Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The factor would be less apparant in the Pacific due to the smaller scale of the fighting, but it was still there. For example the battle of 7 Aug, 42 in which Tainen Air Group spanked the 3 CV CAP over Lunga can in part be attributed to recent rotations after the big Midway battle. In other words, some hard lessons had to be relearned the hard way as oft happened in the Desert.
Soren, any information on how the ailerons were out of adjustment? - Looking at some schematics of the 190, aileron adjustment is a simple process, usually done at a turnbuckle or terminal eye, and if I remember weren't the 190's ailerons actuated with push tubes?
I checked out a cut away of an Fw - it seems that ailerons were actuated with push tubes. Again I'd like to find out about this aileron misadjustment - if it was true it was an easy fix.
Again in what way? The process is basically the same on a number of aircraft - you might have to use rig boards to get the right deflection but I'm telling you we are not talking about something that would of been complicated so mechanics in the field would have a hard time doing it - I have my doubts about this - there are only so many ways to adjust a push rod and torque tube.Nope, it was actually a real pain in the a** to adjust correctly, go ask Crumpp he has all the details on this, and has experienced this pain in the a** procedure himself.
I went to the link you gave me but none of the photos showed up - again I'd like to see the procedure on adjusting the Fw 190s ailerons. Not saying that mis-adjusted ailerons would not cause a problem, I question how difficult the process could actually be. Even with a series of pushtubes, push-rods and bell cranks "solid rigging" is the easiest flight control system to maintain and adjust. Many times the factory will give dimensions on specific push-rods that should provide the specified control surface deflection. In my experience (and this includes warbirds) if you have all the push-rods and push tubes set correctly and cannot get the proper surface deflection, that usually means you have something bent or mis-aligned - a control surface bracket, part of the airframe or even the control surface it self. If this procedure is that difficult I would also look at the precision of the airframe and the actually parts that make up the control system.The adjustment of the ailerons was a problem plagueing the early FW190 especially, not that it couldn't be done, it was just a very sensitive procedure.
I have read the report ot the flight tests of the FW190A4 versus the F4U1 and F6F3 three or four times and I can find no mention of misadjusted ailerons. In fact the report mentioned how easy it was to roll the FW and there was no mention of any vibration of the controls except at very high speeds. One would think if the FW was not performing in a manner typical for the German AC, the Navy would either note that like they did another couple of problems or they would have fixed the problem. As it was the Navy concluded that the Corsair and Hellcat were both superior in combat. Of course nothing was said about the fact that both Navy AC carried approx 100 gallons more fuel so in extremis all the had to do was keep turning or looping until the FW ran out of fuel and then dispose of it at their leisure. One wonders if that 600 pounds of extra weight the US planes carried had any effect on their performance.
And you read about war on the Soviet-German front not only to German sources? And Soviet and Russian did not read? A question for the sake of curiosity... I think, that, чотбы normally to know a history of the conflict it is necessary to esteem not only one side, but also another. Whether not so?You need to read up on the aerial conflict in the east.
Like I said many times there weren't even 1/10th of aircraft present that the Soviets would claim, and this is documented fact. A similar example is the outrages Soviet claims at the battle of Kursk.
Sorry but the Soviets were the record holders when it came to outrages propoganda claims, and there are plenty of examples, infact let me present another quicky: The famous duel between Vasili Zaitsev and Major König/Thorvald, well it just so happens that there never was any Major König or Thorvald in Stalingrad, infact there wasn't a single scharfschütze in the city let alone a Major.
PS: The story about Budanova and Litvyak is complete hogwash as-well, read LW records and you'll realize this quickly.
What do the top 2 pictures have to do with the P-39?
Ok, so those are books on the topic.
Did they remove the 4x .30 inch wing guns as well, or just the 2x .50 wing guns of the P-39Q? (removing the Q .50's added ~15 mph I think)
The under-wing mounted .50's had a lot more of an effect on performance than the internal .30's.
One thing to note as well is that the Il-2 Sturmovik computer game Ил-2 ШÑ'урмовик (игра) â€" Ð'Ð¸ÐºÐ¸Ð¿ÐµÐ´Ð¸Ñ has a fairly comprehensive limrary on the aircraft featured in it. Particularly the Russian (or Lend-lease) planes. One interesting point is that turn times are listed for many planes as well (at 1,000 metres).
I was also aware that the Russians tended to "abuse" theis Allison engines of lend-lease aircraft (runing them at high sustained power levels and RPM) to give them a performance advantage when entering the fight. That, of course, severely limited engine life. (this was particularly common with the P-40 due to its lower performance)
Here's a similar discussion: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-me-109-a-12342-3.html