Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A radio is "an accessory" that is used to enhance the mission. From a tactical standpoint it is a necessary but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.But what do you know about the radios? Since a radio is part of the airplane
It didJust wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?
Radios were new at the time, veterans will have been used to not having them and they spent most of their time out of range of ground / ship based radio anyway, so maybe not as much as a disadvantage as for some others.A radio is "an accessory" that is used to enhance the mission. From a tactical standpoint it is a necessary but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.
The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway.
Even on this thread it is easy to see how things get confused. There is an assumption that nothing happened in the phoney war, maybe not on the ground but not true in the air. The whole battle of France and the Low Countries lasted 10 weeks and Dunkerque came before its conclusion. MikeMeech's posts are obviously true but they are about what was planned, not what actually happened. AFIK some Hurricanes were sent to France in the Phoney war without armour but by the time the actual Battle of France started they were kitted out with rear armour for the pilot, 100 Octane fuel and variable pitch props.Please tell that to Hurricane pilot Billy Drake of 1 Sqn whose life was saved by seat armour when he was shot down over France on 13 May 1940. Paul Richey's famous account of the Battle of France, "Fighter Pilot" also mentions his squadron CO acquiring armour plate and fitting it to the Hurricanes of 1 Sqn during the Phoney War. These accounts suggest RAF fighter squadrons were adding armour plate long before the Battle of Britain.
Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance. You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.A radio is "an accessory". . . but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.
The downward sloping nose was a feature of dedicated carrier planes, it allows the plane to land on a straight approach to the carrier but has a cost in speed. Carrier planes like the F4U and Seafire had to land on a curved approach.Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance. You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.
"Heifer" Yorkshire joke a heifer, is a young cow. Edit, just looked on the internet and it is also used in USA. Heifers are as stupid as bullocks, just in a different way."cowling"
No, the cowling is just the part that wraps around the engine and has adjustable openings at its rear. And I think that "nose" suggests the same thing. But a "hood" is almost the whole top front of a car ahead of the windshield. Likewise, the entire front of a Wildcat, from the canopy to the front edge of the cowling, sloped downward. And, yes, this was a feature of many carrier-based planes precisely because it gave better visibility during the landing approach and while taxiing, but not every carrier plane had this feature. Corsairs did not. . .and Zeros did not."cowling"
On an aircraft, the material that covers the engine area is refered to as: "cowling".No, the cowling is just the part that wraps around the engine and has adjustable openings at its rear. And I think that "nose" suggests the same thing. But a "hood" is almost the whole top front of a car ahead of the windshield. Likewise, the entire front of a Wildcat, from the canopy to the front edge of the cowling, sloped downward. And, yes, this was a feature of many carrier-based planes precisely because it gave better visibility during the landing approach and while taxiing, but not every carrier plane had this feature. Corsairs did not. . .and Zeros did not.
Again you're confusing tactical aspects with a technical comparison. As stated, a radio is an accessory.Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance.
I think you're splitting hairs there. Is this your opinion or do have a flight test report that addresses this? Not to sound crass but you don't have to break this down for me. I worked in aviation for 42 years before I retired and I worked around a few warbirds and even flown a few...You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.
Radios do give a tactical advantage providing you see your enemy and are working up tactics and a firing solution to deal with the threat. Most aircraft shot down in aerial combat never saw what hit them.So, getting back to the radios, if you have two opposing "teams," both flying identical airplanes except one team's planes have radios and the other team's don't, the planes with radios give that team a major advantage toward winning the battle, because the leader of that team can give specific, detailed instructions to his other pilots. So I definitely count the Wildcat radios as a point in that plane's favor.
Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?
Since Brown could land almost anything from a P-39 to a Mosquito on a carrier I imagine he just told a Zero to land and it did it by itself.The World's most experienced test pilot, Eric Brown, said the Zero was the most pleasant-flying airplane he ever flew, and it was his favorite, if he had to pick ONE. That opinion alone makes a lot of what had been said in here wort of like a ,"What? Where did THAT come from?"