Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Something about the spitfire you see in just about every pilot's accounts is that it was a joy to fly, like strapping on a pair of wings.
Surely the confidence it gave to new pilot's must be worth something even if it can't be quantified.[/QUOTE
I think you'll find the Hurricane shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire, it was more rugged, cheaper and easier to learn to fly. I wouldn't want a Spitfire until the marks Vc, VIII and IX/XVI came along
I don't quite buy that. True, that one piece wing would have been awkward on a Henry Ford style moving production line, but that's not how the Japanese operated. They assembled each plane in place, craftsman style, as their working traditions dictated.I thought about the A6M as well. But, the combined construction of the fuselage/wing center section took it out of the running for ease of production.
I found this fascinating but want to make sure I got it right. These numbers are for overall?The highest loss rate per sortie in the USAAF was the P-38 at 1.35%. The P-51 was at 1.18%, just under the P-38. The P-39 Airacobra, contrary to what you might believe, had a loss rate per sortie of only 0.35%! The P-47 Thunderbolt was the most complex fighter in the USAAF and flew more than twice as many sorties as any other fighter. It's loss rate per sorties was 0.73%, making flying one almost twice as safe as flying a P-51. The safest fighter in the USAAF was the P-39!
Statistics are statistics there is always a story, the loss rate of the P51 climbed as it was used to attack airfields, I believe that even on escort missions most losses were to ground fire over the course of the war.I found this fascinating but want to make sure I got it right. These numbers are for overall?
I would add Hurricane which in 1939 was a formidable foe. My initial thought was Spitfire but it wasn't easy to build.A6M2
(Let's preface this with, I know there were pilot shortages later. And, even if they doubled their production it would have been only a fraction of US production.)They assembled each plane in place, craftsman style, as their working traditions dictated.
Great post with some really surprising information. I like your idea about a kill to losses of all causes ratio as it takes into account how safe an aircraft was for its own pilots. Only thing is it seems like that ratio would skew against planes that did alot of ground attack work like the p47. Alot of extra losses there with little oportunity for kills. Maybe kills to all losses ratio on missions not ground attack? Although that may be impossible to sort out at this point.
In being, easy to build, easy to fly. Has any country actually had a such a critter at the beginning of a war? The Hawker Hurricane is the closest thing I can think of. (I would also add easy to fix!)
If it is possible to remove missions where any bombs were delivered that would render( i think, posible im missing something here) a mostly air to air mission inventory from which a reasonably fair kills to losses to all causes could be extracted.Hi Michael Rauls, Regarding post #4, I supposed you are correct, kills-to-any-loss does tend to penalize the ground attackers. If they were ground attackers, then they had some tonnage of bombs delivered on target. We could arbitrarily look at the fighter with the best kill-to-whatever-loss record (I am looking only at USA planes because the data for other nation's planes is so hard to find) and we could look at the plane with the most bombs delivered on target, and come up with an equivalent kill-per-X-loss to tons-bombs-on-target equality ratio.
It's worth some thought. The kills part also penalizes planes that weren't assigned to active sectors, so maybe we could come up with an adjustment. I need to think on that one.
I appreciate the comments that make us all THINK!
If it is just easy to build and easy to fly, then many countries have had that kind of aeroplane. (Think Biplanes.) When one adds the quality of being competitive in performance, the field narrows.
Along with the Hurricane, would you consider the Ki 43 Hayabusa a candidate?
- Ivan.
If it is just easy to build and easy to fly, then many countries have had that kind of aeroplane. (Think Biplanes.) When one adds the quality of being competitive in performance, the field narrows.
Along with the Hurricane, would you consider the Ki 43 Hayabusa a candidate?
- Ivan.
Absolutely, the Ki 43-II could out accelerate (at low speeds), out roll and out turn the
A6M2 or A6M3. Its armament was light, but it had the ability to bring it to bear quicker.
The Ki 43-II climbed to 6,000 meters slightly quicker than the A6M2, but their overall
climb rates were about equal. The Zero had an edge in zoom climb.
I think you'll find that the Soviets found far more use for them than their Spitfires in combat over the Eastern Front, they even had aces if you count their shared victories. It was in use in their VVS in 1942 and PVO until 1945, dates when our RAF Fighter Command considered them obsolete in 1942/43. It was the Spitfire that they didn't rate. Of course, we needed fast fighters to stop the German raids on our infrastructure and industry.I'm well aware of those facts yet, as has been discussed on this forum recently, spitfire pilot's in general survived longer.
The hurricane got more kills simply because there was more of them when the fighting was at its fiercest.
I think you'll find that the Soviets found far more use for them than their Spitfires in combat over the Eastern Front, they even had aces if you count their shared victories. It was in use in their VVS in 1942 and PVO until 1945, dates when our RAF Fighter Command considered them obsolete in 1942/43. It was the Spitfire that they didn't rate. Of course, we needed fast fighters to stop the German raids on our infrastructure and industry.