Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Okay, rather than bickering over the finer details of the F6F's cowling, can we get back to the primary topic at hand: Qualities that are not often listed but nonetheless give an aircraft advantages?
And I've said it before but I'll say it again. Staying in the fight after taking significant damage is not a survival strategy. An airframe that can absorb damage and still get back to base is a great way to keep your pilots alive. Encouragnig them to ignore airframe damage and stay in the fight is not.Probably mentioned before but I'll say it again. An aircraft's ability to absorb punishment and still remain in the fight is something that's harder to quantify
And I've said it before but I'll say it again. Staying in the fight after taking significant damage is not a survival strategy. An airframe that can absorb damage and still get back to base is a great way to keep your pilots alive. Encouragnig them to ignore airframe damage and stay in the fight is not.
Pilot training is a crucial factor, but I think this was more of an aircraft issue.Strategic and tactical application. Pilot training and experience, none of these items show up in specs. The Roman short sword was only a great weapon in how it was used en mass. Being able to utilize an aircraft such that takes advantage of it's strengths and minimizing exposure to it's weaknesses. Example, use of the less obvious energy tactics against the more apparent angles tactics.
And how many pilots were injured in a brawl and stayed with their aircraft?And I've said it before but I'll say it again. Staying in the fight after taking significant damage is not a survival strategy. An airframe that can absorb damage and still get back to base is a great way to keep your pilots alive. Encouragnig them to ignore airframe damage and stay in the fight is not.
One can for instance read specs for armor, such as that behind the pilot and draw some sort of idea about it's effectiveness. However many US aircraft placed the radio gear behind this plate. As it turns out the radio gear was quite important in the performance of the armor as a round going through the radio equipment would tumble, completely destroying it's armor piercing capabilities.
Ok, bit in the weeds...
So in some cases the armor wasn't the only thing protecting the pilot -- other objects that happened to be in the path of the projectile...One can for instance read specs for armor, such as that behind the pilot and draw some sort of idea about it's effectiveness. However many US aircraft placed the radio gear behind this plate. As it turns out the radio gear was quite important in the performance of the armor as a round going through the radio equipment would tumble, completely destroying it's armor piercing capabilities.
Well actually, the small engined GeeBee Racers of the mid '30s had significantly better CD than other radial engined planes of the time and even later into the early 40s.The Apache was not a Mustang I, the British got few, if any, A-36s.
You don't have suspect, it was more than 8%, as has already been mentioned it was 22% between the P-36A (much like the Mohawk in your first photo and the early P-40 like in the 2nd photo. But that difference had nothing to do with the wings or from the firewall back and everything to do with the engine installation. There may be some confusion as to amount of exhaust thrust was counted or not counted in each plane. But nobodies radial engine installations were very good in 1938-39-40. A lot of work was being done and the Germans were first with a significant change with the fw 190. P & W got the difference down to 8% with that P-40 test hack. From then on many radials got much closer to the liquid cooled engines in terms of drag.
Even sticking a V-12 on the nose of the P-36 wasn't enough to keep it competitive in Europe as the available V-12 didn't have enough power at altitude for the weight of the P-40.
Please note that in the fall of 1940 the DB 601 didn't offer much more power, it just had a much lighter airplane to haul around, you could have swapped engines and gotten pretty much the same results.
Curtiss was in the business of building airplanes. The more planes you could build to the same basic design the more profit you could make. Many designs were adapted to take different engines to suit the customers preference.
View attachment 514901
XP-31 as originally built and as modified.
View attachment 514902
note full span leading edge slats.
Curtiss could also go the other way, A-8 Shrike
View attachment 514903
A-12 Shrike
View attachment 514904
Some earlier Curtiss biplane fighters were sometimes fitted with radials for overseas customers instead of the water cooled V-12 engines.
This was done by a lot more companies than Curtiss. Hawker in England built both V-12 powered Fury biplanes and radial engined versions as well as Hart light bombers and variants with both types of engine.
Boeing tried the B-9 bomber with both types of engine.Changing engines doesn't change the design of the airframe.
Well actually, the small engined GeeBee Racers of the mid '30s had significantly better CD than other radial engined planes of the time and even later into the early 40s.