GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Please, enlighten us on which aircraft type (I assume Allied) downed the most enemy aircraft, then.
Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Oh no!!! They're talking about removing my armour plate and reducing my weight again!!!! Do I really look that overweight? All this discussion about my weight and ability to climb is affecting my ego. Time for another session with my therapist. MAKE THE BAD MEN STOP!!!!!!!
Attachments
Are you implying that our esteemed allies on the eastern front would stoop so low as to over-claim air-to-air kills? Tsk, tsk, come on now, be nice!It might be the American made fighter that claims the most enemy planes shot down in WWII, but it is certainly not the one that actually shot down the most enemy planes.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Delete those 100lb plates right behind the propeller. Plane would need reballasting by moving the radio up from the tail cone to above the engine right behind the pilot, or some other means. After all, Bell was able to balance the plane with both the 37mm cannon and the 20mm cannon which weighed 140lbs less. Other WWII fighters didn't have armor for their nose reduction gears.
Not in 1942.
To be honest, and using 20/20 hind sight, I'd drop the armor behind the oil tank and replace the 37mm with another .50cal. Save another 200lbs.
Of course not. Their reduction gears were integral to the engine and not vulnerable from the rear quarter unless the entire engine was penetrated. A hit from the front would likewise take out the engine, likely allowing pilot survival.
Propeller driveshafts are notorious for having balance and torsional flexing problems leading to fatigue failures. A piston engine doesn't rotate smoothly, but in a series of impulses, like a hammer drill. Now connect that to a smoothly rotating propeller via a rotary tuning fork subject to 1100 HP worth of torque impulses at 3,000 RPM which passes right under the pilot's seat. Now imagine at full throttle this contraption takes a hit to the reduction gearbox, which either decouples the propeller, instantly way overreving and blowing the engine, or seizes the gearbox, snapping the shaft with the same result. Given that the engine is practically in the cockpit, and emergency egress is awkward at best, what does that say for survivability? Armor that gearbox, but "don't give me a P39!"
Last edited:
top speed of the P43 was listed at 352-356 at 25,000 feet. I wish they had given time to climb up to 30,000 feet along with top speed at 30,000 feet. I like the P43 myself. If it had fuel tanks (just regular tanks that didn't leak, not to mention self sealing) and a bit of pilot armor I think it would have done well against the Zero and KI43 in the Pacific using hit and run tactics.
It's hard to tell if the graph was testing or extrapolation neither the graph nor the report have dates on them.
The report only gives 339 at 15,000' as the max speed.
Another mystery...
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,971
- Jun 25, 2013
Other planes had engines in front of the pilot. Perhaps that's a reason for the armor there
I thought the radio was so far aft to prevent interference from the engine?
I think some P-39s and P-63s had some of their radio equipment behind the pilot's head;
For an American made fighter it would have to be the P-51.
Overclaiming was hardly unique to either the Soviets or to the Eastern Front.
In 1942 over New Guinea.
And there it is. The Bell plant at IAG. Used to do overnights in IAG.
What's your data source? I always heard the Hellcat and the Spitfire held the top spots.
EMI shielding, like everything else evolves over time. Metal jacketed resistor spark plugs, shielded ignition harnesses, generator noise filters, and grounded electronic chassis enclosures each play their part.
That
In the WW2 era radios were usually two different parts, receiver and transmitter, one was much heavier and delicate than the other.
That has the receiver mounted right over the engine, I think that's actually the transmitter, or the IFF.
The receiver were usually mounted on bungee cords, etc., and as far from the engine as they could be located.
I may have the receiver and transmitter confused as to which was heavier, and delicate, but in most WW2 aircraft they were separate assemblies, and sometimes mounted in separate locations.
That's identified as the IFF in some cutaways.
In the WW2 era radios were usually two different parts, receiver and transmitter, one was much heavier and delicate than the other.
That has the receiver mounted right over the engine, I think that's actually the transmitter, or the IFF.
The receiver were usually mounted on bungee cords, etc., and as far from the engine as they could be located.
I may have the receiver and transmitter confused as to which was heavier, and delicate, but in most WW2 aircraft they were separate assemblies, and sometimes mounted in separate locations.
Last edited:
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
A hit in the reduction gearbox is the same whether it was mounted on the engine or remotely like the P-39. No other reduction gearboxes were armored.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
