SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Perfectionist.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Perfectionist."Landing" implies the aircraft retain the ability to "take-off" without extensive repair.
-----
"Parts falling off" seems to be more a problem of poor construction or poor structural design than aerodynamics.
Wikipedia shows a faster 316 mph. Not that Wiki is a reliable source of much.To the best of my knowledge the answer being sought out is the Polikarpov
I-16 type 4 of 1935. Maximum speed: 224 mph./S.L.
If the parameters had included that the aircraft had to be of WW2 vintage (1939-
1945) then the answer becomes Polikarpov I-16 type 17 with a speed at full
throttle height of 265/2,555 m. (8,382 ft.).
Type 4
View attachment 610821
Type 17
View attachment 610822
Wikipedia shows a faster 316 mph. Not that Wiki is a reliable source of much.
Polikarpov I-16 - Wikipedia
The similarly looking Ambrosini SAI.207 managed close to 400 mph.Have a new contender for the title...the Caudron C.714. As an aircraft that only entered service in 1940, it has to rank amongst the worst.
Wikipedia shows a faster 316 mph. Not that Wiki is a reliable source of much.
The fastest production I-16 I am aware of is the Type 24 capable of 489.0 km./h / 4,780 m.
(303.8 mph/15,750 ft.)
Vincenzo,russian wiki is more reliable on soviet aircraft, their number are similar to corsning, but not the same, altitude is different
Thank you for catching this. I revised my figures for the Type 4 as 362 kph/224.9 mph/S.L.
and Type 17 according to Yefim Gordon is 425kph/2,700 m. (264.1 mph/9,000 ft.)
The figures I used for both came straight from the Russian graph.
Новая страница 1
The similarly looking Ambrosini SAI.207 managed close to 400 mph.
Yes, I read that's the issue they faced in Malaya, with those off loaded, or flown from HMS Indomitable being intended for North Africa.It's stretching the the parameters but I believe the first batch of tropical Hurricanes with the Vokes filter were struggling to do 300mph.
The PZL.50 Jastrząb was rated at 270 mph, but only six were produced. Perhaps production models would have had a better engine.
That's what Wikipedia says. So it doesn't really qualify in our list of slow pokes. I'm more thinking hypothetical examples, and wondering if the Jastrząb would have got a better engine had it entered service.Six produced?
Wikipedia does not say "six were produced" when talking P.50. It says:That's what Wikipedia says. So it doesn't really qualify in our list of slow pokes. I'm more thinking hypothetical examples, and wondering if the Jastrząb would have got a better engine had it entered service.
Number built 1 (+6 incomplete)
Oh, that's what you're on about? Ok, six (about) were incomplete, one prototype produced.Wikipedia does not say "six were produced" when talking P.50. It says:
Oh, that's what you're on about? Ok, six (about) were incomplete, one prototype produced.
I-16s used engines from around 480hp (type 4) to 1100hp (type 24 and 29), weapons fit varied from a single mg in each wing to a pair of cowl machine guns and a 20mm in each wing.
That is mostly correct. The type 4's license-built Jupiter M-22 was capable of 480 ps. (473 hp.)
The type 17 had the M-25V capable of 750 ps. (740 hp.)
No. It was my misunderstanding. I thought you were wanting to discuss the technicalities of the aircraft rather than correcting a specific, yet inconsequential point. Nitpickers, living for their gotcha moment are essential to keep the rest of us honest and accurate. Carry on Tomo.So you have a problem that someone points out that your numbers are wrong, in a technically-minded forum?
No. It was my misunderstanding. I thought you were wanting to discuss the technicalities of the aircraft rather than correcting a specific, yet inconsequential point. Nitpickers, living for their gotcha moment are essential to keep the rest of us honest and accurate. Carry on Tomo.