed. There were certainly better Radials in service by that time.


----------



## diddyriddick (May 29, 2009)

Gonna have to go with FW-190 here.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

You could also say the same about the Stringbag - and in fact you would be right there too

So ... why did these planes stay on the front line for so long (or at sea) ? 


Also the CR42, which would have probably performed even better with a decent radio (or one at all?) 


Comando Supremo: FIAT CR.42 Falco 


... and then the Skyraider in Korea Nam - leading the A10 I believe


A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Great aircraft when it first was designed but by 1942 it was rather outclassed. There were certainly better Radials in service by that time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> there too
> 
> So ... why did these planes stay on the front line for so long (or at sea) ?



The aircraft that I was talking about was not in font line service in 1942, so...

Just another offtopic not as well:

Cromwell please do me a favor and use the standard format for posting with quotes. Please write your post under the quote and not above it. Thanks


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The aircraft that I was talking about was not in font line service in 1942, so...
> 
> Just another offtopic not as well:
> 
> Cromwell please do me a favor and use the standard format for posting with quotes. Please write your post under the quote and not above it. Thanks



Terribly sorry Old Boy

Will do my best to comply with your orders 'orders which must be obeyed without question'


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Terribly sorry Old Boy
> 
> Will do my best to comply with your orders 'orders which must be obeyed without question'



Don't be smart about it. I am not an *******, I was asking you politely.


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Don't be smart about it. I am not an *******, I was asking you politely.



Please allow me to seek your benevolent forgiveness 

I assure you that I will make every conceivable effort never to be smart again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2009)

Is there some kind of problem? If there is, let it out of the bag now...


----------



## Elvis (May 31, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> YSo ... why did these planes stay on the front line for so long (or at sea) ?
> A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...the Skyraider in Korea Nam - leading the A10 I believe


I've heard, with the A-1 at least, that it had the ability to "loiter" over an area for a long time and we found that very useful during the Vietnam conflict.
Also, in the role of "Sandy", it could transport injured personnel faster than a Huey and work out of an "_obscure_" area, almost as easily.


Elvis


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Is there some kind of problem? If there is, let it out of the bag now...




No problem at all. I only joke like this when I think I am amongst friends.

Do not take it personally - I mean really, it is not personal.

Note. If I had a real problem I would be Very Polite and cold as ice !


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I've heard, with the A-1 at least, that it had the ability to "loiter" over an area for a long time and we found that very useful during the Vietnam conflict.
> Also, in the role of "Sandy", it could transport injured personnel faster than a Huey and work out of an "_obscure_" area, almost as easily.
> 
> 
> Elvis



What a Plane ! - I often wonder why they did not make a working Turbo update of the thing (I know they built a prototype but it was back in the day and was not a success).

I looked inside an ex Royal Navy example at Duxford and that fat old fuselage can take quite a few 'customers' - I think up to 4 or 5 stretchers or seated !


----------



## Elvis (May 31, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> What a Plane ! - I often wonder why they did not make a working Turbo update of the thing


I think we decided to further develop rotary wing aircraft, instead.


Elvis


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I think we decided to further develop rotary wing aircraft, instead.
> 
> 
> Elvis



Yes - although where would you go next ?

This site seems to be quite a good map of where we have been so far...

Rotary Wing History


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I think we decided to further develop rotary wing aircraft, instead.
> 
> 
> Elvis



This is also good - in fact very good

http://vtol.org/pdf/summer06robb.pdf


----------



## Elvis (May 31, 2009)

Where else - Bigger, stronger, faster.


Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 14, 2010)

Some know why the pics posted from Gatt are vanished?


----------



## Duke Soddy (Jan 16, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> What's the best radial (with a radial engine) fighter of '42 and why?
> Best in fighter vs fighter mission, only fighter actually fightning in '42.
> 
> for memory a list of radial fighters on '42, maybe incomplete. i exclude biplane.
> ...



At low altitude in fighter vs. fighter I will take the La-5, at medium altitude I will take the Fw-190 . The Tojo is a great climber but about 40 knots slower. Speed always trumps angles.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 1, 2010)

please some can explain me why the pics posted from Gatt aren't more in him reply?


----------

