Best radial fighter of '42

• Apr 4, 2009

• #21

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

28

Oct 15, 2006

...

 

Attachments

• Radials_1942_turn_comparison.png

  6.8 KB · Views: 92

• Apr 4, 2009

• #22

renrich

Chief Master Sergeant

3,882

66

Jan 19, 2007

Montrose, Colorado

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.

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• Thread starter
• #23

Vincenzo

Senior Master Sergeant

3,059

484

Dec 24, 2007

Ciociaria

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #24

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

14,507

4,757

Apr 3, 2008

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.

Click to expand...

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #25

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

14,507

4,757

Apr 3, 2008

Hi, Henning,

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #26

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

14,507

4,757

Apr 3, 2008

Clay_Allison said:

No love for the Lavochkin fighters at all?

Click to expand...

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.

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #27

T

Tempik

Airman

27

0

Nov 22, 2008

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

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• Thread starter
• #28

Vincenzo

Senior Master Sergeant

3,059

484

Dec 24, 2007

Ciociaria

Tempik said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #29

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,751

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

Tempik said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Best radial fighter of '42

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #30

imalko

Chief Master Sergeant

3,777

298

Mar 2, 2009

Vojvodina, Serbia

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #31

Juha

Senior Master Sergeant

3,725

104

Jan 8, 2007

Helsinki

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #32

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

1,154

7

Dec 24, 2008

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.

Click to expand...

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #33

Juha

Senior Master Sergeant

3,725

104

Jan 8, 2007

Helsinki

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

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #34

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,295

15,920

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

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?

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #35

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

28

Oct 15, 2006

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)

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #36

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

28

Oct 15, 2006

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)

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #37

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

28

Oct 15, 2006

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)

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• Thread starter
• #38

Vincenzo

Senior Master Sergeant

3,059

484

Dec 24, 2007

Ciociaria

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.

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #39

Amsel

Tech Sergeant

1,538

17

Jul 15, 2008

Texas

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.

 

• Apr 4, 2009

• #40

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

28

Oct 15, 2006

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)

 

Attachments

• Radials_1942_speed_comparison.png

  9.3 KB · Views: 81
• Radials_1942_climb_comparison.png

  8.4 KB · Views: 85