Maneuverability vs Speed

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
The Fulmar II was about 10-12mph slower than Ki-43 at about 6-7000ft.
They rarely (if ever?) ran into each other but a lot speed comparisons that don't take into account altitude can be misleading.
Click to expand...

I agree with the bolded part especially, I was just posting the same thing upthread a little... but the problem with the Fulmar vs. a Ki-43, is while it's only a little slower, it's also completely outmatched in maneuverability. So what advantage does it have? Firepower only matters if you can get your guns on the enemy plane. Against the A6M obviously it's both quite a bit slower and outmaneuvered.

How was a Fulmar in a dive? I doubt it had a great roll rate just due to it's large size. I've never seen roll data for the Ki-43 though..


CR 42 is more like what it actually faced. I think most of it's victims were planes like Z.506, Z.1007, He 111, SM.82, Ro.43, and sometimes CR 42, G.50, MC 200, Ju 87. They had trouble catching Ju 88 and SM.79 though it looks like they got a few. They had real trouble if they encountered MC.202 and Bf 109. Not sure if they ever met Re 2000 series though that would be an interesting match.

In the Pacific, I would think Fulmar could catch and kill E.13, probably H6K. I would think H8K might be a problem. F1M might also be a problem as they were for some US fighter pilots. A6M2-N floatplanes would probably be a challenge but speed at least would be in the same ballpark. A6M2 or A6M3 clearly was a bit too much, as would Ki-43 IMO, let alone Ki-61 or Ki-44. I think the Fulmar would be challenged to shoot down G4M, Ki-48 or Ki-49, but could probably catch Ki-21 or G3M.

Shortround6 said:
Many of the fighters and bombers in 1940-41 were 20mph or more slower at 5-7,000ft than they were at best altitude (12-16,000ft).
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with that, and that kind of leads into another thread i want to start about compiling better stats on WW2 military aircraft.
 
GregP said:
Most of the service Fireflys were about as slow as the early ones just from crap hanging on them.
Click to expand...

The rockets were either in the standard long rails or on these "trays"'


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
316 mph Firefly looks pretty bad, 367-386 mph is certainly viable in a naval context.
Click to expand...
Make sure you are comparing the right MK of Firefly. The early ones got an engine close to that of MK XII Spitfire, later ones got hundreds of HP more and got a new radiator rather than this.



Later ones got 4 bladed props to hand the extra power.
 
Yeah I figured it was something like that. I was hoping somebody has stats on the performance of different versions. I've been unable to find any.



I kinda like the 'look' of the Firefly. It looks pretty 'butch'. Even with the under-nose scoop. Later versions look more modern. But it also has some traits ... the odd shape of the wings, of course the two-seat cockpit, tailfin, which give it that unfortunate 'design by committee' look that so many FAA aircraft have.

What is that tidbit hanging off the trailing edge of the wing, just behind the gun farings?
 
According to William Green's Fighters Vol 2, the Firefly FRI with a Griffon IIB of 1730 HP had a top speed of 316 MPH at 14,000 ft. The Firefly FR MKIV with a Griffon 74 of 2245HP had a top speed of 386 MPH at 14,000. Oddly enough the FRI had a time to 10,000 ft of 5 min 45 sec and the FR MKIV had a time of 7 min 9 sec (possible typo?).

What would the F2A have been like if we had added 500 HP? No doubt it would have been regarded by the Japanese as an absolute terror. The FM-2 with the 1350 HP R-1820 is almost in that category.

The Firefly did not enter service until the middle of 1944. So the answer to the obvious question of "Why would the RN even try to build a better Fulmar?' is "Because they already had Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs to do the air-to-air work."
 
i hope for you that the original language edition is better, just not take for good info on not english speaking aircraft
 
Yeah I figured, kinda for nostalgia and maybe art. I used to have a lot of these kinds of 'WW2 aircraft' books but they don't seem to be so common since the 20th Century.
 
A lot of us got started on William Green's books.
Sometimes the accuracy is a little off?
The small 5.5in X 5in books are not real detailed on each plane, but were some of the first ones to show most of the odd balls, like the Piaggio P-119. Sometimes you don't know if the flight numbers are real or estimated although he did try to put that in most of the time.

They are a good encyclopedia/quick reference but not the last word.

He may have been been the source for the 109K having a pair of 15mm MG 151s as cowl guns and a 30mm MK 103 cannon through the prop
 
He also did books on Floatplanes and Flying Boats. I think the Bombers book only covered the German ones and the series stopped after that. There was also a WWI series, but by J.M.Bruce rather than Green. I bought Vol 4 of Fighters way back in the 60's when its price of around $3 seemed like alot of money and acquired others over a number of years on ebay.

They are the most handy way to look up some basics and pack a lot in for their very small size but don't tell you everything. The neat thing about them is that they cover very obscure aircraft. Greene's Warplanes of the Third Reich is basically the same thing in terms of detail, only covering more far more sub-types and limited to Germany.

Prices of used copies vary from absurdly cheap to insanely expensive. For example, you can get Vol 1 and Vol 4 of Fighters and Vol 7 of Bombers on ebay right now for the total price of $16.99 including shipping (but not sales tax), which is about as reasonable as it gets. Vol 4 covers US fighters and Vol 1 covers Aussies, Belgium, Bohmeia-Moravia, Finland, France, and some Germans. Note these are countries that BUILT fighters, not just bought and operated them. Did you know that Finland built Fokker D.XXI under license, another radial engined fighter of their own design, and also one that was sort of a copy of the BF-109? Where else would you find that?
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Jeez the float planes book has six volumes !?
Click to expand...
No, the Floatplanes book is Vol 6
Flying Boats is Vol 5
Fighters are Volumes 1 through 4
Bombers and recon aircraft are Volumes 6 through 10
I do not think that there is any coverage of US bombers; Germany alone took up part of Vol 8, and all of Vol 9 and 10.

Geeze! I just figured out I have two complete sets of Vol 1 though 4 as well as an extra Vol 1, 3 and 4. It often is easier and cheaper to buy extra ones from a buyer than that just the ones you need.

I see there is a seller on ebay that has the Floatplanes book AND Vol 2 of Fighters (British) for $12.95 including shipping. That sounds like a real good deal.
 
Last edited:
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Ah that bad? Dang. I just bought the first 3 volumes for like $40. Maybe I'll end up giving it to a friend.
Click to expand...
The WIlliam Greene book aren't bad. They have a lot of good information. My copy of Famous Fighters of the Second World War is circa 1962.

My bet is there were a lot more guys around in 1962 for reference who knew the planes than there are now. The only people I trust as far as numbers go these days are the guys who fly them. And THEY aren't operating at Military weights or power settings. I have a friend who owns a P-51D. He cruises at economy settings after takeoff and initial climb. They don't 'even have to clear the engines for 15 minutes every hour because they are burning 100LL avgas and the plugs don't foul automatically. That also means they can;t get WWII hp numbers due to lower-than-specified-PN fuel. But, since the warbirds are generally much lighter than stock, they still get great performance.

Spot-checking the WWII pilots, I see about a 50% correct recall rate on numbers. About half of the old guys remember the numbers as a bit higher than they were. That is, the planes could have made those numbers, but they didn't operationally because you had to push the engines too hard to get the numbers. Nobody did routine climbs at WER. If you went to WER for any but a very brief accidental bump, the crew chief had to change the engine!
 
Last edited:
That's what SOP called for in most areas.

It's why I've said many times that WEP was for when you were about to die. Otherwise, Mil power was the max you would use.

Nobody SAID you couldn't use WER when necessary, but if you did so very often, you;d be a VERY unpopular guy with the mechanics.
 

Yeah I'm sorry but this obviously wasn't the case in the more remote theaters in the earlier parts of the war. They didn't have sufficient spare engines to change it every time they boosted to WEP, and clearly many units did boost that high (and a good bit higher) quite often.

Notably, the American memo about the British use of Allison-engined Mustangs notes routine use of overboost up to 70" Hg (14" higher than the official WEP setting) and the Dec 1942 Allison memo described boosting of that high (70") or at 66" in both Australia and the Middle East. They weren't replacing engines every time they did that, they would certainly have run out of them. Maybe they changed spark plugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
22K
Ivan1GFP
I
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
119
Aeroweanie
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register