As has been pointed out, it is balancing act. Trading one thing for another to get the best possible performance you can. There is no perfect design that has "all the good things you need."
Last edited:
KI-43 ?
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As has been pointed out, it is balancing act. Trading one thing for another to get the best possible performance you can. There is no perfect design that has "all the good things you need."
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Out of all of the fighters that participated in WWII, not a single one could be considered perfect.
There were quite a few that came close.
If you wanted massive firepower, you gave up both range and maneuverability.
If you wanted range and maneuverability, you gave up massive firepower.
Creating a blend of both was a balancing act.
- Thread starter
- #143
Then who did it best id said either us and the p-51D or you and the cane mk2
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I would have to say that the later Spitfire marks and the P-51D were as close to a perfect fighter as one could get.
They had a well balanced blend of:
range, maneuverability and firepower.
They had a well balanced blend of:
range, maneuverability and firepower.
- Thread starter
- #145
The 51d though hurt for turning though your spit truns better
You are again stating what was obviously wanted. The "best" sort of looks like this formula (range + power + armaments = performance/ best). The thing is if you make a change to any part of the formula you generally have to take something away from another part if you want to keep performance the same.
A classic "up motor" was the A to B/C Mustang. The A had an Allison V12 that ran out of power at about 20k. Insert the wonderful two stage Rolls Royce (Packard built) Merlin and wow did performance go up. So did weight as the new engine burned more gas / made more power so the fuel tanks were enlarged and the cooling system was enhanced (both added weight to the structure).
Also realize adding water gives more power for about 10-20 minutes, but your airplane carries the water tank, plumbing, and pump for it (added weight) whether you are using it or not. Water weights about 8.3lbs a gallon, and say you need 40-50 gallons it's not an insignificant amount of weight/space.
Welcome to the world of aircraft designers even today.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Thanks!
And that is what we have been explaining. The engineers gave a lil here and there to get the best they could at what they desired. Neither is perfect in everything.
- Thread starter
- #149
I wouldnt call the merlin wonderful at least the allison could fly upside down
The Spit knowledgeable will clarify when that problem was rectified, however the Merlin Mustang never suffered that problem to my knowledge.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Anyone remember the drama " Piece of Cake"? I remember a scene which a burned out Spitfire pilot took to flying upside down.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The later Merlin carbs were pressurized so they didn't starve.
Only the early Merlins did.
- Thread starter
- #153
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You do know that the Hurricane's Merlin had that same problem early on, right?
- Thread starter
- #155
buffnut453
Captain
Of all the WW2 fighters, I think the Spitfire demonstrated the most growth capacity without overly sacrificing handling and performance. It's one of very few fighters (the Me109 being the most prevalent other type) that saw continual front-line service from September 1939 thru VJ day in 1945.
To put the Spitfire's growth in context, here are some comparisons between the earliest and last Spitfire variants:
Spitfire MkIa
Max Weight: 5,935 lb (2,692 kg)
Max Speed: 367 mph (582 km/h) at 18,600 ft (5,669 m)
Ceiling: 34,400 ft
Range: 248 miles (400 km)
Armament: 8x .303 machine guns
Seafire Mk.47:
Max Weight: 12,500lb (overload condition)
Max Speed: 451mph at 20,000ft or 433mph at 24,000ft
Ceiling: 43,100ft
Range: 405 miles plus 15 minutes combat
Armament: 4x 20mm cannon plus up to 1,000lb bombs
The basic Spitfire airframe had the growth potential to enable these massive performance improvements. However, it took a lot of skill and design acumen to deliver this degree of improvement. Some airframes simply don't have that growth capacity (e.g. Hurricane).
To put the Spitfire's growth in context, here are some comparisons between the earliest and last Spitfire variants:
Spitfire MkIa
Max Weight: 5,935 lb (2,692 kg)
Max Speed: 367 mph (582 km/h) at 18,600 ft (5,669 m)
Ceiling: 34,400 ft
Range: 248 miles (400 km)
Armament: 8x .303 machine guns
Seafire Mk.47:
Max Weight: 12,500lb (overload condition)
Max Speed: 451mph at 20,000ft or 433mph at 24,000ft
Ceiling: 43,100ft
Range: 405 miles plus 15 minutes combat
Armament: 4x 20mm cannon plus up to 1,000lb bombs
The basic Spitfire airframe had the growth potential to enable these massive performance improvements. However, it took a lot of skill and design acumen to deliver this degree of improvement. Some airframes simply don't have that growth capacity (e.g. Hurricane).
There is a s a lot of confusion between the -43 and the Zero. They did have roughly equivalent performance and were both difficult adversaries according to conversations I have had with pilots who flew against them. The Zero was of course primarily a naval fighter while the -43/ Hayabusa/Oscar was flown by the Japanese army. The lack of cooperation between those services is well documented
The Oscar was the primary fighter opposing the AVG in China as well as the successor 14th AAF. We called the -43/Hayabusa the Oscar in AAF terms. So when a report listed a fight with type "O" (which could easily be taken for either Zero or Oscar) it's easy to see how the confusion occurred. Especially so given the similar appearance and performance. So in reports of battle with the IJ Navy they were likely Zeros and with Oscars coming from land bases.
A long answer but it explains much confusion
The Oscar was the primary fighter opposing the AVG in China as well as the successor 14th AAF. We called the -43/Hayabusa the Oscar in AAF terms. So when a report listed a fight with type "O" (which could easily be taken for either Zero or Oscar) it's easy to see how the confusion occurred. Especially so given the similar appearance and performance. So in reports of battle with the IJ Navy they were likely Zeros and with Oscars coming from land bases.
A long answer but it explains much confusion
buffnut453
Captain
IIRC the Ki-43 wasn't recognized by the Allies as a discrete type, separate from the "Type 0", until late 1942 or perhaps even into 1943.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The KI-43 also operated in the Solomons in direct proximity with the A6M.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Not surprising. The Ki-43 only entered service in November 1941. The Allies had no information about it. Early reports of downed Japanese fighters referred to two types of Zero. One with cannon in the wings, the other with heavy machine guns in the nose.
