This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
cheddar cheese said:Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week.
V-1710 said:Wasn't the RE-2000 beset with mechanical problems? Not many were ever built? I heard it could outfly an Bf-109.
Sal Monella said:How about P-40 vs. Mc-202?
I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.
Sal Monella said:You're kidding right? What if both the P-40 and Mc-202 are "flown right"?
The only thing going for the P-40 is armament and ability to absorb damage. (Which would definitely come in handy) The Mc-202 holds a performance advantage across the board. In some areas, that advantage is small like in flat out speed but in others, it is massive like in climb, turn radius and acceleration and roll rate. I'm not sure about dive.
I have read accounts from P-51 pilots who considered the Mc-202 a near equal in performance in a low level turning fight. A P-40 would get waxed in two seconds by a 51.
Sal Monella said:Would you similarly favor a P-47D over a P-51D? The Mc-202 vs. P-40 is remarkably similar under your analysis to the P-51 vs. the P-47.
Mc-202 and P-51 have advantage in the horizontal while P-40 and P-47 have advantage in the verticle for dive and zoom.
Mc-202 and P-51 are only about 8 or 9 mph faster than the P-40 and P-47.
Mc-202 and P-51 have better climb and turn than the P-40 and P-47.
P-40 and P-47 have better roll rate than the Mc-202 and P-51.
P-40 and P-47 have superior armament and survivability over the Mc-202 and P-51.