Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The post above is talking about Mark II Hurricanes.
Can you send a link to that? I can't download that on my phone for some reason.I have got a copy of Paul Richey's, "Fighter Pilot", its a great book and he was an excellent fighter pilot in Europe. I am not aware of him ever flying any combat missions in Burma as a Hurricane pilot. I will take Terrence Kelly's assessment of the Hurricane vs Ki43/Zero as he actually had extensive combat experience against them.
Ah, ok. I stated earlier that the Spit 8 was a superb aircraft.This incident with the Spit 8s and the Ki43s is well covered in "Air war For Burma" by Shores. The long and the short of it is that Spit 8s were stationed at a forward Chindit Airstrip named " Broadway". It was attacked by 15 Ki 43s that engaged two Spit 8s that were able to get airborne. One Spit was shot down in the air combat as well as at least one Ki43. Four spits were destroyed on the ground. The air combat never got above 2000 ft. Not exactly a screaming endorsement of the Ki 43.
I once read that the RAF at the beginning of the war stressed dogfighting and that boom-and-zoom tactics were considered "cowardly". Anyone else heard anything to that effect? It would fit the excessive conservatism that permeated the entire British military at the start of the war.
That I did not read. However, I think it was Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" where the following was claimed: plan to ambush a particularly troublesome German bomber crew shelved by higher-ups for being "not cricket" or being condemned as "assassination".I've read that somewhere also, same for attacking from 6 o'clock on unsuspecting aircraft, apparently it was important to kill the opposing pilot but you had to be civil about it when you did.
I thought the following notes from a December 1941 report might add to the conversation. I particularly like the note on the last page, "Although it cannot turn quickly...." I wonder how many pilot believed they could turn inside a Zero?
I wonder that as well. I assume December 1941, or VERY early 1942.That was very entertaining. I wonder what year it was made. I didn't notice any copyright date.
I would have hoped that the subject of the superior/inferior quality of the A6M would have appeared on the 'Greatest aviation myth this site "de-bunked"' thread. For anyone who has not figured this out, the answers to the following questions should help out.
As of the effective 1941 service entry date of the A6M:
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried armour before WWII started?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried self-sealing fuel tanks before WWII started?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more heavily armed?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were faster?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had a longer effective radius of operations?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had a better climb rate?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had a higher service ceiling?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s could turn better?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s could roll better?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s could dive better?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more reliable?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more maintainable?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more
capable at carrier operations?
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had better multi-role capability?
I suggest that anyone interested make a chart with these questions on the left as rows, different aircraft types across the top as columns, and place check marks in the appropriate boxes. Total them up at the bottom and see what you get.
The Americans entered the war using F2A's, F4F's, P-36's, P-40's, P-39's and P-43's.Unlike American and to some extent British (Spitfire) designs, the A6M was a "dead-end" design - very little could be improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane. No matter how they tried, the Japanese never could develop it into an aircraft that could hold its own against the Allied new aircraft.
P-40 is a whole new airplane, sort of.P-36 developed into P-40
F4F-3 improved via F4F-4 and FM-1/2
P-39 developed into P-63
P-43 (developed from P-35) developed into P-47