32km/h is a relative value, if you fly a P40C and be already at the edge or outside the gun range of the Ki-43-1, what is not too difficult with the poor guns, 32km/h less and you can get away. So 32km/h is only not alot, if you dont consider your life as important.
Fighter Top speed timeline
- Thread starter Bug_racer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
32km/h is a relative value, if you fly a P40C and be already at the edge or outside the gun range of the Ki-43-1, what is not too difficult with the poor guns, 32km/h less and you can get away. So 32km/h is only not alot, if you dont consider your life as important.
Summer 43 Eastern Europe i would rather choose the Lavochkin La-5 FN from SL to 6000ft
598/596/583 km/h at SL, 650, 648, 634km/h at hight from factory, state, serial tests respectivly.
Regards
Hi,
according to my datas the Ki-43-1 was a little faster than the A6M-2 on all altitudes.
Both used the same engine, the Ki-43-1 was more light and had a smaler wing.
Regarding the P40B/C, take a look to this page:
Perils P40 Archive Data
You will find that it rarely got over 340mph.
Anyway, all this dont matter much, only that 32km/h is a huge different. 32km/h thats what many planes got as bonus due to the usage of WEP. If it wasnt important, why would they use WEP at all??
32km/h, that was the different between 109E4 and 109F-2, there was less between SpitVb and Spit1a and the FW190A C3 fuel injection just brought a 32km/h, if at all.
The constructors and ground crew fought hard for absolut every km/h advantage, cause every km/h could safe your life. If 32km/h wasnt important no ground crew member would have waxed and polished the surface of the plane to gain just 5-10km/h.
Greetings,
Knegel
according to my datas the Ki-43-1 was a little faster than the A6M-2 on all altitudes.
Both used the same engine, the Ki-43-1 was more light and had a smaler wing.
Regarding the P40B/C, take a look to this page:
Perils P40 Archive Data
You will find that it rarely got over 340mph.
Anyway, all this dont matter much, only that 32km/h is a huge different. 32km/h thats what many planes got as bonus due to the usage of WEP. If it wasnt important, why would they use WEP at all??
32km/h, that was the different between 109E4 and 109F-2, there was less between SpitVb and Spit1a and the FW190A C3 fuel injection just brought a 32km/h, if at all.
The constructors and ground crew fought hard for absolut every km/h advantage, cause every km/h could safe your life. If 32km/h wasnt important no ground crew member would have waxed and polished the surface of the plane to gain just 5-10km/h.
Greetings,
Knegel
Last edited:
Okay firstly the Ki-43 uses a Nakajima engine, the Zero uses a Sakai engine. They are quite different, the Ki-43 doesn't produce as much torque and has a two blade prop with two settings, the Zero's three blade is a constant speed. Mechanical operation of the engine is also a little different. Overall outputs are similar, but the Zero has better emergency ratings. More money was spent on Zero development.
Secondly, Vmax is the maximum airframe speed in a dive. It has nothing to do with level speed capabilities except that it is also a level speed restriction if the thrust/drag can push the plane that fast. Usually Vmax is a little quicker than the aircraft can manage in level speed. On an Emil Vmax is just over 700km/h IAS.
Critical Mach didn't come into play until the late war period when aircraft were routinely achieving compression. Usually aircraft capable of exceeding 700km/h in level flight will have a critical Mach restriction in modern times, but even aircraft designed today, like say a new Cessna turboprop business transport that can do 540km/h, it will have a Vmax and no critical Mach guideline because it's never going to go that fast even in a dive.
Thirdly maximum level speed is a funny thing. It is like the disparity between service ceiling and operational ceiling. Assuming you have not overloaded the airframe and can use the same angle of attack between weight changes, the maximum level speed is never affected by weight alone but and this is a very important but, if you make an aircraft heavier the time it takes to accelerate to your maximum level speed maybe too long to make it usable in service conditions.
The only thing which limits maximum level speed is thrust to drag, not weight. What weight limits is acceleration, which is torque versus weight. The best measure of torque/weight is sustained climb. The Messer for example was always relatively light for the torque output of the Daimler, so always, always throughout the war had a superb sustained climb.
So if you get a Spit, which can do say 360mph and then you make it heavier without increasing drag, the only reason it now does 350mph is because it takes too long to continue accelerating to 360mph under service conditions. By that I mean it works like this...
imagine you are flying the Spit, you're the pilot now. You gun the engine in the lighter version, it accelerates quickly to about 355mph and slowly to 360mph, you could probably go a little faster but you'll use up all your fuel doing it. You write down a reasonable maximum level speed as 360mph.
Now you fly the heavier version. It accelerates quickly to 340mph and takes a while to get to 350mph. You could keep going to 360mph if you wanted to but it would use up too much fuel and take too long. So you write down 350mph as a reasonable maximum level speed under service conditions.
Feller, that's how it works.
Finally, dive performance, initial climb rates, sustained climb performance, acceleration throughout various conditions and performance ranges (ie. through the various stages of the flight envelope), these things vary between models, like a fingerprint, and whilst an aircraft type might have a faster top speed (eventually) this doesn't reflect its true performance. Then you have altitude performance, its performance under varying weather conditions, or flight conditions, etc.
Look at the La-5/7 or the Yak-9U or Ki-84 in comparative tests against P-51D and late Thunderbolts at Wright Field. They have much less performance on paper and yet absolutely kicked butt. The Ki-84 couldn't even be intercepted at medium altitude they're so fast, yet their listed max level speed is some 80km/h short of a P-51D and 40km/h short of the Corsairs that couldn't catch them at Okinawa. Seriously, one infamous encounter the Cosair squadron pilots gave an offical account, that Japanese aircraft type simply could not be intercepted at medium altitude by anything in the US arsenal. Later testing at Wright Field postwar confirmed this and declared it a superb warplane as good as any Fw-190D-9 or a P-51D. Yet it's slow by comparison, barely managing 630km/h at altitude on a good day (funny thing was Jap pilots didn't think it particularly special and Wright test pilots gave it a better review than the Japanese Army Air Force did).
Then you have the continuing popularity of the Me-109G in the hands of experienced Luftwaffe pilots (in JG51 and JG54 many pilots switched back to the Gustav from the Fw-190A during early 44 by request), and here is how this happens: you see all of what I've just been talking about brings into play some aspects of the Messer that were totally superb and hardly matched by many other fighters, it's acceleration from the cruise to combat condition was almost instantaneous, you've got to really run up a Merlin or a Pratt Whitney to do this, you can't just get jumped in the cruise and slam a couple and handles and off you go like you can in the Messer. The awesome thing about the Daimler is instant power on tap, great torque for sustained climb or carrying loads vertical, you can be worrying about your last puff of fuel one minute and suddenly flip it over in a roll and come up the other side bumping anything from 1500-1800hp in the blink of an eye and you just plain can't do that in most serial fighter types anywhere in the world. It's a great aircraft, even if you're going to give away something like 30km/h at combat altitude. Assuming you've got a good pilot.
Secondly, Vmax is the maximum airframe speed in a dive. It has nothing to do with level speed capabilities except that it is also a level speed restriction if the thrust/drag can push the plane that fast. Usually Vmax is a little quicker than the aircraft can manage in level speed. On an Emil Vmax is just over 700km/h IAS.
Critical Mach didn't come into play until the late war period when aircraft were routinely achieving compression. Usually aircraft capable of exceeding 700km/h in level flight will have a critical Mach restriction in modern times, but even aircraft designed today, like say a new Cessna turboprop business transport that can do 540km/h, it will have a Vmax and no critical Mach guideline because it's never going to go that fast even in a dive.
Thirdly maximum level speed is a funny thing. It is like the disparity between service ceiling and operational ceiling. Assuming you have not overloaded the airframe and can use the same angle of attack between weight changes, the maximum level speed is never affected by weight alone but and this is a very important but, if you make an aircraft heavier the time it takes to accelerate to your maximum level speed maybe too long to make it usable in service conditions.
The only thing which limits maximum level speed is thrust to drag, not weight. What weight limits is acceleration, which is torque versus weight. The best measure of torque/weight is sustained climb. The Messer for example was always relatively light for the torque output of the Daimler, so always, always throughout the war had a superb sustained climb.
So if you get a Spit, which can do say 360mph and then you make it heavier without increasing drag, the only reason it now does 350mph is because it takes too long to continue accelerating to 360mph under service conditions. By that I mean it works like this...
imagine you are flying the Spit, you're the pilot now. You gun the engine in the lighter version, it accelerates quickly to about 355mph and slowly to 360mph, you could probably go a little faster but you'll use up all your fuel doing it. You write down a reasonable maximum level speed as 360mph.
Now you fly the heavier version. It accelerates quickly to 340mph and takes a while to get to 350mph. You could keep going to 360mph if you wanted to but it would use up too much fuel and take too long. So you write down 350mph as a reasonable maximum level speed under service conditions.
Feller, that's how it works.
Finally, dive performance, initial climb rates, sustained climb performance, acceleration throughout various conditions and performance ranges (ie. through the various stages of the flight envelope), these things vary between models, like a fingerprint, and whilst an aircraft type might have a faster top speed (eventually) this doesn't reflect its true performance. Then you have altitude performance, its performance under varying weather conditions, or flight conditions, etc.
Look at the La-5/7 or the Yak-9U or Ki-84 in comparative tests against P-51D and late Thunderbolts at Wright Field. They have much less performance on paper and yet absolutely kicked butt. The Ki-84 couldn't even be intercepted at medium altitude they're so fast, yet their listed max level speed is some 80km/h short of a P-51D and 40km/h short of the Corsairs that couldn't catch them at Okinawa. Seriously, one infamous encounter the Cosair squadron pilots gave an offical account, that Japanese aircraft type simply could not be intercepted at medium altitude by anything in the US arsenal. Later testing at Wright Field postwar confirmed this and declared it a superb warplane as good as any Fw-190D-9 or a P-51D. Yet it's slow by comparison, barely managing 630km/h at altitude on a good day (funny thing was Jap pilots didn't think it particularly special and Wright test pilots gave it a better review than the Japanese Army Air Force did).
Then you have the continuing popularity of the Me-109G in the hands of experienced Luftwaffe pilots (in JG51 and JG54 many pilots switched back to the Gustav from the Fw-190A during early 44 by request), and here is how this happens: you see all of what I've just been talking about brings into play some aspects of the Messer that were totally superb and hardly matched by many other fighters, it's acceleration from the cruise to combat condition was almost instantaneous, you've got to really run up a Merlin or a Pratt Whitney to do this, you can't just get jumped in the cruise and slam a couple and handles and off you go like you can in the Messer. The awesome thing about the Daimler is instant power on tap, great torque for sustained climb or carrying loads vertical, you can be worrying about your last puff of fuel one minute and suddenly flip it over in a roll and come up the other side bumping anything from 1500-1800hp in the blink of an eye and you just plain can't do that in most serial fighter types anywhere in the world. It's a great aircraft, even if you're going to give away something like 30km/h at combat altitude. Assuming you've got a good pilot.
Last edited:
just for you info the Sakae was a Nakajima engine end was in use on both Type 1 army fighter and Type 0 carrier fighter
you're joking with me this is not good or you reply seriously or i don't take more in considerations your reply
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Only the aircraft used in those tests. Test at the Curtiss factory and at Wright Patterson had different results
Because the WEP gave the aircraft some extra speed but more importantly extra ACCELERATION. WEP is not going to help you in close quarters.
And you'll find that eventually that practice was dropped because for the effort put into waxing an aircraft under combat conditions, little was gained.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well what else do you want me to show you???? I quoted an AVG pilot, several sources from aviation authors and quote from a factory report. If you don't believe it, so be it
a part the Shilling opinions that are away from facts
all the other are in agree with me not with you
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well the man actually flew the airplane. He may be opinionated but I think based on his flying experience he probably has every right to be.
I don't understand your last comment - all the sources I listed proved my claim about the P-40s top speed. As posed by Knegel their is data collected by the RAF that shows a slower top speed but nothing is mentioned about the condition and age of the aircraft. I know on this site we have test from Wright Patterson that confirm the higher speeds of the P-40.
Again I stick by original statement - in close quarters 20 mph is hardly noticeable. Vanir brings a good example of that in his posts about the Ki-84 tests. He summed it up perfectly...
"The only thing which limits maximum level speed is thrust to drag, not weight. What weight limits is acceleration, which is torque versus weight. The best measure of torque/weight is sustained climb. The Messer for example was always relatively light for the torque output of the Daimler, so always, always throughout the war had a superb sustained climb."
he flew the P-40 not the others yuo can't comapre if you known only a side and he is wrong in many opinion in the list.
i recapitulate:
you in the 31st post writed "Take a P-40B and compare it to a Zero or an Oscar. You're looking at a 30 - 40 mph difference between these aircraft"
you confirmed this in 34th post "Depending on the model and altitude its actually more like 30 - 40 mph"
me in 35th post writed "Model 21 and P-40C around 15 mph Model 21 and P-40B around 20 (330 to 345 and 350) best altitude around 15k' for all three"
you in 36th post "P-40B had a top speed of 352 mph. The Tomahawk IIA 347 mph. The AM62 Model 21 330 mph, 282 at se level, the Ki-43IA - 308 mph. Again depends on altitude..."
me in 37th post "so at that altitude there is a 30/40 mph advantage?"
you in 38th post "Look at the numbers - A Model 21 Zero is barely making 300 mph at sea level. The P-40 is seeing 350 at altitude. The Oscar's KI-43Ia barely makes 300 at altitude."
me in 39th "350 mph P-40B or C at SL? what's your source??"
you don't reply a this you don't give only a source on speed on SL of P-40B/C (and you can't they go to SL near same speed of Zeke and Oscar)
The Zero and Oscar engine was was actually the same engine.
Vmax no official definition, it just mean "max velocity", and i think in the way i did use it, its clear that not the terminal velocity was meant. Vmax mainly get used in car and bike tuning and here for sure the maximum speed that the vehicle can reach by its own power is the correct description.
This is from the following page: "The top speed (Vmax) of any aircraft depends on two factors: available thrust and flat plate equivalent (drag)."
VmaxProbe
Om the following page they decripe Vmax as Basic Clean Aircraft Maximum in CAS.
Aviation Abbreviations And Acronyms
Your understanding of Vmax fit better to VNE (Never-exceed Speed), or VCMAX (Active Maximum Control Speed).
Who cares?? That is splitting hairs, anyway.
I think as long as they can use Vmax in the sence of maximum level speed, i can do as well.
No?? You should tell that the Typhoon pilots, the 109F pilots, P47 pilots and also the P38 pilots who got into bad trouble when they was in high speed dive.
Ahao, so we assume that we can use the same AoA, although the weight did increase, we also can assume that the AoA never change at all, or that all planes have exact the same power.
Fact is that at same speed the AoA MUST increase when the weight increase, to maintain the same height.
A higher AoA result in a higher drag, ergo, More weight = less speed(level flight).
Thats why the 190A8 is less fast than the 190A6.
Looks like you dont know how speed tests are made.
Do you never got the idea to dive before you start to test the Vmax(level flight)??
Normaly you dive to the expected Vmax(level flight), then you level out and see if the plane still accelerate, if yes, dive a little more and do the same again, until the plane decelerate when you be in level flight. Somewhere between the last speed, where you still did accelerate and the speed where the plane did decelerate, the real Vmax(level flight) will be.
As more "deceleration/acceleration" tests you make, as close you will get to the real Vmax.
As i wrote before Vmax is not all, specialy not the Vmax at best altitude. Still 32km/h is very much.
Do you know why some german pilots wanted to go back to the 109G in early 1944??(actually i dont know if thts true, never did hear about it), its cause the 109G was the faster plane, since it was allowed to use WEP and specialy in higher altitude it always was the faster plane. And all over the 109 was the way better turnfighter, while the 190A, after its initial success vs the SpitV turned to be a attacker only. The 190A in 1943 and specialy 44/45 was like the P40E in 1941/42. A good airframe, with a poor engine.
It couldnt outclimb anything, it couldnt outturn anything and it couldnt outrun anyting(in case of the 190 the number of slower planes decreased fast).
btw, the engine management in the 190 was even better than that of the 109.
Dont know what you have with the La-5/7 or the Yak-9U, appart from very high altitude, they was excelent and fast fighters, as fast as the Allied planes. Also the Ki-84 was almost as fast as the P51D (in the pacific and after the war they didnt use high octan fuel). 363mph Sea level and 427mph @ 23000feet for the Fank, 367mph Sea level, 430mph @23000 feet and 440mph @ 25000feet.
Of course they had trouble to intercept the Frank. Intercept mean that you take off when you get aware of the enemy, not waiting for him in high alt. Its even difficult to intercept a 109E with an P51 in that way.
Greetings,
Knegel
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And again, my comment...
"Depending on the model and altitude its actually more like 30 - 40 mph"
I think the numbers show that. BTW Somewhere on here someone posted data to show that the P-40B's top speed at sea level was just under 300 mph, I don't remember the exact number.
These numbers were comparing the Zero, Oscar and P-40. I think that speed difference is valad, especially in comparing the Oscar...
a this point you're sure joking so i close discussion with you
I guess they had at least same good condition like any service plane. Why would they tests a completely worn out plane??
The RAF also stated that they never could reach the factory datas, even the USAF couldnt reahc them.
Acceleration and Vmax are the different sides on the same medal. When i fly a worn out 109G and then a brand new good adjusted any waxed 109G, most probably you will find differents like 20mph in the Vmax(if not more).
Then of course also the acceleration is different.
btw, the main goal of WEP is not acceleration. With only a little altitude you can accelerate every plane up to therminal velocity. WEP is usefull to keep a higher Vmax than the enemy after the initial acceleration(most probably in dive). To use WEP at slowspeed would be stupid and dangerus, cause the engine then tends to overheat way faster. So you would need to open the radiators more(if possible) and this would increase the drag.
That practice got dropped in some germans squads, cause they had to few mechianics and so no time to do this. A P51, like any other plane with laminar wings needed a clean surface even more.
According to you, it was nonsence to get rid of the MG131 bubbles, to close the wheel doors. Actually it seems like people around Messerschmitt initially had the same opinion. The they later did clean up the G6 airframe over the G6AS, G10 to the K, make me believe they did learn the lesson.
Greetings,
Knegel
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm not joking, I showed the numbers and sources, its your call...
Afaik the AVG mainly did face the Ki-27, and rarely the Ki-43, if at all and never the Zero.
Schillings speed statements fit to this.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually the USAAF was on site when the tests were done - they witnessed them.
Ok - but I can tell you the waxing isn't buying you much, a few knots perhaps, but that's about it.
And at that point WEP will enable you to accelerate beyond an established Vmax for a short period
No one ever said anyting about using WEP at low speeds...
And eventually the AAF dropped it as well
There nothing wrong with cleaning up an airframe if it was cost effictive to get the desired extra performance out of the aircraft. Lockheed for example tested a P-38 with paddle blade propellers and its performance was greatly increased, but someone determied the performance improvement by this alteration wasn't worth closing down the production line.
Again my point - if you're maneuving at airspeeds above 300 mph in close quarters you're not going to notice a 20 mph speed advantage. I've been there and seen it.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The AVG started seeing the Ki-43 towards the end of their operations as a unit of the CAF.
The Oscar 1 wasnt that slow!! it had the same max speed like the Zero 2.
So Sea level speed was around 460km/h vs 475km/h of the P40C.
As higher the planes did fly as better the Ki-43-1 got, in comparison to the P40C. Due to the higher weight, smaler drag and higher engine power, the P40C always could outaccelerate the Oscar1, same like the Zero 2 in a shallow dive, while the initial acceleration was way better with the Japanese planes.
Since the allied pilots fast got aware of this, they just kept the speed up and avoided tight fights and they was happy not to have a 20mph slower airplane.
