Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We know which side won, but I think the Bf 109 shot down WAY many more airplanes.
Wait, wasn't there the P-3....Because the Bf 109 had way more opportunity than any western fighter.
Propably nothing. While fuel and raw materials were great problems, decision making was the main problem.I wonder how the air war would have gone if the Germans had 100-octane from the start?
Wait, wasn't there the P-3....
Oh no.
Nope. Not going to say it.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Keep scrolling.
Sorry. I should have said 150 octane fuels. In any event, the German fuels were inferior to those of the allies. I have a document somewhere that discusses this. For now, this website seems to have some authority on the subject.Propably nothing. While fuel and raw materials were great problems, decision making was the main problem.
Even with the historically available engines they could have much better performing fighters. Fw190c(v13), instead of d series, fiat g56 instead of me 410, Fw187c instead of bf110g and me 410, and of course an aerodynamic bf 109( not even the k4 did not have all the possible improvement s)
I think it is amusing that everyone notices an extra inserted letter, but no one seems to care about the constant and repeated use of "it's" for "its." Possessive pronouns don't use apostrophes; only nouns do. "It's" is a contraction meaning "it is." So all of you who misuse it have just been cited by the grammar police.What's an enigine?
Hey VA5124, it's OK to misspell. We do it in here all the time. Just kicking a little bit, as gets done to me and a lot of others. No insult intended.
My vote for radial would be the Pratt & Whitney R-2800.
My vote for an inline would be a tie between the DB 600 series and the Merlin series.
I think these 3 engine series did more for the WWII war effort than any others, but you could make a case for the R-1830.
The gooney bird (C-47) used the R1830, not the 1820.First some order:
R2600 didn't power any fighters only bombers - such as TBM, B-25 (prototype F6F an exception)
My best engines:
American:
R1820 - long list of applications from the F2A and F4F fighters to to B-17 bombers and C-47 transports throughout the war, and then the H-34 helicopters and T-28s afterwards.
R2800 - best radial engine of WW2
British:
RR Merlin - no need to explain: fighters, transports, bombers
German:
DB601 - great engine that suffered a lot of issues during the later part of the war through no fault of its own
Japanese:
Hakajima Sakae
Jake
Are you certain its a R1830??The gooney bird (C-47) used the R1830, not the 1820.
Where is the museum you took the pic please?AM-38 for me:
A lot of power for a early war engine, reliable*, able to be made in poor conditions in gigantic numbers.
*Probably?, i doubt a single unit survived more than it's plane to demand a overhaul.View attachment 644279
We know which side won, but I think the Bf 109 shot down WAY many more airplanes.
Where is the museum you took the pic please?
Thank you.Yup, even back in the Battle of Britain, the Bf 109 shot down more Spitfires and Hurricanes than Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down Bf 109s, achieving a kill ratio of 1.2 to 1 in favour of the Bf 109s, but Fighter Command compared to the Luftwaffe had a greater kill ratio of just about 2 to 1, which is significant because the Brits were primarily after the bombers at any rate.
It's worth noting that Theo Osterkamp determined that to achieve victory over Fighter Command, a kill ratio of 5 to 1 was required - the Jagdgeschwader never got remotely close to that ratio.
Looks to me like the MLP in Cracow.
Muzeum Lotnictwa Polskiego w Krakowie
Oficjalna strona Muzeum Lotnictwa Polskiego w Krakowiemuzeumlotnictwa.pl
From wikipedia, seems like a Czech one from the text.Where is the museum you took the pic please?
From wikipedia, seems like a Czech one from the text.
Thank you.