Best radial fighter of '42

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Juha,
I believe you are correct. I only mentioned it because I remembered a discussion somewhere that commented that the F4F-3 with the -76 engine had much more supercharging than it needed to be effective as a Pacific fighter.

- Ivan.

 

[Vincenzo]

relist (comment on graphs performances)
Transition design
D XXI (Finland) level speed very low, climb low, enough in low-middle altitude , turn good, comment on performance on original D XXI, that in use was bad) 4 .3 mg
P.24 (Romania) 2 .3 mg 2 20 guns
Army Type 97 Fighter (Japanese Army and Thailandia) 2 .3 mg
Navy Type 96 Fighter (Japanese Navy) 2 .3 mg
Hawk 75N (Thai) 1 .5 1 .3 mg + 4 .3 mg or 2 23 guns

Low grade
Buffalo (US Navy, NEI, Finland, RAF) 4 .5 mg
P-35A (USAAC) 2 .5 2 .3 mg
Mohawk (USAAC, RAF, Finland, NEI, RIAF) (speed very low, good low altitude, climb very low, good low altitude, turn good until middle altitude on very low) 4 or 6 .3 (CW and NEI) or 1 .5 1 .3 (US) 4 .3 1/2 .5 (Finland)
G. 50 (Italy, Finland) 2 .5 mg (speed very low, climb low, turn mediocre)
I-16 (Soviet Union) 4 .3 (attack version 2 .3 2 20 guns)
CW-21 (NEI) 2 .5 2 .3 mg (speed mediocre, climb mediocre, turn good)

Intermediate grade
Wildcat (USN, FAA) (level speed low, climb low, turn low) 4 or 6 .5 mg
Army Type 1 Fighter (Japanese Army) 2 .3 or 1 .5 1 .3 (low speed, good climb under 4 km after mediocre, good turn)
M.C. 200 (Italy) 2 .5 (opt + 2 .3) (speed low, climb low, turn mediocre)
Re 2000 (Italy, Hungary) 2 .5 (speed mediocre, climb mediocre, turn mediocre)
MB 152 (Romania) 2 .3 2 20 guns
Lancer (China) (level speed mediocre low altitude after good, very good high altitude, climb low, good high altitude, turn low good high altitude) 4 .5
Vanguard (China) 2 .5 4 .3

Top grade
Army Type 2 Fighter (Japanese Army) (level speed good, climb good, turn low) 2 .5 2 .3 mg
Navy Type 0 Fighter (Japanese Navy) (level speed good, climb best, turn best) 2 .3 mg 2 20 guns
La 5 (Soviet Union) (level speed good, climb good, turn low, good over 6000) 2 20 guns
Fw 190 (Germany) 4 20 guns 2 .3 mg

 

[MikeGazdik]

Whatever the merit of the other types in consideration, in my opinion, none of them even come close to the FW-190.

Like the Spitfire or Messerschmitt of the inline fighters, once the FW-190 was out, it was the measuring stick that all other fighters were compared.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Vincenzo,

>sure too late for G.I but for true there was a twin engine fighter with radial the Beaufighter but i think it's not a match also for the 2nd category

I have added a Beaufighter to the diagram. This is an old calculation that is not as accurate as the newer ones - for example, power drop above high gear full throttle height appears too hesitant.

Additionally, I have added a Fw 190A-5 speed graph from a Focke-Wulf chart. It's not calculated since I haven't got around to make a good Fw 190A analysis yet. (The Fw 190A-4 should be very close to the A-5's speed as the difference was just the elongated engine mount and re-positioned cockpit of the latter.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

...

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Vicenzo,

Do you take weapons security features into your ratings?

 

[Vincenzo]

surely

i add weapons in the list. for "defence" was more difficult work

 

[Glider]

I am slightly colour blind and I am finding it difficult to read some of the charts, but is the sustained turn rate chart trying to tell me that a Fokker G1 can turn at least as fast as a Zero. Or that a Beaufighter can turn with an F4F4 or a La-5?

 

[tomo pauk]

surely

i add weapons in the list for "defence" was more difficult work

The second part (form "i add") is difficult for me to understand; usage of capital letters and interpunction would help.

Anyway, the only 2x12,7mm armament of the Italian fighters from our thread is only good for "low grade" of your clasification, not for "intermidiate range". Eg. among P-36, I-16 etc. The Hayabusa (Army fighter Type 1) has the same problem; Zero at least had cannons.

Also, could you provide any info why only the ground attack variants of the I-16 would carry cannons?

Bufalo, at least the version Finns flew was comparale with Wildcat.

 

[Vincenzo]

The second part (form "i add") is difficult for me to understand; usage of capital letters and interpunction would help.

Anyway, the only 2x12,7mm armament of the Italian fighters from our thread is only good for "low grade" of your clasification, not for "intermidiate range". Eg. among P-36, I-16 etc. The Hayabusa (Army fighter Type 1) has the same problem; Zero at least had cannons.

Also, could you provide any info why only the ground attack variants of the I-16 would carry cannons?

Bufalo, at least the version Finns flew was comparale with Wildcat.

sorry but i don't understand

yes 2 .5 it's light for '42 standard but i think the strenghtness point of italian fighters are climb and manuvrability, waiting confirmation to HoHun calculation. P-36 and I-16 are in low not only for weaponry.

Commonly russian sources report the Types (17, 27) with cannons as ground attack fighters.I-16 Type 17 by N.N.Polikarpov

Finn Buffalo are F2A1 with R 1820, and AFAIK in altitude this it's badest of R-1830 of regular F2A1


p.s. Wildcat is in intermediary and not in low only for its strenght, armour, and weaponry, they performance are to low grade, obv if my assumptions on climb and manuvrability of italian fighters are wrong they go in low grade

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Technically, the A6M Zeros had cannons. For practical purposes, they didn't have enough of an ammunition load (just 60 rounds each) to be all that worthwhile. It is my opinion, but not a unique one.

- Ivan.

 

[Marcel]

I am slightly colour blind and I am finding it difficult to read some of the charts, but is the sustained turn rate chart trying to tell me that a Fokker G1 can turn at least as fast as a Zero. Or that a Beaufighter can turn with an F4F4 or a La-5?

Yup, the G.1 is even faster turning at about 4000. This fits well with the LVA comment that the G.1 could turn as good or better as the D.XXI

D XXI (Finland) level speed very low, climb low, turn good) 4 .3 mg

If you look at the graph, the D.XXI is somewhere in the middle at climbingspeed.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I was going to say the Swedish J22, first flew in '42. Managed to 575 Km/h with 1.065 engine and could hold its own against the P-51D's that we used in our airforce....

But then reason and common sense kicked in....and I'm not so sure!

I think that I'll have to go with the '190 here, just look what came out of it later, the Doras!

I wonder how much more impressive it would have been with contract built Jumo 213 engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the link, Vicenco

 

[Vincenzo]

If you look at the graph, the D.XXI is somewhere in the middle at climbingspeed.

My eyes aren't the best but, on 8 challengers (the G. I was not in operation in '42) the D. XXI is 6th at SL, it's 4th at 2 km, it's 3rd at 3,5 km, it's 4th a 4,5 km, 5th at 5 km, 6th a 6 km, 7th a 7,5 km
so it's not bad from 2 to 5 km, i put a note

 

[Vincenzo]

Looking info i found that the Fokker XXI in use as fighter in finland in '42 were engined with PW R-1535 with loss of performances, the finnish haven't Bristol engine to put in their production D XXI, the max speed down at 375 km/h at 2 km, the climb at 3 km came 5'27'' and at 5 km 10'12'' (~40% time more of original)

 

[Glider]

Yup, the G.1 is even faster turning at about 4000. This fits well with the LVA comment that the G.1 could turn as good or better as the D.XXI

I admit to being surprised about the G1, but that wouldn't be the first time. However, the concept of a Beaufighter being able to turn with any of the other aircraft on this chart must be a joke.

There are other anomalies which jump out at me. I have the Fokker D XXI, with a max speed of 460 km/h at 5,100m, not 410 km/h at approx 4,100m.

 

[Hollywood]

FW190A...... I really don't see anything close except maybe the A6M2 in air to air combat characteristics.
Except the determining factor is ALWAYS pilot quality..........

 

[HoHun]

Hi Ivan,

>Technically, the A6M Zeros had cannons. For practical purposes, they didn't have enough of an ammunition load (just 60 rounds each) to be all that worthwhile. It is my opinion, but not a unique one.

Hm, didn't they upgrade the A6M3 to 100 rounds per gun, using a larger magazine (as the weapon was not belt-fed)?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

Hi Ivan,

>Regarding the F4F-3 versus F4F-4, the differences are FAR from cosmetic. The F4F-3 did not have folding wings or anywhere near as much armour. It was 15-20 mph faster, weighed about 500 pounds less and only had 4 MGs with more ammunition instead of 6. Best climb rate was also well over 1000 fpm faster, so it is hardly the same aircraft.

You're right of course - I was just trying to point out that even the F4F-3 would not have a chance to be considered "Best radial fighter of '42", even with its better performance

>The information I saw on the P-43 was actually found while looking for data on the Curtiss-Wright CW-21B. The CW-21B never did particularly well in combat, but was quite competitive for performance and perhaps should be included here as well?

Good point - any data on that one?

I have added the Ki-43 and replaced the F4F-4 with the better performing F4F-3 ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)