Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
II suspect, in reality, the RAF would have accepted a rubber-band engine if it delivered the required level of performance.
They basically flew rings around the Luftwaffe.
For the 1000 hp at 21,000, I was using the graph for the F4F-3 on wwiiaircraft performance, it must include ram to reach that figure. Same graph drops to 860 at 25,000. The single P36B shows 317 mph at 17,000 on 950 hp so there was obviously improvement left in the P36.
Looks like the P40B would have been a welcome addition to Darwin when the Japanese were coming in above the P40's ceiling, hence he need for Spitfires. They also said the Japanese fighters and bombers came in above the P40's ceiling in the Philippine invasion. At Guadalcanal only the Wildcats were capable of intercepting the high altitude, well above what the P39's could climb to
How, in your opinion does the P40B stack up against the Spitfire II and early Me109?
I see it a little differently, the tests were in November 1939, by the time the Hawk arrived diverted from French orders everything had already changed a lot, especially regarding props and fuels. As for V 12s being superior in the eyes of the RAF, they quite clearly were at that time, any radial engine plane had to beat what the RAF already had. The Spitfire in the test quoted was clearly much faster, so it wasn't even discussed. If such a prejudice existed it must have been well covered up, the Sea Fury had an air cooled radial engine that did not just appear from thin air. Long before any radial engine out performed the Spitfire the British had H and X type water cooled engines being developed in addition to air cooled radials. It is a simple fact that the Spitfire remained a top class front line fighter until the end of the war and the P-51 in a different role did too.
I didn't say it was a reason; I said there was a possibility it was a reason. There was and is a perception that radial-engined aircraft had, intrinsically, much greater drag than did V-12 aircraft, and for really high performance, especially high speed, one needed a V-12. The two posited reasons for the largely non-existent extra drag are nose shape and cooling drag.
...
That is stretching it just a bit, don't you think?
We both know that their is usually a difference between what one side claimed and what the other side lost.During 1939–1940, French H-75 pilots claimed around 230 kills.
Yes of course, that is very true, however it cuts both ways really.We both know that their is usually a difference between what one side claimed and what the other side lost.
I'm not sure that Japanese A/C were flying above the ceiling of American fighters in any of the theaters, that would've mean that they flew above 30000 ft (= operational ceiling of the P-40E). Problem with US A/C was that they operated with barely any early warning, thus did not have enough of time to warm up and climb at or above 20000 ft. The P-40E will need almost 20 min to climb to 25000 ft (8 min more than P-40B), almost 12 min to 20000 ft, plus time for warming-up the engine.
I didn't say it was a reason; I said there was a possibility it was a reason. There was and is a perception that radial-engined aircraft had, intrinsically, much greater drag than did V-12 aircraft, and for really high performance, especially high speed, one needed a V-12. The two posited reasons for the largely non-existent extra drag are nose shape and cooling drag.
...
The British figured you needed 500fpm worth of climb in order to fly in formation. Poor #4 being on the outside of the formation when it made a turn?
This cuts several thousand feet from the nominal service ceiling to the ceiling that small formations could even fly a patrol at with the intention of diving to to attack.
Now try to figure what altitude you can effectively fight at, not do a single diving pass and then take 5-10 minutes to regain altitude for a possible 2nd pass.
British figured they needed 1000fpm of climbing ability at a minimum.
...
Also note that "cruising" at such an altitude requires the engine to be running only slightly slower (or slightly less boost) than max continuous.
Lets face it, if max continuous power means a climb rate of 100-200fpm how much can you cut the throttle before you fall out of the sky
Or at least start descending.
The figures I have seen is over a 1000 LW a/c claimed by all the French flown fighters, not just by the H 75 units; while the likely actual number shot down by French flown fighters is 355.The 230 figure in my opinion isn't too far fetched. just after the war, the French were claiming well over 1000 LW a/c by the H-75 units. That has since been whittled down by cross referencing to LW records to the 230 LW a/c losses that I mentioned. They are a/c lost from the right units, in the right areas. its about as accurate as possible in the confusing state in france in the summer of 1940
Leaping back to the P-36, it's first flight was in 1935, the same year as the Bf109. I also wonder if we'd be having this conversation had the USAAC/USAAF not assigned a new designation when Curtiss stuck a V-12 into the P-36.
...
Proritising this over that and then that over this resulted in its post war four engine bombers having water cooled V12 engines, its best fighter had an air cooled radial engine while the fastest twin prop fighter still had Merlins and almost identical performance to the aircooled radial engine Grumman Tigercat.
I have a feeling this is going to make me rather unpopular but im afraid that one or two exceptions aside, for me its the B-17.
The B-17 was a 1930's design. With a shaky start (The prototype crashed on 30 October 1935, with test-pilot Major Ployer Peter Hill and Boeing employee Les Tower killed in the accident) And the contract was almost awarded to the Douglas B-18. But the airforce still had faith it was a sound bomber. And indeed it was. And as we know the B-17 doesnt stand alone in being a flawed concept. No matter how many guns you add to a bomber its meat and potatoes to enemy fighters. But why single out the B-17? Well for one it was basically obsolete by 1942/3 and with a tiny bomb capacity of just 4000lbs a mosquito could have done the same job without the terrible loss of men and machines. Without fighter cover daylight bombing was just suicide. And the B-17 holds the record for the most aircraft lost in one mission. To fly in daylight was suicide and the B-17's only saving grace was that it could absorb severe damage. A Lancaster could carry 14,000lbs standard in comparison and 22,000lb grandslam if modified. It's also overlooked that mechanical problems plagued the Boeing bomber, and their daylight high-altitude bombing accuracy turned out to be much less than advertised. The RAF tested a batch of B-17's and were less than impressed with the results. The test came to a dubious end after three of the 20 airplanes were lost to enemy action, five were destroyed in accidents, and the rest were grounded due to mechanical failure. In 39 sorties, only 18 Flying Fortresses managed to actually bomb a target. Only two bombs were believed to have actually hit the targets they were aimed at—and not a single German fighter had fallen to the Fortresses' guns. The same goes for the B-29. A super fortress that inherited nearly all the flaws of its older brother and then some. The pressurization ended up being made redundant thanks to the gulf stream ruining any chance of high altitude bombing. The fact it could carry a few more bombs a little further is not much of a return. So there it is, the Boeing B family. Overrated but hey thats just my opinion coupled with some facts.
One last thing. I see some chaps mentioned the P-51 and Fw-190 as being overrated. That's absolutely absurd