Time to jazz up this section I collected this comparison along time ago, there was to be a comparison no2 bf109E vs spitfire mk1 but I never found it.
Enjoy
Nice! How about the other numbers?
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Time to jazz up this section I collected this comparison along time ago, there was to be a comparison no2 bf109E vs spitfire mk1 but I never found it.
Enjoy
Nice! How about the other numbers? Do you found it?
The Bf109E v Spit I was published but I haven't located one yet.....I do have the F6F-5 v J2m3 as soon as I get the time......
Something not generally known was the Tomahawks flown by the AVG had hand assembled engines. The P40's of the AVG had 1 or 2 hundred more horsepower than the P40's of the AAF at that time. In its area of operations it was the best fighter aircraft.
Hi Shortround6,
I think the problem here is that you are assuming that US inspection standards were used for the equipment on these planes and that was certainly NOT the case.
Curtiss used this contract as an opportunity to get rid of old parts that were not suitable for the current standard being accepted by USAAF. Some planes had .30 cal MGs, some had .303s. Fuel tanks were whatever was left over. Fuel selectors were did not include a drop tank even though such would have been "standard" on the P-40Cs in this serial number range. The plumbing for drop tanks was typically not installed either.
This is quoted from memory of a couple articles I was reading.
Knowing that the engine blocks were all rejects would suggest that the folks doing the assembly KNEW they would have improvise and make do. They knew before even starting that these engines would not meet US standards, so I don't see why any of those practices that might reduce durability and running time in the long run would not be used anyway.
Folks like the British who were running Allisons in Africa already knew that the engine would take a lot more boost than the manuals specified, so the basic design was fairly sturdy. If someone bumped the compression up a bit and reduced that margin, who cares? It wasn't like a US inspector would complain. With a particular block or head, the casting flaw that caused the rejection might force you to do that or not use the part at all.
Perhaps some of the builders with nothing better to do decided to try to balance all the pistons and con rods? Deburr all the oil passages?
Everything I am suggesting here is pure speculation, but when you have a bunch of good mechanics put on a task, there is a lot that CAN be accomplished. Then again, there were probably engines in this batch that didn't work all that well or started tossing parts as soon as they were run hard.
- Ivan.
The fact is however, that the AVG seldom if ever met the A6M in combat.