Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I never knew the Ki-100 had maneuvering advantages over our planes: I knew it had a good service ceiling by Japanese standards."An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility, and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to outmanoeuvre any American fighter, including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N which were escorting the B-29 raids over Japan by that time, and was comparable in speed, especially at medium altitudes. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Ki-100 was a deadly opponent; the Ki-100 and the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's (George) were the only Japanese fighters able to defeat the latest Allied types".
Was that due to its thick-wings? It hampered higher altitude performance, but that usually is good for lift...While the Typhoon may have had it's issues, it was also a beast at lower altitudes against the Fw190A
That's a good observation: With the Griffon it's power to weight ratio increased, but it didn't have quite the high altitude performanceWhat about the Spitfire XII?
What performance could that yield?Not listed P-40E when being flown at seriously high manifold pressures
One factor might be the right off rate due to the conditions in USSR. The aircraft were not that robust being often a wooden ply build and the conditions atrocious. The vast majority of airfields had little if an cover and these things can tell on an aircraft.I did a little lookup on aircraft production. Aircraft reported losses are much debated in the way of accuracy. The production data can sometimes give a more accurate picture of aircraft losses. You don't build combat aircraft to populate museums after a war.
Lend lease warplanes delivered to Russia during the war total 17,821. Russia produced 158,220 Warplanes during the war. Of these losses from the above spread sheet are (all losses) 102,600. That means Russia ended the war with 55,620 warplanes. (about the same amount as Japan produced during WWII). Either the numbers of losses were reported very low, or after the war the Russian airforce would be massive. The excess outnumbered the aircraft produced by Germany during the best production year (1944) by 20% The numbers don't jive.
according to the chart presented.
Two German pilots were responsible for 3% of the Russian combat losses in the last two years of the war? Hartman and Barkhorn. The top 10 German aces (essentially all Russian kills) were responsible for 9.5% of all the Russian losses in the last three years of the war. Now I am really impressed.
Drew
Just look at how many aces were shot down themselves, some several times.Even gun camera footage was not a good indicator of a kill. This topic should be it's own thread.
What is a kill? Does it mean the pilot leaves the airplane alive before it impacts the Earth? Pilot is killed? Airplane is totaled? Airplane lands somewhere other than home? Do you count crash landings?
I read the book thunderbolt. In one encounter, he made it back home, but the engine lost several cylinders, and there were cannon holes all over the plane. The plane would never fly again. Is that a kill? If someone landed in a field (controlled landing) because the engine died after an attack, is that a kill? Every organization had different criteria. Then you have the reporting requirements. Is gun camera footage enough? Do you need two witnesses?
I did a little lookup on aircraft production. Aircraft reported losses are much debated in the way of accuracy. The production data can sometimes give a more accurate picture of aircraft losses. You don't build combat aircraft to populate museums after a war.
Lend lease warplanes delivered to Russia during the war total 17,821. Russia produced 158,220 Warplanes during the war. Of these losses from the above spread sheet are (all losses) 102,600. That means Russia ended the war with 55,620 warplanes. (about the same amount as Japan produced during WWII). Either the numbers of losses were reported very low, or after the war the Russian airforce would be massive. The excess outnumbered the aircraft produced by Germany during the best production year (1944) by 20% The numbers don't jive.
according to the chart presented.
Two German pilots were responsible for 3% of the Russian combat losses in the last two years of the war? Hartman and Barkhorn. The top 10 German aces (essentially all Russian kills) were responsible for 9.5% of all the Russian losses in the last three years of the war. Now I am really impressed.
Drew
Shores identifies that very issue when he notes that when Marsielles crashed, his unit had to be pulled out of the line due to the loss of morale.Actually, it speaks volumes about a basic flaw in the Luftwaffe. If those two guys fall down some stairs, the Luftwaffe loses a lot of its effectiveness. Better to have fifty guys with seven kills each than 49 holding the coat of the one getting 350.
P-40E
Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??What?!? Where are my biplanes? We all know that the CR. 42 was the best fighter... why? Because for one it's a biplane and 2 you cannot beat these Italian camouflages.
View attachment 475338
Any reasoning why?
I'd take the P-47 "Jug" as well- tremendous firepower, good control in a dive scenario for attacking ground forces and tanks/armor- and well armored enabling the 'Jug" to take hits and still be functional.Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".
Higher usable speed, especially at low level, compared to it's opponents. Keeping your speed up (diving or using what would now be called a "low yo-yo") allowed the P-40 to turn inside the Zero which had a difficult time with control forces past 250 mph.
Considerably more maneuverable than people today realize (an interesting description of it by the late Jeff Ethell in this videoView: https://youtu.be/rki8tnsLodQ
is of the P-40E being like "A Pitts with an Allison Engine". )
Perhaps it's wrong to say best overall in the war but I do think that in 41~42 it was a far better plane than many have remembered it as over the decades. OTOH, I do just simply like it. OTGH, if I had to fly combat in a single engine aircraft of any kind during WWII, I'd take a P-47.
Speaking of attacking ground forces, we were returning from a mission when I heard voices on the radio and machine gun fire. I spotted a squadron of P-47 aircraft strafing an enemy force near a small town. They were in a circle. I heard one say "out of ammo will return as soon as possible". They were committed to what they were doing.I'd take the P-47 "Jug" as well- tremendous firepower, good control in a dive scenario for attacking ground forces and tanks/armor- and well armored enabling the 'Jug" to take hits and still be functional.
Wow...Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".
Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".
Higher usable speed, especially at low level, compared to it's opponents. Keeping your speed up (diving or using what would now be called a "low yo-yo") allowed the P-40 to turn inside the Zero which had a difficult time with control forces past 250 mph.
Considerably more maneuverable than people today realize (an interesting description of it by the late Jeff Ethell in this video
...
is of the P-40E being like "A Pitts with an Allison Engine". )
Perhaps it's wrong to say best overall in the war but I do think that in 41~42 it was a far better plane than many have remembered it as over the decades. OTOH, I do just simply like it. OTGH, if I had to fly combat in a single engine aircraft of any kind during WWII, I'd take a P-47.
Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??
Ive always maintained that the P-51 was the best long range escort, but the p-47 was the most versatile US fighter of the war. In cricket terms it was the best all rounder in the team.
Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??