Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
32 km/h is less 9 meter for second so you need teens of seconds to go out of weapons range so i don't think it's a lot
Ah, very complicated,
say summer 43 NW Europe
Fastest, excluding Hawker Typhoon and Mustang I, which probably were fastest at low level, but I have not time to check their max speeds
From sea level to 6000ft Fw 190A-5
Juha
Okay firstly the Ki-43 uses a Nakajima engine, the Zero uses a Sakai engine.
Chemistry - Curtiss P-40
They list various models and ref the Hill AFB Museum
Quote from Erik Shilling, former Flying Tiger;
The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.
The P-40 (Erik Shilling; John Lundstrom; Steven Vincent; CDB100620)
In the book "P-40 Warhawk vs KI-43 Oscar By Carl Molesworth , page 10 It states somethin to the effect "The first production P-40 (serial number 39-156) rolled off the production line March 1940. This airplane along with the next two off the line were put through a series of tests and it was determined its top speed was 357 mph at 15,000 feet."
More....
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - USA
And
The specifications for the numerous P-40E-1 of 1941 (also Hawk 87A-4 and Kittyhawk IA), which are similar to the entire series of P-40E, K, and M models, are as follows (taken from The Complete Book of Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough): Max speed, 362 mph at 15,000 feet
Only the aircraft used in those tests. Test at the Curtiss factory and at Wright Patterson had different resultsHi,
Regarding the P40B/C, take a look to this page:
Perils P40 Archive Data
You will find that it rarely got over 340mph.
Because the WEP gave the aircraft some extra speed but more importantly extra ACCELERATION. WEP is not going to help you in close quarters.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??
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.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.
you're joking with me this is not good or you reply seriously or i don't take more in considerations your reply
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
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."
The Zero and Oscar engine was was actually the same engine.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.
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.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...
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.
And again, my comment...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)
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...
I guess they had at least same good condition like any service plane. Why would they tests a completely worn out plane??Only the aircraft used in those tests. Test at the Curtiss factory and at Wright Patterson had different results
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).Because the WEP gave the aircraft some extra speed but more importantly extra ACCELERATION. WEP is not going to help you in close quarters.
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.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.
I'm not joking, I showed the numbers and sources, its your call...a this point you're sure joking so i close discussion with you
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."
Actually the USAAF was on site when the tests were done - they witnessed them.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.
Ok - but I can tell you the waxing isn't buying you much, a few knots perhaps, but that's about it.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).
And at that point WEP will enable you to accelerate beyond an established Vmax for a short periodThen 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).
No one ever said anyting about using WEP at low speeds...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.
And eventually the AAF dropped it as wellThat 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.
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.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.
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.
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...