(REVISED) Most Formidable Low-Med Altitude Fighter Aircraft

[Zipper730]

"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".

I never knew the Ki-100 had maneuvering advantages over our planes: I knew it had a good service ceiling by Japanese standards.

While the Typhoon may have had it's issues, it was also a beast at lower altitudes against the Fw190A

Was that due to its thick-wings? It hampered higher altitude performance, but that usually is good for lift...

What about the Spitfire XII?

That's a good observation: With the Griffon it's power to weight ratio increased, but it didn't have quite the high altitude performance

Not listed P-40E when being flown at seriously high manifold pressures

What performance could that yield?

 

[drewwizard]

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

 

[Glider]

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

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

There is also a thing where claims aren't actual kills. Applicable for all combatants, not just pilots/airmen.

 

[drewwizard]

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?

 

[pbehn]

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?

Just look at how many aces were shot down themselves, some several times.

 

[swampyankee]

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

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.

 

[wlewisiii]

P-40E

 

[Greg Boeser]

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.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-40E

Any reasoning why?

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

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

Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??

 

[wlewisiii]

Any reasoning why?

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
View: 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.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

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
View: 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.

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.

 

[billrunnels]

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.

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.

 

[parsifal]

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.

 

[Zipper730]

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".

Wow...

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

Granted, the V-1710 was about the only engine capable to close to the king of overboosting - Merlin - when it is about high manifold pressures.
OTOH, over-boosting worked at low altitudes for the V-1710-39, already by 10000 ft there was just ~50 in Hg, or about 1400 HP. By 15000 ft, it was 38 in Hg and ~1040 HP. Combined with high weight of the P-40E and no great streamlining of it, that meant that in mid-altitude band (say, between 10000-20000 ft), it was ill able to handle Axis best. Like the Fw 190, Bf 109, Zero, Ki-44 etc. Spitfire and Typhoon were much better at that altitude, so were the Soviet fighters, P-38, P-51 and probably the P-39. Granted, the P-40 rolled better than all of them, save Fw 190 and clipped-wing Spitfire marks.
I'd rather pick the P-40N of all the P-40 marks, but this means waiting until winter of 1942/43 to get. Or the P-40B/C?

 

[Kai Stemm]

Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??

The plane is a Fiat CR 42...
Fiat CR.42 - Wikipedia

 

[DarrenW]

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.

It was versatile alright. But I submit that the F6F was just as versatile, especially when factoring in the role it played in photo-recon and night fighting duties.

 

[Elmas]

Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??

The emblem is the "Grifo" a mythological figure, that was the emblem of the most famous Italian "Squadriglia" in WWI.
Among them Francesco Baracca, top scorer of WWI with 34 confirmed victories, 6th from the right.

The emblem of Alfa Romeo is different:

Difficult to see an Alfa Romeo emblem on a Fiat airframe with a Fiat engine...