Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Same generation of aircraft. Prefer the P40, better track record. But, the MS was probably lighter. Not sure there was an a lot of development potential in either airframe. Neither one was a Spitfire/Me109. Good designs, but not great.
I'm interested by what could have been done with a 1500 horsepower Hispano-Suiza 12Z, considering that represents nearly twice the horsepower. Certainly the frame would have to be beefed up tremendously, but that's a huge power plant on a small body. No idea if it could work, but that's the reason I started the thread.
I'm interested by what could have been done with a 1500 horsepower Hispano-Suiza 12Z, considering that represents nearly twice the horsepower. Certainly the frame would have to be beefed up tremendously, but that's a huge power plant on a small body. No idea if it could work, but that's the reason I started the thread.
Returning to the original questionMy question basically is: if the MS406 had been allowed time to reach its developmental potential, would it have been better in 1944 than the P-40?
I have dug out the old AE article on the MS406 and the figures they give for the Note on the guns in the Morko. It was planned to install the 23mm VYa cannon, then it was decided to install the Mg151 20mm, but due to COG problems with the larger engine they were fitted with 12.7mm UB machine gun instead.
AFAIK the center gun was planned from the start (and equipped) with the MG151/20.
It was called Mörkö-Morane (not "Moraani").
Test flights showed max speed was 435-445 kmh(270-277mph) on the deck, and 490-500kmh (304-311mph)at 4,000m (13,100ft). Best (estimated) climbing speed was about 17 m/s (3350 ft/min) at optimum conditions . Test flights showed 8 mins to 5,000m (16,400 ft), actual best achieved climb speed 13m/s (2560ft/min).