Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greg, as usual you make a lot of sense. I should say despite my bagging of the Corsair that it was a very fine aircraft. Both the f6F and F4u were winners in that regard. but were they absolutely necessary? I tend now given SRs clarification about the limits on the F4f I am inclined to concede the hellcat was necessary to vital. Its a hard stretch to say that about the corsair though.
...
I think the Hellcat was hands down, the ace-maker of the PTO and the best we fielded in that theater at the time it was operational. At the same power settings, not in ram air, the Corsair and Hellcat flew the same speed. With ram, the Corsair was slightly faster, but not by much. I strongly believe the Corsair had an "optimistic" aiespeed indicator. Go gly in formation with one. He always indicates faster than the rest!
But, and here's the important part, it's just an opinion. They vary, like your mileage.
...
Interesting you bring up the notion of an F4F powered by an R-2000 (which was based on the R-1830 but re-fitted with R-1340 cylinders and pistons and an improved cylinder head).We have a few threads on this (or more than few) and there seems to be a bit of trouble with "stretching" an F4F. Like what engine are you going to use? The R-1830 didn't really go anywhere for several years and then staggered up to 1350hp for take-off and about 100hp more at altitude than the 1941-42 engines and that was in 1944/45
Changing to the R-2600 was looked at twice by Grumman and they decided that a new airframe was needed to get the Best out of the engine. Swapping a single stage 2 speed R-2600 for the existing two stage R-1830 means over 400lbs of engine weight. A bigger prop (or four blades if you don't want to change the landing gear much). A bigger tail to counter act the torque and..........
The first FM-2 with the 1300hp R-1820 9 cylinder radial was't delivered until August of 1943. later ones got the 1350hp engine with stronger crankshaft. But with only a single stage-two speed supercharger power was 1000hp at 16,600ft. performance at altitudes above 20,000 would be increasingly disappointing. What pasted over some of the differences in powerplant between the F4F-4 and the FM-2 was the FM-2 was about 650lbs lighter. In part due to the engine and in part due to having only 4 guns and in part????
Only other option is swiping R-2000s from C-54s, production doesn't exceed more than a couble dozen a month until June of 1942, yes perhaps they could have change the priority a bit. basically it was an R-1830 with a bore job. More power for take-off but power at altitude showed very little difference. 1100hp at 16,000ft military power for a 1590lb engine.
I am having trouble seeing where the stretch is going to occur.
I am risking going off topic but your view, whilst popular with this forum's membership, may not always be true. I feel sure that war is unpopular with most conscripts but officers may have other interests such as a desire for rapid promotion, so that 18th Century junior officers used to drink to "bloody wars and sickly seasons" How does 'promotion' work in the military? - Straight Dope Message Board.... snip...
People don't generally realize it, and REALLY didn't in the late 1960's, but the LAST people who want war are soldiers. They have to go fight and die! They want the politicians to succeed and avoid war. Politicians who vote for war should be among the first troops sent to the new front!
If it were that way, I bet we'd have a LOT fewer wars!
I am risking going off topic but your view, whilst popular with this forum's membership, may not always be true. I feel sure that war is unpopular with most conscripts but officers may have other interests such as a desire for rapid promotion, so that 18th Century junior officers used to drink to "bloody wars and sickly seasons" How does 'promotion' work in the military? - Straight Dope Message Board.
Even senior officers may need glory and it has been argued that Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf - Wikipedia wanted war in 1914 so that he would be allowed to marry his mistress Virginia Reininghaus, whose marriage needed to be annulled Was Conrad von Hötzendorf completely insane? Did his insanity start WWI? - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History. General Galtieri Leopoldo Galtieri - Wikipedia is a more recent example of someone on the boundary between the military and politics.
Then there are those who need funds. For example, we have Admiral Suetsugu remark on war with America "Certainly, even that is acceptable if it will get us a budget" Japan Prepares for Total War.
In fact, the Japanese armed forces in the 1930s can offer a fine collection of "peaceably inclined" officers such as Araki Sadao Sadao Araki - Wikipedia, Mutaguchi Renya Renya Mutaguchi - Wikipedia or Tsuji Masanobu Masanobu Tsuji - Wikipedia.
Much more worrying are the officers who advocate war now because they suspect that they will lose a war that is postponded. The classic examples are alleged to include several members of the Prussian General Staff of 1914, who feared the consequences of the development of Russian railways by 1917, and Admiral Nagano Osami in 1941, conscious of America's building program and Japan's oil shortage.
Hopefully, we will not have an American officer sometime in the 21st Century fearing the consequences of delaying a confrontation with rapidly increasing Chinese forces.
I must admit that almost all of my examples were pre-1945. Since 1945 and especially since 1949 Soviets explode atomic bomb - Aug 29, 1949 - HISTORY.com, everyone has known that a full scale war would only lead to promotion to a higher plane.As a former soldier, and combat veteran, I can assure you that Greg is correct. The vast majority of soldiers do not want war. From my experience the majority of your overzealous "Lets go to war" gung ho soldiers werethe first to shit themselves when the experienced combat first.
No one wants to leave their family, and possibly die. That does not mean you are not prepared to so, but you don't want to.
I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right there in wing loading, but the Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models. It probably got very slightly worse in later models, and was always very close to the Ki-43 in maneuverability.
Greg,
I can not believe you are making these statements with the information I have provided in
the AIRCRAFT PERFOMANCE section of Warbirdsforum.
Aircraft / Loaded weight / Wing area / Wing loading
A6M2 m21 / 5,313 lb. / 241.541 sq. ft. / 22.0 lb./sq. ft.
A5M4 / 3,680 lb. / 191.597 sq. ft. / 19.22 lb./sq. ft.
Ki.43-I / 4,515 lb. / 236.805 sq. ft. / 19.07 lb./sq. ft.
Ki.27a/b / 3,946 lb. / 199.777 sq. ft. / 19.75 lb./sq. ft.
The last three are monoplane aircraft capable of outturning the A6M2 up to their maximum
speeds. Taking into consideration aerodynamics, acceleration into the roll and their turning
ability, the Ki.27 has been listed by many historians as being the most maneuverable
monoplane fighter ever produced by any nation. The Ki.43-I not only outturned the A6M2,
it also could out roll it. This made it a harder aircraft to kill if the pilot was skilled and knew
you were there. Just ask Tommy McGuire.
The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire,
Pinsog,
Do you have documents proving this? And where can they be viewed?
Dead on the Bullseye you are Shortround.I believe (but could be wrong) that the Ki 43s better turning ability came from the combat or butterfly flap.
which changes not only the square footage but the lift co-efficient of the wing (at least until you get to the aileron).
Trying to fly at 300mph plus might be a bit of problem with the flaps deployed however????
I believe the combat setting was 8 degrees?
Wing loading is a very good place to start but planes that are close to each other might have other features or attributes that change things a few percent (actual lift co-efficient at angle of attack used for hard turn?)
There is no doubt in my mind that both the Corsair and the FW 190 were superior technologically to the Zero. Yet, in terms of historical and military importance, neither the German or the American a/c could hold a candle to the Zero. In the case of the corsair, it is hard to justify even its very existence, though at the time of its development, no-one could know this.
On a historical and military importance stance, I totally agree. "In the case of the corsair,
it is hard to justify its existence." WHAT THE #ELL ARE YOU SMOKING? 12 to 1 victory
ratio for any fighter seems to me to be justification for its existence.
But then again, that's just me.[/QUOTE]
The ditch the Corsair and F6F idea holds up well with hindsight. At the time expecting the Japanese to fail to field better fighters in numbers could have been a serious mistake.
How many threads do we have on a big wing KI 44 instead of mass production of the KI 43 in the last two/three years of the war?
That would be the Ki.44-III.
SPEED, speed is life and all military tests showed that the F4U had that ability over theIf they cant stretch the f4, then there is a better case for the F6f, but why then also proceed with the F4u
How much of the Zero's domination was due to pilots and/or poor tactics in the various air forces involved?The winner is: Zero.
The truth is the Zero would probably have dominated the skis over
everywhere until its weaknesses were found.
Fw 190A-1 finally decided to show up in August 1941.
How much of the Zero's domination was due to pilots and/or poor tactics in the various air forces involved?
I can't give an exact percentage because given the antiquated aircraft such a the P-26 in the
Philippines and other antiques that were thrown in the air against it this answer probably can't
even be calculated (at least not by my small mind).
If the P-40 long nose wasn't good enough for Europe in late 1940 compared to the Spit II but was good enough in the hands of experienced pilots in the Flying Tigers to handle Ki 43s about a year and half later (early Ki 43 used the same engine as the A6M2 Zero ) then what would have been the result of Flying Tigers flying Spit IIs? the Spits mightgranted not have stood up to the Chinese airfield conditions quite as well.
You partly answered your own question. No secret the P-40 just couldn't perform at the altitudes
needed for Europe. Location is everything. Imagine Mk.II Spitfires with sand filters in North Africa.
I don't think they would have the performance they had over England.
Or Zeros in Europe trying to fight 109Fs in 1941, 109s using similar tactics to the Flying Tigers? Use speed and dive and avoid truning fights?
This would have been very interesting. I'm not sure the A6M2s would have faired as well in
Europe...? One of the main reasons the Zero was so dangerous in 1940/1942 was its range.
It could show up anywhere. It was sort of like the Mustang in Europe in that respect.
I would also note the Spitfire V was upgraded twice in allowable boost on the Merlin 45 engine. When first introduced it was limited to 9lbs boost instead of the 12lbs used in the Merlin III. at some point in 1941 it was allowed to use 12lbsl boost and picked up roughly 12-14mph in speed at any altitude below about 18,000ft. In Jan 1942 the allowable combat boost was raised to 15lbs
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg
I might have to pick your brain on these boost ratings someday Shortround. My limited research in
this area came up with that the Merlin 45 was initially cleared for +12 lbs. in February 1941. On
3 January 1942 the boost limit was raised to +16 lbs. (1,515 hp./11,500 ft./3 min.). And then
later the Merlin 45M was cleared for +18 lbs. I don't have a date for this last boosting clearance.
The higher boosting levels usually only affected low and low-medium altitudes.
But most power charts and performance charts from later dates show 16lbs of boost. At altitudes under about 13,000ft this was good for about 25mph (?) more than 9lbs boost.
Speeds are for England or Europe and not tropics.