One problem with that idea is range - The D3A has almost double the range of a Swordfish (915 vs 522), so the IJN fleet can attack from a distance while the RN has no way to hit back. If they are anywhere near - as in within 1,000 miles, of IJ land bases the threat is much more serious as IJA bombers can carry lethal torpedoes too.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, best fighter for Malaya 1940-41?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
More options
Who Replied?One problem with that idea is range - The D3A has almost double the range of a Swordfish (915 vs 522), so the IJN fleet can attack from a distance while the RN has no way to hit back. If they are anywhere near - as in within 1,000 miles, of IJ land bases the threat is much more serious as IJA bombers can carry lethal torpedoes too.
- Thread starter
- #103
Admiral Beez
Major
if we're including non carrier types, then I want Gloster Meteor. Maybe substitute something like a N1K1 or Ki-84 (pretend it's suitable for Carrier ops) for the A7 since we really don't know anything real about the latter. .
As for the OP, I agree that P-36 might be a good idea if they were available in time. They had a pretty good operational record almost everywhere they were used - Finland, Battle of France, India, Thailand. Even one at Pearl Harbor. Maybe if you had some kind of forewarning (code intercept?) that trouble was brewing you could send some of those French Hawks without waiting to rewire the throttles and just warn the pilots as much as you can. P-36 has one of the best climb rates of all the available second-string Allied fighters and had that dive speed to help with disengagement (thus greatly improving pilot survival rates). Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Mohawks or any model P-36 had any armor though, did they ever fit any? Presumably any available in time to fight in Malaya wouldn't have any which would be the main drawback for this fighter.
Cw-21 might have some value for point defense but it's risky to pilots due to no armor and quite lightly built. Then again so were F2As as it turned out. They are agile though and have an excellent (4,500 fpm) rate of climb so if they were there anyway (I believe some were in Java at any rate) then use them, but use them wisely - maybe only go up against Ki-27s or unescorted bomber raids.
Bring in any F4Fs that authorities are willing to send.
Certainly the most value / bang for the buck is to improve airfields, create some kind of early warning network (yes employ the natives - if the Rubber plantation owners are being difficult explain to them how conditions will change if the Japanese take over and force them to provide space for revetments, labor for airfields and a little extra to provide incentive / prizes for people who correctly report Japanese aircraft). Do everything possible to help with mechanics, build shelters to work on planes, etc. - even just slightly built up area to protect from flooding and a water proof cover with tarps or tents is better than working in the driving tropical rain.
It does make sense for Churchill to send all those Hurricanes and Tomahawks (although some which were sent were already clapped out) to Russia because while Malaya was perhaps 1/7th of the Imperial exchequer's balance sheet, the direct existential threat to the British State was the very, very formidable German army and the most efficient way for the British to break the German army was to have Russians do it on Russian soil.
I don't think the F2As were very good against the Japanese and I don't think it was only due to the bad airfields / outnumbered status / poor training / lack of early warning. They obviously had some utility but not much, less than other modern types IMO. Yes the Finns did well with them - with vast improvements on all those support / tactics related issues, but in the Pacific F2As performed badly with and without warning. They didn't do well with the RAF in Rangoon (usually with the benefit of warning, and alongside the AVG who did do well) they did poorly at Midway when flown by US Marines, and of course in Malaya. One problem was surely the engine used, with a 1,000 hp engine it was definitely underpowered.
But I don't think you can fully put it down to being overloaded either as I believe I remember that they did strip some down, they even used high octane fuel with them. It didn't help enough to deal with Ki-43s and A6Ms.
Aside from overloading and being underpowered, build problems and maintenance problems and all the rest, I suspect F2A may have been one of those aircraft which just didn't do well in a Tropical environment for a whole host of reasons. Operating in those kinds of conditions required a myriad of small changes to maintenance and operational practices which had to be worked out for any military aircraft in Theater, and the Buffalo may not have been deployed long enough for the shit to have hit the fan.
So, I'd say work really hard on the Buffalos you did already have there to get the most out of them (strip whatever you can, takeoff with reduced fuel and whatever else works) but don't count on those.
My suggestion for 1940-41 that I hadn't seen mentioned though which may seem a bit unorthodox is to send Fairey Fulmars. They were available. They had good range and you could send some out on regular scout flights (along with some F2A if you had them). Fulmars look pretty crap on paper and didn't do great in combat but to be honest, they didn't do nearly as badly as one would expect. One reason may be their good wing loading, plus they have a pretty good armament of 8 x .303 guns. You could even make a 'field stripped' version more suitable for CAP and fighter escort by removing the navigator* and whatever you can strip out of his station, maybe taking out a pair or two of guns, as well as arrestor hooks and any other naval equipment you don't need. Load half fuel for interception sorties. Might improve speed a bit.
I'd also recommend sending in some Martin Maryland light twin engined bombers, as an improvement over your Blenheims and a substitute for Beaufighters until the latter are available. These were used by the RAF with some success in the Med. With 1,300 mile range, high speed and a pretty high ceiling they would be useful as recon planes (which is what they were used for a lot in the MTO), as pathfinders, and light bombers. They were fast enough to easily outrun Ki-27s and could probably evade Ki-43s as well. They also had "fighter-like" handling (lower wing loading than a P-40 and power-mass was better than a Hurricane I) and four forward firing guns so they could be used to attack IJN bombers especially the flimsier types like Ki-21s. Marylands were used to shoot down some Italian bombers in the MTO, there was even a Maryland Ace. These were available by Taranto in 1940 so conceivably you could have got some to Malaya in time.
Another good recon / maritime patrol plane would be the Lockheed Hudson. They don't look so great on paper but they seem to have surprisingly good luck in scrapes with Zeros in the South Pacific and with 1,900 mile range could help a lot in finding Japanese assets out over the water. They can also be pressed into service for strafing as they had some forward facing guns.
A second Martin bomber which might be useful - it seems to have been more useful as a bomber, is the Martin Baltimore. On paper this has the same 2,000 lb bomb load as a Maryland but in action it seems to have carried more bombs and been able to hit targets some times (I suspect Maryland carried more like 1,000 lbs in most cases). Like the Maryland the Baltimore also had some forward firing guns.
Finally, I think Bristol Beauforts would be good to have. I know the Taurus gave some trouble, but with it's fairly accurate Torpedo bombing capability combined with a 1,600 mile range, the Beaufort should be a good ship killer. Certainly better than the Vikcers Vildebeest it was meant to replace in Singapore. In the actual war a small number of the 100 Australian built Beauforts delivered were actually used, and if I understand right they tried to use them as recon planes. They got shot up in that role, but I think the correct role would be as a torpedo bomber with Fulmar, P-36 or even F2As for escorts. Beauforts did pretty well later on in the PTO once crews had been properly trained and tactics adjusted.
If you could get some sent to the Theater Tomahawks and Beaufighters would be the most useful overall, IMO.
* maybe keep like 1 out of 10 with the navigator to help lead flights to their targets.
Cw-21 might have some value for point defense but it's risky to pilots due to no armor and quite lightly built. Then again so were F2As as it turned out. They are agile though and have an excellent (4,500 fpm) rate of climb so if they were there anyway (I believe some were in Java at any rate) then use them, but use them wisely - maybe only go up against Ki-27s or unescorted bomber raids.
Bring in any F4Fs that authorities are willing to send.
Certainly the most value / bang for the buck is to improve airfields, create some kind of early warning network (yes employ the natives - if the Rubber plantation owners are being difficult explain to them how conditions will change if the Japanese take over and force them to provide space for revetments, labor for airfields and a little extra to provide incentive / prizes for people who correctly report Japanese aircraft). Do everything possible to help with mechanics, build shelters to work on planes, etc. - even just slightly built up area to protect from flooding and a water proof cover with tarps or tents is better than working in the driving tropical rain.
It does make sense for Churchill to send all those Hurricanes and Tomahawks (although some which were sent were already clapped out) to Russia because while Malaya was perhaps 1/7th of the Imperial exchequer's balance sheet, the direct existential threat to the British State was the very, very formidable German army and the most efficient way for the British to break the German army was to have Russians do it on Russian soil.
I don't think the F2As were very good against the Japanese and I don't think it was only due to the bad airfields / outnumbered status / poor training / lack of early warning. They obviously had some utility but not much, less than other modern types IMO. Yes the Finns did well with them - with vast improvements on all those support / tactics related issues, but in the Pacific F2As performed badly with and without warning. They didn't do well with the RAF in Rangoon (usually with the benefit of warning, and alongside the AVG who did do well) they did poorly at Midway when flown by US Marines, and of course in Malaya. One problem was surely the engine used, with a 1,000 hp engine it was definitely underpowered.
But I don't think you can fully put it down to being overloaded either as I believe I remember that they did strip some down, they even used high octane fuel with them. It didn't help enough to deal with Ki-43s and A6Ms.
Aside from overloading and being underpowered, build problems and maintenance problems and all the rest, I suspect F2A may have been one of those aircraft which just didn't do well in a Tropical environment for a whole host of reasons. Operating in those kinds of conditions required a myriad of small changes to maintenance and operational practices which had to be worked out for any military aircraft in Theater, and the Buffalo may not have been deployed long enough for the shit to have hit the fan.
So, I'd say work really hard on the Buffalos you did already have there to get the most out of them (strip whatever you can, takeoff with reduced fuel and whatever else works) but don't count on those.
My suggestion for 1940-41 that I hadn't seen mentioned though which may seem a bit unorthodox is to send Fairey Fulmars. They were available. They had good range and you could send some out on regular scout flights (along with some F2A if you had them). Fulmars look pretty crap on paper and didn't do great in combat but to be honest, they didn't do nearly as badly as one would expect. One reason may be their good wing loading, plus they have a pretty good armament of 8 x .303 guns. You could even make a 'field stripped' version more suitable for CAP and fighter escort by removing the navigator* and whatever you can strip out of his station, maybe taking out a pair or two of guns, as well as arrestor hooks and any other naval equipment you don't need. Load half fuel for interception sorties. Might improve speed a bit.
I'd also recommend sending in some Martin Maryland light twin engined bombers, as an improvement over your Blenheims and a substitute for Beaufighters until the latter are available. These were used by the RAF with some success in the Med. With 1,300 mile range, high speed and a pretty high ceiling they would be useful as recon planes (which is what they were used for a lot in the MTO), as pathfinders, and light bombers. They were fast enough to easily outrun Ki-27s and could probably evade Ki-43s as well. They also had "fighter-like" handling (lower wing loading than a P-40 and power-mass was better than a Hurricane I) and four forward firing guns so they could be used to attack IJN bombers especially the flimsier types like Ki-21s. Marylands were used to shoot down some Italian bombers in the MTO, there was even a Maryland Ace. These were available by Taranto in 1940 so conceivably you could have got some to Malaya in time.
Another good recon / maritime patrol plane would be the Lockheed Hudson. They don't look so great on paper but they seem to have surprisingly good luck in scrapes with Zeros in the South Pacific and with 1,900 mile range could help a lot in finding Japanese assets out over the water. They can also be pressed into service for strafing as they had some forward facing guns.
A second Martin bomber which might be useful - it seems to have been more useful as a bomber, is the Martin Baltimore. On paper this has the same 2,000 lb bomb load as a Maryland but in action it seems to have carried more bombs and been able to hit targets some times (I suspect Maryland carried more like 1,000 lbs in most cases). Like the Maryland the Baltimore also had some forward firing guns.
Finally, I think Bristol Beauforts would be good to have. I know the Taurus gave some trouble, but with it's fairly accurate Torpedo bombing capability combined with a 1,600 mile range, the Beaufort should be a good ship killer. Certainly better than the Vikcers Vildebeest it was meant to replace in Singapore. In the actual war a small number of the 100 Australian built Beauforts delivered were actually used, and if I understand right they tried to use them as recon planes. They got shot up in that role, but I think the correct role would be as a torpedo bomber with Fulmar, P-36 or even F2As for escorts. Beauforts did pretty well later on in the PTO once crews had been properly trained and tactics adjusted.
If you could get some sent to the Theater Tomahawks and Beaufighters would be the most useful overall, IMO.
* maybe keep like 1 out of 10 with the navigator to help lead flights to their targets.
if we're including non carrier types, then I want Gloster Meteor
Was Meteor really all that great as a fighter?
I'll grant you A6M5 is no match for a Sea Fury so the IJN has major problems there.
Kevin J
Banned
Modernization includes upgrading the boilers by removing the middle turret to save space. Remember those coal boilers are 18 years old.The problem with the older battleships as I understand it (from Neptune's Inferno) was fuel consumption. At least for the American navy, the WW I and 1920s era ships used several times more fuel than the more modern ones. As much as a dozen or more non-capital ships.
- Thread starter
- #108
Admiral Beez
Major
Okay, Sea Vampire.Was Meteor really all that great as a fighter?
I'll grant you A6M5 is no match for a Sea Fury so the IJN has major problems there.
Kevin J
Banned
What we really need is the Mohawk being produced. Production was tried in India but failed, should have got the Aussies to build them.As for the OP, I agree that P-36 might be a good idea if they were available in time. They had a pretty good operational record almost everywhere they were used - Finland, Battle of France, India, Thailand. Even one at Pearl Harbor. Maybe if you had some kind of forewarning (code intercept?) that trouble was brewing you could send some of those French Hawks without waiting to rewire the throttles and just warn the pilots as much as you can. P-36 has one of the best climb rates of all the available second-string Allied fighters and had that dive speed to help with disengagement (thus greatly improving pilot survival rates). Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Mohawks or any model P-36 had any armor though, did they ever fit any? Presumably any available in time to fight in Malaya wouldn't have any which would be the main drawback for this fighter.
Cw-21 might have some value for point defense but it's risky to pilots due to no armor and quite lightly built. Then again so were F2As as it turned out. They are agile though and have an excellent (4,500 fpm) rate of climb so if they were there anyway (I believe some were in Java at any rate) then use them, but use them wisely - maybe only go up against Ki-27s or unescorted bomber raids.
Bring in any F4Fs that authorities are willing to send.
Certainly the most value / bang for the buck is to improve airfields, create some kind of early warning network (yes employ the natives - if the Rubber plantation owners are being difficult explain to them how conditions will change if the Japanese take over and force them to provide space for revetments, labor for airfields and a little extra to provide incentive / prizes for people who correctly report Japanese aircraft). Do everything possible to help with mechanics, build shelters to work on planes, etc. - even just slightly built up area to protect from flooding and a water proof cover with tarps or tents is better than working in the driving tropical rain.
It does make sense for Churchill to send all those Hurricanes and Tomahawks (although some which were sent were already clapped out) to Russia because while Malaya was perhaps 1/7th of the Imperial exchequer's balance sheet, the direct existential threat to the British State was the very, very formidable German army and the most efficient way for the British to break the German army was to have Russians do it on Russian soil.
I don't think the F2As were very good against the Japanese and I don't think it was only due to the bad airfields / outnumbered status / poor training / lack of early warning. They obviously had some utility but not much, less than other modern types IMO. Yes the Finns did well with them - with vast improvements on all those support / tactics related issues, but in the Pacific F2As performed badly with and without warning. They didn't do well with the RAF in Rangoon (usually with the benefit of warning, and alongside the AVG who did do well) they did poorly at Midway when flown by US Marines, and of course in Malaya. One problem was surely the engine used, with a 1,000 hp engine it was definitely underpowered.
But I don't think you can fully put it down to being overloaded either as I believe I remember that they did strip some down, they even used high octane fuel with them. It didn't help enough to deal with Ki-43s and A6Ms.
Aside from overloading and being underpowered, build problems and maintenance problems and all the rest, I suspect F2A may have been one of those aircraft which just didn't do well in a Tropical environment for a whole host of reasons. Operating in those kinds of conditions required a myriad of small changes to maintenance and operational practices which had to be worked out for any military aircraft in Theater, and the Buffalo may not have been deployed long enough for the shit to have hit the fan.
So, I'd say work really hard on the Buffalos you did already have there to get the most out of them (strip whatever you can, takeoff with reduced fuel and whatever else works) but don't count on those.
My suggestion for 1940-41 that I hadn't seen mentioned though which may seem a bit unorthodox is to send Fairey Fulmars. They were available. They had good range and you could send some out on regular scout flights (along with some F2A if you had them). Fulmars look pretty crap on paper and didn't do great in combat but to be honest, they didn't do nearly as badly as one would expect. One reason may be their good wing loading, plus they have a pretty good armament of 8 x .303 guns. You could even make a 'field stripped' version more suitable for CAP and fighter escort by removing the navigator* and whatever you can strip out of his station, maybe taking out a pair or two of guns, as well as arrestor hooks and any other naval equipment you don't need. Load half fuel for interception sorties. Might improve speed a bit.
I'd also recommend sending in some Martin Maryland light twin engined bombers, as an improvement over your Blenheims and a substitute for Beaufighters until the latter are available. These were used by the RAF with some success in the Med. With 1,300 mile range, high speed and a pretty high ceiling they would be useful as recon planes (which is what they were used for a lot in the MTO), as pathfinders, and light bombers. They were fast enough to easily outrun Ki-27s and could probably evade Ki-43s as well. They also had "fighter-like" handling (lower wing loading than a P-40 and power-mass was better than a Hurricane I) and four forward firing guns so they could be used to attack IJN bombers especially the flimsier types like Ki-21s. Marylands were used to shoot down some Italian bombers in the MTO, there was even a Maryland Ace. These were available by Taranto in 1940 so conceivably you could have got some to Malaya in time.
Another good recon / maritime patrol plane would be the Lockheed Hudson. They don't look so great on paper but they seem to have surprisingly good luck in scrapes with Zeros in the South Pacific and with 1,900 mile range could help a lot in finding Japanese assets out over the water. They can also be pressed into service for strafing as they had some forward facing guns.
A second Martin bomber which might be useful - it seems to have been more useful as a bomber, is the Martin Baltimore. On paper this has the same 2,000 lb bomb load as a Maryland but in action it seems to have carried more bombs and been able to hit targets some times (I suspect Maryland carried more like 1,000 lbs in most cases). Like the Maryland the Baltimore also had some forward firing guns.
Finally, I think Bristol Beauforts would be good to have. I know the Taurus gave some trouble, but with it's fairly accurate Torpedo bombing capability combined with a 1,600 mile range, the Beaufort should be a good ship killer. Certainly better than the Vikcers Vildebeest it was meant to replace in Singapore. In the actual war a small number of the 100 Australian built Beauforts delivered were actually used, and if I understand right they tried to use them as recon planes. They got shot up in that role, but I think the correct role would be as a torpedo bomber with Fulmar, P-36 or even F2As for escorts. Beauforts did pretty well later on in the PTO once crews had been properly trained and tactics adjusted.
If you could get some sent to the Theater Tomahawks and Beaufighters would be the most useful overall, IMO.
* maybe keep like 1 out of 10 with the navigator to help lead flights to their targets.
What we really need is the Mohawk being produced. Production was tried in India but failed, should have got the Aussies to build them.
Build them with a Wright R-1820-56 like on the FM-2 (once they are available, or if not ideally some two speed engine) and maybe you have a decent defense fighter, sort of what the Aussies were trying to do with the Boomerang and the Wirraway.
Kevin J
Banned
Build them with a Wright R-1820-56 like on the FM-2 (once they are available, or if not ideally some two speed engine) and maybe you have a decent defense fighter, sort of what the Aussies were trying to do with the Boomerang and the Wirraway.
No, use the Australian built twin Wasp. Look on wwiiaircraftperformane.org for the spec. It's good. 323mph, 1200 mile range.
Kevin J
Banned
But you still need armor and self-sealing tanks to make the Hawk really viable past 1941.
Put in a two stage engine before that and the Mohawk would be good for 340 mph, maybe your suggestion in 43/44.
- Thread starter
- #114
Admiral Beez
Major
How badly will the Gladiator do in Malaya? With 4 machine guns and a top speed of over 250 mph, the Gladiator is a little slower but heavier armed than the Nakajima Ki-27, which made up about half the IJAAF fighter force. Ki-43 will clear the skies unfortunately. The Gladiator is too slow to catch much of the rest of the IJAAF fleet used in the Malaya campaign: Mitsubishi Ki-51 Sonia, bombers: Kawasaki Ki-48 Lily, Mitsubishi Ki-21 Sally, Mitsubishi Ki-30 Ann; and reconnaissance: Mitsubishi Ki-15 Babs, Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah.
I wondering if the Defiant would do so badly here. It's got the speed and firepower to wreck these thinly skinned IJAAF aircraft. Put some gun pods under the wings.
I wondering if the Defiant would do so badly here. It's got the speed and firepower to wreck these thinly skinned IJAAF aircraft. Put some gun pods under the wings.
Hi,
Most of what I have read about the Buffalo didn't seen to me to support claims that it wasn't a good airplane overall.
Specifically, while there were some noted issues with the landing gear when operating off carriers, early on, I'm not sure that I have seen indications that this was an issue when operated from land, or during operations in the Malaya/Singapore theatre.
I was also aware of some issues with early issues with getting the guns fully operational on the aircraft used in Malaya/Singapore, put from what I have read I was under the impression that this may have been in part to the fact that these planes were fitted with 0.50 cal US weapons as opposed to the 0.30 cal UK weapons that the RAF was more used to. And I was also under the impression that the units in Malaya/Singapore were able to work this issue out.
As for any issues with the rebuilt engines used in some of the planes sent to the Malaya/Singapore theatre, it is my understanding that those rebuilt engines were used due to a shortage of new engines during the timeframe that the planes were required to be delivered. As such, if any other plane wee to be procured during the same time, I would suspect that tey too would be facing the same engine shortage issues and would either have to resort to using rebuilt engines and/or would potentially have to delay delivery of some units until suitable new engines could be provided (eventhough such planes may not have been the highest priority for getting new engines at the time).
Pat
PS. For reference, other planes during this era also had some issues at the start of the Pacific war. Specifically, although I can't recall which book it was that I read right now, if I am recalling correctly I believe that during the early phases of the war in the Pacific the F4F Wildcat also experienced a couple issues of its own that impacted its ability to perform its mission including cracking of its windshield, structural issues with its wings, occasional issues with the two-stage supercharger on the P&W engine not working correctly, and a general shortage of two-stage superchargers, resulting in some planes being delivered with single-stage, two-speed units (as identified as being F4F-3A aircraft instead of just F4F-3 units). Fortunately the US was able to work through these issues and the F4F/FM fighters went on to have a long and successful career, but hopefully this helps demonstrate that sometimes, especially early in a war that defending forces may not yet have been able to become fully prepared for, that some potential issues with even highly regarded equipment can become apparent, but often they do get rectified.
Most of what I have read about the Buffalo didn't seen to me to support claims that it wasn't a good airplane overall.
Specifically, while there were some noted issues with the landing gear when operating off carriers, early on, I'm not sure that I have seen indications that this was an issue when operated from land, or during operations in the Malaya/Singapore theatre.
I was also aware of some issues with early issues with getting the guns fully operational on the aircraft used in Malaya/Singapore, put from what I have read I was under the impression that this may have been in part to the fact that these planes were fitted with 0.50 cal US weapons as opposed to the 0.30 cal UK weapons that the RAF was more used to. And I was also under the impression that the units in Malaya/Singapore were able to work this issue out.
As for any issues with the rebuilt engines used in some of the planes sent to the Malaya/Singapore theatre, it is my understanding that those rebuilt engines were used due to a shortage of new engines during the timeframe that the planes were required to be delivered. As such, if any other plane wee to be procured during the same time, I would suspect that tey too would be facing the same engine shortage issues and would either have to resort to using rebuilt engines and/or would potentially have to delay delivery of some units until suitable new engines could be provided (eventhough such planes may not have been the highest priority for getting new engines at the time).
Pat
PS. For reference, other planes during this era also had some issues at the start of the Pacific war. Specifically, although I can't recall which book it was that I read right now, if I am recalling correctly I believe that during the early phases of the war in the Pacific the F4F Wildcat also experienced a couple issues of its own that impacted its ability to perform its mission including cracking of its windshield, structural issues with its wings, occasional issues with the two-stage supercharger on the P&W engine not working correctly, and a general shortage of two-stage superchargers, resulting in some planes being delivered with single-stage, two-speed units (as identified as being F4F-3A aircraft instead of just F4F-3 units). Fortunately the US was able to work through these issues and the F4F/FM fighters went on to have a long and successful career, but hopefully this helps demonstrate that sometimes, especially early in a war that defending forces may not yet have been able to become fully prepared for, that some potential issues with even highly regarded equipment can become apparent, but often they do get rectified.
Shortround6
Major General
Please check time lines for some of these engines, and please remember that in the case of Wright, many of the different R-1820s were completely different form each other using only the same bore and stroke. The Engine used in the FM-2 was an H series engine and they did not become available in quantity until the beginning of 1943.
The Earlier R=1820 engines went through at least 3 different crankcases, different crankshafts, different numbers of cylinder hold down bolts and and so on. Even the G100 and G200 had considerable differences and the G100 was quite different than a G.
As far as the CW-21 goes I would be very leery of the claimed performance figures, Very leary indeed.
While it was possible to fit four guns in the plane this was seldom done and I doubt very highly wither performance figures (even if true) were done at that weight. The radio in the add copy (or magazine articles is called and "option".
Also please note that the 4500fpm climb figure may have been done at the take-off power rating of 1000hp.
for data on the R-1820-G5 engine see. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/TC154.pdf
it was quite common to rate or advertise prewar engines on their max continuous power rather than their max take-off or max 5 minutes (or less) power.
The Earlier R=1820 engines went through at least 3 different crankcases, different crankshafts, different numbers of cylinder hold down bolts and and so on. Even the G100 and G200 had considerable differences and the G100 was quite different than a G.
As far as the CW-21 goes I would be very leery of the claimed performance figures, Very leary indeed.
While it was possible to fit four guns in the plane this was seldom done and I doubt very highly wither performance figures (even if true) were done at that weight. The radio in the add copy (or magazine articles is called and "option".
Also please note that the 4500fpm climb figure may have been done at the take-off power rating of 1000hp.
for data on the R-1820-G5 engine see. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/TC154.pdf
it was quite common to rate or advertise prewar engines on their max continuous power rather than their max take-off or max 5 minutes (or less) power.
- Thread starter
- #117
Admiral Beez
Major
I think the issue with the Buffalo was it was too few. Make it four hundred Buffaloes with radar direction and Japan is in for a fight.Hi,
Most of what I have read about the Buffalo didn't seen to me to support claims that it wasn't a good airplane overall.
And that's what we need in the absence of the Buffalo, 400-500 of some fighter. If we exclude the Spitfire and Hurricane, that has to be a mix of Defiant, Whirlwind, Gladiator, Blenheim 1F, Beaufighter, Mohawk and Vanguard.
Shortround6
Major General
Put in a two stage engine before that and the Mohawk would be good for 340 mph, maybe your suggestion in 43/44.
Every radial engine Mohawk built in Buffalo after 1940 is one less P-40 built.
Everybody wants the maneuverability of the Mohawk, nobody wants to pay the price of the better armament, the protection, fancier engines and so on, At some point you have to increase the structural weight of the plane starts breaking or bending in midair.
Shortround6
Major General
I think the issue with the Buffalo was it was too few. Make it four hundred Buffaloes with radar direction and Japan is in for a fight.
And that's what we need in the absence of the Buffalo, 400-500 of some fighter. If we exclude the Spitfire and Hurricane, that has to be a mix of Defiant, Whirlwind, Gladiator, Blenheim 1F, Beaufighter, Mohawk and Vanguard.
You just need 390-490 pilots who know what they are doing. Using around 90% rookies with just a few experienced pilots as squadron leaders doesn't work well in actual combat.
ANd the experienced pilots they did have had out maneuvered the Germans and thought that a turning fight was the way to win. By the time they unlearned that it was too late.
- Thread starter
- #120
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. But hopefully after more than two years of war, Battle of France, Norway, BoB, Malta, Greece and North Africa there are sufficient numbers of experienced pilots to more than just lead the squadrons. But if not, Malaya will have to make due with green crews. The question for us is what are they flying if there's no Buffalo, Spitfire or Hurricane?You just need 390-490 pilots who know what they are doing. Using around 90% rookies with just a few experienced pilots as squadron leaders doesn't work well in actual combat.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
