1943, sea level to 15000 ft: the best fighter?

[CORSNING]

How you doing Shortround,
Kick in P-40E vs. P-40N on your computer and you''ll find:
"From a maintenance standpoint, the P-40E was a much better built A/C; the P-40N appeared to be a lightweight, very cheap copy with pretty poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances an tolerances. The N required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the components of the E. We had to replace the main oil line and build up the wheel spindles. After these problems were corrected, the Ns were fairly easy to maintain".

The N would outperform the E in many respects, rate of climb and turning. It could outturn a Ki.61. The N was a little bit faster.

"The N would have had to rely on mutual support and TURNING TACTICS against the Frank and George. Wow, using it for turning tactics against the Ki.84 and N1K2-J...? It must have been a real turner.

 

[tomo pauk]

Expecting from the P-40, pilots using the boom'n'zoom tactics', to beat the late war Japanese fighters is of no good, since those were no Zeros or Oscars. Simply put, Frank George were far better performers.

 

[VBF-13]

Uh, OK, which one of you guys mentioned the A6M5 when I wasn't looking?

I don't know about you but when I see "sea to 15000 ft." I'm seeing a dogfight. And there's no question the Zeroes were the queen of the Pacific in a dogfight. The Navy could only deal with them when it was equipped to attack from outside that range in the Corsairs and the Hellcats. When the Navy wasn't so equipped the Wildcats only got their share because of our crack pilots. I don't care what the numbers say, look at the combat history, then put the Zeroes down. You cant. And they were that good "ground to 15000 ft.," too.

 

[CORSNING]

Zero queen of Pacific dogfighters? Only as long as the Ki.27 and Ki.43 kept inland. Both could outturn any A6M and the Ki.43 could outroll it.

Hi there VBF-13. Man, you are going to enjoy this sight. These Guys are the best.

 

[Shortround6]

"From a maintenance standpoint, the P-40E was a much better built A/C; the P-40N appeared to be a lightweight, very cheap copy with pretty poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances an tolerances. The N required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the components of the E. We had to replace the main oil line and build up the wheel spindles. After these problems were corrected, the Ns were fairly easy to maintain".

I can understand the workmanship and quality control issues. I am having a harder time with the lightweight=lighter construction. From the weight tables in "AHT" the wings, fuselage, tail and so on for a P-40N-35 are right in line with with the E,F,K,L and M . at least within the normal tolerance from plane to plane. The new radiators may have saved 70lbs, the new oil cooler may have saved 24lbs, taking out the forward fuel tank may have saved 100lbs for the empty tank. 37lbs for the starter, 30lbs(?) for the battery, Landing gear was at least 60lbs lighter than many earlier models. I can see where the lightweight comes from and so far it is not in the construction.

The N would outperform the E in many respects, rate of climb and turning. It could outturn a Ki.61. The N was a little bit faster.

The N should outperform the E seeing as how it was lighter and used a slightly more powerful engine. The N-1 may have been faster than the Ki-61 but the N-1 was not the majority of the Ns produced.

"The N would have had to rely on mutual support and TURNING TACTICS against the Frank and George. Wow, using it for turning tactics against the Ki.84 and N1K2-J...? It must have been a real turner.

I would not try to read too much into that, another interpretation could be, you can't out run the Ki.84 and N1K2-J, you can't out climb them, your ability to out dive them is no longer as clear cut as against early Japanese fighters. That rather leaves the "mutual support and TURNING TACTICS" as the only hope.

I don't know which interpretation is right but but without actual numbers one sentence isn't really much to go on. Ki 84 was lighter than the P-40 with nearly the same sized wing and had more power. Getting into a turning "dual" was probably not a good idea.

 

[CORSNING]

I agree with you 100% Shortround. That is why the P-51s and P-38s were put at the front of the line. Curtiss just waited too long to improve the P-40. If the Q model or something close had showed up a year earlier, they would have still been in the main game.

 

[CORSNING]

Mike, you are absolutely right about the P-39N. It was a true contender at low levels in 1943, just ask the Russian pilots who loved it. Now if we start talking 1944 and start throwing in all the big dogs, the P-63 will come up and put a few of them in there place.

It's really good to hear from you Mike, tomo and Shortround again. Thanks for being there guys, Jeff.

 

[CobberKane]

Spit IV!!!? Here we go again. Uh, OK, which one of you guys mentioned the A6M5 when I wasn't looking? The P-38 was a much more difficult A/C to fly than most of the other "contenders". But it was (and always had been) a "genuine prospect". The H model had acceleration, speed, climb and concentration of fire power. No, it couldn't roll with the others (YET!), but it could be maneuvered in ways like no single engined fighter. It just took an experienced pilot to do it (that is not the fault of the A/C). It was only in the " middle of the pack somewhere" because of lack of time for its pilots to master it. Sorry guys, I just couldn't help myself. My wife tries to keep me on the straight and narrow, be she went out of town and left me home alone.

If the P38 was in the middle of the pack because it took a long time to master, surely that is a shortcomming of the aircraft, not the pilots. To be a 'genuine prospect' I would think an aircraft should be able to offer performance advantages accesible to the average pilot, not just aces. The LW apparently lost a lot of Bf 109s and pilots due to the aircrafts take-off and landing characteristics - should we discount this as a weakness because most of the pilots were inexperienced?

 

[MikeGazdik]

"IF" we were to build a a top five list from all that have been mentioned, I think it looks like we would all agree on a mark of the Spitfire, the Focke Wulf.........and then it gets hazy. I know I certainly think of those two aircraft as benchmarks. I also tend to look at this as early war aircraft, that have matured by 1943. Those that may get passed over by the later war aircraft that were several steps ahead in the design. The P-51 always is included in best ever type talks, and hate to always include the design but maybe the P-51A should be included. Because it was quickly tossed aside because of the great potential the then new Merlin Mustang promised, it doesn't have the "history" that some others possess. Though it was available then, I put the Corsair in the later war category because it matured into one of the best by war's end. I know embarrassingly little about the Japanese aircraft, but it sounds like the KI84 might belong on that "top 5".

Corsning, thanks for the calling out. Enjoy your posts as well. Its a Northwest Ohio thing. ( I am in Vermilion )

 

[CORSNING]

Hi Mike, you're just down the street and around the corner.
I live on rt.20 half way mark from Vermilion to Toledo.

The Ki.84 definitely belongs on a top five list somewhere but not on this thread. My top five (not in order) are : Spit L.F.Mk.IX, P-38H,
P-39N, La-5FN and Bf.109G-2. I don't have a graph for the 109G-2 but I believe it was slightly faster and climbed better than the G-1. It was a tough choice between the Ki.44, Fw-190 and Bf.109G-1 so I upped the scales on the 109 to make the choice easier. If anyone has a graph on the Bf.109G-2 through G-6 (other than the gunships), I would love to see them.

Thank, Jeff

 

[VBF-13]

Zero queen of Pacific dogfighters? Only as long as the Ki.27 and Ki.43 kept inland. Both could outturn any A6M and the Ki.43 could outroll it.

But they were on the same side so that doesn't count.

Hi there VBF-13. Man, you are going to enjoy this sight. These Guys are the best.

Hiya, Jeff. Man, you're right about that!

 

[tomo pauk]

Table is from Soviet tests of the 109G-2, engine running at Steig und kampfleistung (Climb and combat power); so at Notleistung (Emergency) it should be faster (up to 680 km/h?). The G-6 was slower, since the HMG bulges and fixed tail wheel messed the streamlining; chart from Kurfurst.

 

[CORSNING]

Thanks tomo. I also found a G-2 graph there, Jeff.

 

[Denniss]

The second speedcurve is something strange as it looks like a standard 2-speed supercharger like in Jumo 211 or BMW 801 but not the hydraulically coupled one used by DB engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

Agreed, Dennis, the lines *should* be in a linear fashion, from SL up to the max speed point. However, this chart also features 'stairs', I wonder why?

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1_messung601e605a/files/Blatt8.jpg

 

[Juha]

Hello Tomo
that graph looks OK, remember that 109G had variable speed supercharger.

Juha

 

[wuzak]

Hello Tomo
that graph looks OK, remember that 109G had variable speed supercharger.

Juha

Variable speed, so it shouldn't be stepped.

It should be a straight line (more or less) up to teh critical altitude, after which it falls away. That graph does that twice, which would suggest a two speed system.

 

[Vincenzo]

the graph is for a G-6 with a drop tank?

 

[Juha]

Variable speed, so it shouldn't be stepped.

It should be a straight line (more or less) up to teh critical altitude, after which it falls away. That graph does that twice, which would suggest a two speed system.

Because there tended to be a little internal friction in the hydraulic coupling of the supercharger the speed graph tended to be a little bulged as in the graph where Tomo gave the link. I agree with you that the graph in the Tomo's earlier message is a bit strange because its corners are so "sharp"

Juha