GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Please, enlighten us on which aircraft type (I assume Allied) downed the most enemy aircraft, then.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Please, enlighten us on which aircraft type (I assume Allied) downed the most enemy aircraft, then.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.
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.
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.
Huh? It was the coast watchers that provided early warning of incoming Japanese raids, so the P-39's were up at altitude waiting for the raiders. It was the Japanese that had no early warning system and were blind to incoming raids over New Guinea in 1942.(
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.
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.Other WWII fighters didn't have armor for their nose reduction gears.
Reading those reports can give a lot of "peripheral" information that makes you go, "Hmm!"
Like, why did the AAF stop testing maximum speed on the P-43 at 15,000 feet when it was supposed to operate from 20,000-25,000 feet? Hmm.
View attachment 607674
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.
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.
Other planes had engines in front of the pilot. Perhaps that's a reason for the armor there
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.
I thought the radio was so far aft to prevent interference from the engine?
Please, enlighten us on which aircraft type (I assume Allied) downed the most enemy aircraft, then.
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!
Not in 1942.
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.For an American made fighter it would have to be the P-51.
I thought the radio was so far aft to prevent interference from the engine?
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.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.
That's identified as the IFF in some cutaways.I think some P-39s and P-63s had some of their radio equipment behind the pilot's head;View attachment 607742View attachment 607743View attachment 607744
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.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. 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!"