Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All the planes were tested and performance figures adjusted to standard day conditions. Planes in combat with each other all flew in the same atmosphere. The faster plane in standard day conditions will still be the faster plane in hot day conditions.Yes, but with a significant supercharger advantage and a super lightweight and high lift airframe. Superior power giving superior thrust/weight, and superior L/D at altitude.
What other aircraft had a remote or separate gearbox like the P-39? P-63 ?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.
None that i know of.What other aircraft had a remote or separate gearbox like the P-39? P-63 ?
All the planes were tested and performance figures adjusted to standard day conditions. Planes in combat with each other all flew in the same atmosphere. The faster plane in standard day conditions will still be the faster plane in hot day conditions.
Piaggio P-119None that i know of.
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.
What's your data source? I always heard the Hellcat and the Spitfire held the top spots.
That
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.
But it's still Allied...Spitfire was not an American built aircraft.
Thought that distinction went to the Corsair.Hellcat had the highest kill ratio of planes in US service during WWII.
I'm not really all that knowledgeable on the Shorts Stirling, but I'm not sure what you mean by the 9000 + pounds of "good ideas" from the Air Ministry.Short Stirling + 112' wing span - 9000+ lbs of "good ideas" from the air ministry - 3° incidence by undercarriage extension = rather good bomber
It seemed most of the desired area of performance sought was speed and climb. It would appear the turbochargers were added as the design evolved.I don't believe it was designed as a low altitude aircraft. It was supposed to have higher performance than aircraft then in production and the performance of fighters in development.
What would that have entailed starting around 1940-1941?To beat an old drum of mine, putting the big wing on the B-26 was the error. Instead, the AAF, and Navy should have started addressing adapting to faster flying, and landing, aircraft, which was the future.
The XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 are responses the the Air Corp's 1939 request R-40C for an improved fighter (speed, firepower, etc.) And the XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 were designed around the P&W X-1800 engine.On the XP-54
It seemed most of the desired area of performance sought was speed and climb. It would appear the turbochargers were added as the design evolved.
I believe that GregP has USN statistics. Maybe he can post then again.But it's still Allied...
Thought that distinction went to the Corsair.
And the tricky part, is to take into consideration the span of service and such.
Types like the SBD had an impressive kill to loss ratio and while I don't have the numbers handy, I beleive the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service had one of the most impressive kill to loss ratios of any type.
But it's still Allied...
Thought that distinction went to the Corsair.
And the tricky part, is to take into consideration the span of service and such.
Types like the SBD had an impressive kill to loss ratio and while I don't have the numbers handy, I beleive the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service had one of the most impressive kill to loss ratios of any type.
It should have been anticipated. Upgrades to the B-17 (B-29), and the A-20 (A-26), B-26, P-80. They should update primarily training. Handling increased take-off and landing speeds are not difficult if the operator understands and is familiar the required techniques. In 1940-41 time frame studies and tests should have been made so that training could be implemented quickly. As for the Navy, they should be studying how to improve efficiency and safety of carrier deck operations and how to handle heavier and faster aircraft. Instead they were busy making advance aircraft compatible with aircraft carriers designed to carry biplanes. Of course both services were up to their butt in alligators at the time.What would that have entailed starting around 1940-1941?
On the He 177
I'm curious if the Jumo would have been a better choice than the DB 601? From what I was reading about the German engine design, it seemed the best configured for higher coolant pressure which would make radiators smaller?
What other aircraft had a remote or separate gearbox like the P-39? P-63 ?
Did Soviet P-39's ever encounter Finnish Buffaloes?