This is in the present tense, are they still trying to squeeze the last few MPH out of the P-39?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This is in the present tense, are they still trying to squeeze the last few MPH out of the P-39?They always test the newer models against the P-39D-1 which is the heaviest and lowest powered model produced in 1942.
This is in the present tense, are they still trying to squeeze the last few MPH out of the P-39?
However, he chose the smaller Zuisei to reduce weight. Even so, it was estimated that the Zuisei would make the new fighter 50 percent heavier than the Type 96 fighter. However, installing the Kinsei would have produced a much greater increase, 70 to 80 percent. Horikoshi felt this would be unacceptable to pilots.
You'll notice that Horikoshi's NEXT aircraft, the J2M Raiden, had a more powerful engine, more on par with Allied rivals. It also had self-sealing tanks and pilot armor.
Its not really my statement. I was quoting Akira Yoshimura's Zero Fighter and I don't know where he found it. Has anyone read Horikoshi Jiro's "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter", which was translated into English in 1992? I would guess that might be the best source for Horikoshi's thinking in early 1938. It seems plausible that Horikoshi in 1938 was not planning an aircraft with the A6M8's fuselage, still less the slimmer Ki-100 design. Thus a 1938 Kinsei proposal would have been heavier than a late 1942 proposal after the Kinsei 60 series became available and designs such as the Fw 190 had been reported.My understanding is contrary to this; Horikoshi favoured the Kinsei, but it was the navy's insistence that power loading not exceed 5.5lb per hp so the Zuisei was fitted. Horikoshi's fears were surrounding the low power output of the Zuisei. It was the navy's insistence on fitting the Sakai.
Its not really my statement. I was quoting Akira Yoshimura's Zero Fighter and I don't know where he found it. Has anyone read Horikoshi Jiro's "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter", which was translated into English in 1992? I would guess that might be the best source for Horikoshi's thinking in early 1938. It seems plausible that Horikoshi in 1938 was not planning an aircraft with the A6M8's fuselage, still less the slimmer Ki-100 design. Thus a 1938 Kinsei proposal would have been heavier than a late 1942 proposal after the Kinsei 60 series became available and designs such as the Fw 190 had been reported.
HiNow, you could be right of course because as I mentioned, the information I have is what I've read and have a couiple of sources saying the same, but digging a little deeper I have found a few sources stating what you have read. Sourcing Horikoshi himself is probably the best, as you state. One book I have read states that the navy selected the Sakai because neither Mitsubishi engine were sufficiently reliable at the time.
As for the aircraft's design and predicting what will eventuate, obviously the navy issued the type's replacement spec in 1941 as 16-Shi, which was not progressed with, but 17-Shi, which Horikoshi produced the A7M was issued in 1942, which all demonstrates that the A6M was not to have remained in service for as long as it did.
Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?However, the book does make a few claims that are improbable, for example on page 131 he claims that the Zero downed 17 Spitfires over Colombo in 1942,
HiIs it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?
Hi
'Eagles of Mitsubishi, The Story of the Zero Fighter' by Jiro Horikoshi (translated by Shojiro Shido and Harold N Wantiez), Orbis 1982, has the following:
Certainly as many USAAF pilots claimed to shoot down Me109s in the first months of the Pacific war when all the Japanese were operating were radial engined fightersIs it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?
So a 38 to 1 success ratio in one engagement?, find that hard to believe.Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?
38 to 1 ratio?So a 38 to 1 success ratio in one engagement?, find that hard to believe.
38 to 1 ratio?
What in the hell are you talking about?
Been doing a little research on this and agree this 21 to 1 is BS. No doubt it was a one-sided battle.Hi
Probably not as they claimed even more Hurricanes. FAA Fulmars were there so they may have confused that type with the Fulmar, even if it looked nothing like it. He is probably just repeating stories he heard at the time. There were about 50 Hurricanes plus 2 sqns of FAA Fulmars available I believe. The text is below:
View attachment 650868
Mike
I have been looking for that article for years. It is the only article I have ever read that mentions the Zeros getting lost and failing to rtb. Printed a copy this time.Been doing a little research on this and agree this 21 to 1 is BS. No doubt it was a one-sided battle.
Thank you for that document. I missed the notification that would have come with this, so my apologies for the late response. I've read some of it and will thoroughly digest it shortly.Attached is the full file that your document was extracted from and you will note two differences. Whoever copied the pages you posted did a far better job than the National Archives of Australia when they copied the file, and there is no note on the bottom of the first page.
Incidentally Sydney Cotton also designed the famous WW1 Sidcot flying suit and had a lot to do with developing aerial photography