Best radial fighter of '42
- Thread starter Vincenzo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
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.
- Thread starter
- #23
The mission requirement is a big issue indeed. Wonder how the 190 would perform as a carrier bird...
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.
- Thread starter
- #28
you need to read the thread title and/or the first topic
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
In my opinion the best would have to be Fw 190A.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Well, I didnt realize the difference was that great. So the La-5 listed is essentially an infant La-5?
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
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
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?
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)
>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)
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)
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)
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)
>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)
- Thread starter
- #38
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
