blkstne
Airman
My vote would have to go for the P-39. Underpowered plane we gave to the Russian who used it as a tank buster.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I agree with all that. I'd add on stall characteristics that the fatal accident rate of the P-39 was a lot higher than the P-40; 47 per 100k flying hours v 17for whole war. A stat in that case backs up the image.We've been through this many thimes (a couple
First off, the Russians never used it as a tak buster, ...generally used it as a fighter. (often as top cover in escorting Il-2's)
At least on paper the P-39 is superior to the P-40 in all performance aspects, armaent is debatable,
But the P-40 has a much better immage than the P-39 with the US, for whatever reason. (probably the most significant being the P-40's better stall characteristics)
Despite the operational dangers of the Komet, it performed as designed. I'd like to see your sources for these statistics you posted.55% of the komets were lost in takeoff and becouse of the C and T another %35 were lost in landing 5% were shot down by allied aircraft and the last 5% got to go home
From WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Frans BonnAfter the war the records of the Komets were assessed, and the sad balance was made. It turned out that 80 percent of Komet losses were due to take-off or landing accidents. 15 percent of the losses were due to compressibility in dives, or due to fires in the air. Only 5 percent of the losses were due to combat. Only one unit was able to engage the enemy on a more or less regular basis. I/JG 400 claimed 9 bombers, and lost 14 aircraft in doing so.
In the case of the RAF, I think it was their combat experience that in fact worked against them. The lessons learnt in Europe, when fighting the Luftwaffe , were precisely what NOT to do against the japanese.
Against the Luftwaffe, the best tactic was to dogfight, reduce the combat to a tight turning engagement. I know that there is a lot of material in other forums that attests to the equal ability of the 109 in a turning fight, but the facts are that the RAF found the best tactics to employ against the Luftwafffe fighters in the period up to 1942 was to turn as much as possible.
Against the Zero , or any Japanese SE fighter really, this was about the worst thing you could do.
Yes 80 percent of the Me 163s that were lost, were lost in accidents.
It does not say that 80 percent of all Me 163s were lost.
See what I am saying?
JG 400 which lost 14 Me 163s had 91 Me 163s as far as I know.