Best radial fighter of '42

Poll removed

  • Total voters
    4

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi Vincenzo,

>I've from italian test of 39,
>G 50 max speed 483 km/h at 4500 meters, 451 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2330 kg) (climb at 6 7'3'', at 4 4'14'')
>Re 2000 max speed 518 km/h at 5250 meters, 506 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2529 kg) (climb at 6 km 6'23'', at 4 3'57'')
>M.C.200 max speed 502 km/h at 5000 meters, 493 km/h at 6000 meters (at 2208 kg) (climb a7 6 km 6'29'', at 4 3'54'')

>engine power for G 50 and M.C. 200 (have same engine) 840 HP at 3800 meters (it's not wep also the italian can up the hg pression the called +100 (mm of hg)), for Re 2000 1000 HP at 4000 meters.

>for others from source on internet
>MB 152 515 km/h at 4000 (as in '40 in france)
>IAR 80A 510 km/h at 4000 (probably also less, also if some sources report more at higher quote, but i don't think that rated altitude of engine can done this)

Hm, I've calculated "quick and dirty" data, filling in the gaps with some guesses, for the Italian fighters too, but I'm not entirely happy with them as the engine data and the speed data you provided don't fit together very well. With 3800 m and 4000 m static full throttle height, you're not going to get 5000 m respectively 5250 m dynamic full throttle height at the speeds you listed.

And I declare the graphs terminally overcrowded now - if you like, tell me which are to remain on the graph as "first rate", and which I should move into a separate "second rate" graph ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • Radials_1942_speed_comparison.png
    21.5 KB · Views: 99
  • Radials_1942_climb_comparison.png
    18.3 KB · Views: 82
I have been reading more (what little I can find) on the Russian Lavochkin fighters. Very outstanding aircraft, but I can be a little biased because I have a wierd affection for thier equipment.

I know the 1942 requirement makes only the La-5 a consideration as discussed.

I think I would have to put the La-5 as a close 2nd place to the FW-190.
 
Hi Vincenzo,

>if this help you the fiat was a derivative of twin wasp junior and the piaggio of gnome-rhone 14k

Thanks, I already found that out through the Italian Wikipedia, which has some short but very useful engine articles

I made some guesses on propeller diameters by measuring threeviews, but that's not usually accurate to better than 10 cm, and sometimes less.

Here is a new chart showing the second-rate fighters, newly including the Bloch MB 152 and the IAR 80. For the IAR 80, I found two different weights, and using the lower one gave me the spectacular climb rate indicated in the diagram. If anyone has reliable weight information on the IAR 80B version, I'd love to see it!

(I'm posting big diagrams to facilitate reading, and to circumvent the forum   bug, I'll put each one in a separate post.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • Radials_1942_2nd_rate_speed_comparison.png
    21.4 KB · Views: 98
the engine of iar 80 it's wrong, it'used 14k like Re 2000

p.s. P-36 maybe best comparison found data for hawk 75 with cyclone, was more common fighter in '42 (the usaac don't fightning)
 
Hi Vincenzo,

>the engine of iar 80 it's wrong, it'used 14k like Re 2000

Ah, thanks, I'm going to have to fix that! Any information on the weight so that I don't have to fix it twice?

Here the diagrams for the "first rate" fighters. Criterion for first rate was a top speed in excess of 520 km/h, except for the F4F-3 which I included only to avoid getting flamed by Grumman fans.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • Radials_1942_1st_Rate_speed_comparison.png
    19.5 KB · Views: 92
Hi Vincenzo,

>i think weight are good see here WorldWar2.ro - IAR-80/81 A/B/C

Thanks! That made a world of difference. I have re-uploaded the diagrams above (to avoid flooding the thread with even more big diagrams), and though I forgot to change the engine comment, the IAR 80A now uses the same engine data as the Re. 2000 as requested.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
After some research:
i don't found any trial that tha PZL P.24 was actually fighter fightning in '42 so can exclude form our challenge.
i found trial that the MB 152 were never delivered to FARR (Romanian RAF) ans saw that french ones don''t fightning in '42 with this plane also this it's out from challenge
i take out also the P-66 saw that they flying war mission but actually not fightning (they try to intercept enemy bombers but don't found its)

later other consideration

p.s. take out also the Hawk 75N because i don't found trial of their fightning in '42,
 
i've collected some info on time to climb (i've not collected data for the top rated: Fw 190, La 5, Type 2 and Type 0)
give some for the best
Type 97 5'22'' for 5 km
I-16 (type 18 ) 5'30'' for 5 km
CW 21 claimed 5' for 5 km
Type 1 5'30'' for 5 km
MC 200 6'29'' for 6 km
Re 2000 6'23'' for 6 km

p.s., had not remembered: Type 1 army fighter 4'48'' for 5 km
 
Vincenzo said:
thank for info, but if both were attacked?
A tatics can help the fightning not make a plane best of other, also biplane can shoot down a moder fighter (ever talking of WWII) but not for this the biplane is best
Click to expand...
Hi Vincenzo,

Sorry for the late reply, I haven't been back to this site for a few days.
Guess I missed your point, but I see what you're saying now.
You're asking about the best fighter, not the best tactics.
My apologies.
Being that as it may, I guess my answer would be the Zero, followed closely by the Buffalo.
From what I can determine, it appeats both planes were near equals in manuverability, although the Zero had a little better climb rate.
Both planes were fairly equal in speed, around 335 MPH, so I think this is a close match, but the American plane was better armed (MHO).

As for the FW190.
Since we're talking about radial-engined fighters, the best way I can think of to down an early 190 is to play with him until his engine won't run anymore.
...that's why the German's switched the 190's power to a liquid cooled V-12.
The cowliing didn't allow sufficient cooling of the raidial engine.
If you can keep from getting shot up, then you could tangle with him long enough so that his engine wouldn't perform as it should.
Now he's a "lame duck", whose probably running for home, and you can go in for the kill.
I know, helluva way to shoot down the enemy, but a kill's a kill.



Elvis
 
Hello Elvis,
The early model FW 190As had engine overheating problems. The last radial engine versions didn't. I believe the issue was the routing of the exhaust. (Look at the bottom of the cowl on a late model 190A.) I once wondered why there was no improvement in BMW 801 engine performance after about 1943. Turns out that there WAS a serious improvement though it is a bit more difficult to quantify than most. "C3 Einspritzung" was a means for this engine to essentially run WEP for as long as it had fuel. Output was in the 2000-2100 HP range WITHOUT MW-50.

From what I have read, it appeared more that the FW 190's engine was replaced to improve the high altitude performance, though the FW 190A-9 wasn't bad at high altitude either.

Happy Easter!
- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
1K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
nuuumannn
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
855
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
12K
DarrenW
Menu
Log in
Register