Recent content by snowmobileman

The 12.5" of strut travel on the F4F probably equates to much more wheel travel than the P-40 due to the design of the gear (the strut being mounted inboard on the drag link, rather than directly below the strut).

The B-26K was just optimized to meet the needs of the theater. It didn't have to be improved to be effective, but when improved, was able to carry 12,000 pounds of ordnance. That is 50% more than the Ju-388.

I just had a quick look at the posted link...some of that P-51H altitude performance looks a little suspicious to me! Really, almost 5000 fpm climb at 20K feet, with a 47,000' ceiling? This beats the XP-51G by a large margin!

I am guessing it was done to keep children from damaging the controls...I have used them for long-term storage in windy areas.

Regarding climb rates, I have only ever seen Ta-152H initial climb rates of 3445 feet per minute. If it is 3960, then it does match the P-47M.

If the Ta-152H was at low altitude, I suspect the P-47Ms could deal with them sufficiently. P-47Ms appear to be slightly faster, and had an advantage in climb rate as well. At least a 500fpm advantage at sea level, and probably more up to about 30,000'. Above that, I think the Ta-152 would have...

One question I have on dive limits regarding the mock combat between the Spitfire P-47: if the Spitfire has a much higher Mach limit and acceleration than the P-47, why is it that the P-47 could outdive it (and countless Bf-109s as well)? I understand that the P-47 was kind of mid-field in Mach...

I sense a few people mocking the P-47N... I think that the P-47 should not be discounted, as its speeds at all altitudes are at least on par with the Spitfire XIV, if not better (even at sea level, which is a traditional P-47 weak point). The only area that the Spitfire was faster was around...

I am having a hard time choosing! The P-47M, F4U-4N, F7F, or Tempest II are all good choices. The P-47N is good for VLR operations and carries a good load, but isn't the best overall. The P-51H had good performance, but from what I have read, had weak landing gear and high pressure tires, which...

I don't think these count as frustrated projects, since both made it into service in numbers; the P-47N even entered service in WW2.

I personally like the later versions of the P-61, after they did away with the 3rd crewmember. I think the XP-61E XP-61F were pretty interesting...and although they were changed from night fighter to escort roles, they probably could have installed smaller radar units at that point. Also, the...

Sorry, my mistake! Big difference...

Regarding P-47 water injection, Mike Williams' site lists consumption at 2.1 gallons/minute(See Water Injection on P-47D Airplanes).

I took a quick look at Neil Stirling's site. The Spitfire Mk.14 time of 15 minutes was for the prototype; I couldn't find anything to 40K for the production Mk.14 (not sure if there would be a difference). The Mk.21 was 17.45 minutes to 40k, however, and was slightly slower to 20k than the...

Interesting article! I know this is years old, but I noticed that the author listed the F6F-5 ceiling as 31,000', and that was a major performance detriment in his opinion. The numbers I have seen from WW2aircraftperformance list the ceiling at 38,000', give or take. That might even things out a...