Its in this test P-39 Performance Tests about 9 or 10 MPH depending on engine RPM
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Its in this test P-39 Performance Tests about 9 or 10 MPH depending on engine RPMHow did you come up with that speed loss figure?
Thanks for the verification....Its in this test P-39 Performance Tests about 9 or 10 MPH depending on engine RPM
EEDeeoot! No poken das schleepink Groundhog!!!The graph you posted displays the performance of the F6F-3 in a "combat" condition, meaning with underwing bomb racks and fuselage bomb shackles. The points you added display the speed of the P-39N in a "clean" condition with no racks or pylons mounted. Not really an apples to apples comparison.
Sure the P-39N had a decent enough top speed and climb rate but there are other qualities needed in a fighter in order to make it competitive in it's designed role and area of operation.
I would say it had the highest 'official' kill ratio of any American fighter, when flown by American pilots. And like all claims we can debate for centuries about the true validity of said claims but that's a different discussion all together.After scoping outDarrenW avatar, I watched a video about the Hellcat v. Zero. It stated that the Hellcat had the highest kill ratio of any fighter of WW 2. Is that correct?
Someone please add a like. Clean sweep!EEDeeoot! No poken das schleepink Groundhog!!!
Going by memory (I know, scary...), the F6F's loss to the Japanese were in the low hundreds whike they accrued over 5,000 claims, so the kill to loss ratio was fairly substantial.IIRC the claimed ratio was 18:1 for the Hellcat. I'm skeptical. It was certainly the highest claimed ratio. That and four dollars will get you a cup of mud at Starbucks.
I doubt Japanese loss documentation would back that up except for perhaps the special instance of the Philippine Sea battle.
Lead weights are used for ballast to get centre of gravity in the correct place. If you put in fuel tanks in there instead, once the tank is empty you're back to having a C of G issue.Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.
Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.
On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight and diameter, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.
Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.
Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.
On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.
I'm aware. But at least USE the weight for something. Even if it's a bunch of armor plates protecting nothing in particular, it's more useful than nothing. They could also sidestep this by reducing the fuel capacity in the wing tanks slightly and making the new fuselage tank much largerLead weights are used for ballast to get centre of gravity in the correct place. If you put in fuel tanks in there instead, once the tank is empty you're back to having a C of G issue.
Still not gonna work. Ballast is put as far back as possible, to minimise the amount of weight needed. Where you might need 100 lbs of weigh in the tail, you could need 3 or 4 times that much as armour plate.I'm aware. But at least USE the weight for something. Even if it's a bunch of armor plates protecting nothing in particular, it's more useful than nothing. They could also sidestep this by reducing the fuel capacity in the wing tanks slightly and making the new fuselage tank much larger
My point is, if you're adding dead weight to your aircraft for an engine that hasn't had all the kinks worked out, you already flunked up.
I don't know if you know anything about weight and balance but you can't effectively start adding weight, (be it ballast or armor plate) unless that weight can be installed along the "arm" where the C/G can be maintained within the C/G envelope and can be supported structurally within the aircraft. The other key is to install that ballast in a place within the arm so you use the least amount of weight possible. Using fuel to keep and aircraft within a C/G envelope is dangerous unless there is a method to burn off or transfer fuel in such a manner that the C/G envelope can be maintained. You also have to consider what is going to happen to the C/G after any armament is expelled.I'm aware. But at least USE the weight for something. Even if it's a bunch of armor plates protecting nothing in particular, it's more useful than nothing. They could also sidestep this by reducing the fuel capacity in the wing tanks slightly and making the new fuselage tank much larger
My point is, if you're adding dead weight to your aircraft for an engine that hasn't had all the kinks worked out, you already flunked up.
Agree totally. The Sakae was a great engine; but just didn't have the same development potential as the Kinsei. If Japan had produced the A6M8 in 1942 (and put in more armor and fuel tank protection--- possibly at the expense of range), the Zero would have been competitive at least by the time the A7M went into service (ideally around mid-1944).Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.
Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.
On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight and diameter, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.
Well, if you removed the nose armor...oh, wait.
Never mind...