Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Also wouldn't it be more fair/factual if we're going with 44 TOTAL Airacobras lost with how many TOTAL Zeros were lost, if that number were possible to find? I mean, apples to apples right?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Also wouldn't it be more fair/factual if we're going with 44 TOTAL Airacobras lost with how many TOTAL Zeros were lost, if that number were possible to find? I mean, apples to apples right?You said 15 P-39s were shot down by zeros, 44 lost total, this against 15 zeros lost to P-39s, this is a 1 to 1 ratio in the air. If you include the total 44 lost P-39s this comes out to 2.9 to 1
The only drawback to this approach is likely higher torsional loads on the center section to wing panel attach points, which the center section points may not be stressed to handle. IIRC, that problem arose with the Sturmovik, and turned out to be more than a simple bolt-on field mod.
Yes - my point. If we're just talking air-to-air, it was a draw. According to the posted numbers 15 Zeros and 15 P-39s were lost air-to-air but we don't know if additional Zeros were lost to other causes.Also wouldn't it be more fair/factual if we're going with 44 TOTAL Airacobras lost with how many TOTAL Zeros were lost, if that number were possible to find? I mean, apples to apples right?
So am I, someone doesn't know what hearsay means, a pilots report is not hearsay, someone saying "I heard a pilot say" is hearsay. Pilots reports on the P-39 including reports on those who died in non operational missions in UK, played a part in them all being shipped to Russia. An individual pilots report may or maynot be in error, when many pilots report the same thing only a fool would discount it.I. AM. SPEECHLESS.
Exactly - cull the P-39 operational losses out of the total number and it becomes a wash.Also wouldn't it be more fair/factual if we're going with 44 TOTAL Airacobras lost with how many TOTAL Zeros were lost, if that number were possible to find? I mean, apples to apples right?
In the 19:35 comments "they were too heavy and lacked a supercharger". Everyone knew they were too heavy, why didn't they reduce the weight? And the lack of a supercharger is another myth that has been perpetuated for 75 years.P-38, P-39 and P-40 ops in New Guinea. Note comments at 4:35 and 19:35
The First Fighters in New Guinea 1942-1944
Late model P-51 B and Cs switched to the -7. The difference between the two versions was the supercharger drive ratio. The -7 used lower ratios and therefore developed more HP at lower altitudes at the expense of high altitude performance.Perhaps, but the P-51B had the Packard-Merlin V-1650-3 @ 1,620hp. and the P-51D had the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 @ 1,695hp.
So there was an increase of hp. but again, there was also an increase in weight between the two variants.
Please expand above.Hello P-39 "Expert",
I guess you really do have a comprehension problem.
I never mention any of your problems and I would appreciate you keeping the discussion on topic without the personal attacks. Does it make you feel better to belittle people?
Have you actually figured out how adjusting the mixture control for best power actually works? There isn't a "Best Power" label.
Trying to do this in maneuvering flight while also trying to avoid catching bullets is just not an intelligent thing to do.
You will never have a chance for conditions to stabilize enough.
There is no "best power" label but the mixture control can be adjusted between the settings.
You obviously didn't read the rest of the memorandum or don't understand what achieving 335 MPH on partial power really means. Please stop telling me what I have read and what I haven't read. Keep the personal attacks to yourself.
.....
ONE P-39K achieved 370 MPH, just like a P-39D achieved only 358 MPH. The big difference in the tests I am quoting for the P-39s as versus the A6M2 is that the P-39 were aircraft deemed to be in good condition and the tests were representative of their type by the service that normally operated them.
The A6M2 was a crashed aircraft repaired but never had all its systems working properly and tested by its captors who didn't really know how to run it properly.
That's the only Zero available to test. It was restored to the best available condition.
Glad it is comparable to a A6M2 running at partial power with a poorly working carburetor.
Other A6M2s were tested and the vast majority topped out at 330mph.
Probably because the only service that had the opportunity to test the A6M2 to determine the actual maximum speed apparently never cared to do so. They only listed the speed at "Normal Power". This is pretty typical for Japanese aircraft.
.....
Actually we are talking about more like 15 MPH. The claim is 345 MPH as maximum speed for the A6M2. Now the Zero is up to 345mph? A few more pages and it'll be doing 400.
The USN apparently agreed with this assessment and issued a memorandum to that effect later in the war.
I have not yet found the document though it is mentioned in Mr. Dunn's article.
I did not ask what the listed weight of he P-39D-1 was. I asked if you had any proof that the test aircraft was loaded to that weight. You are making an assumption here. Please observe that in many other test reports specifying a specific model of aircraft, the weight, CoG, loads and other specific details are mentioned and most of the time they do NOT agree with the standard details of the aircraft being tested.
The test does not mention the weight of the D-1 tested. I gave you the normal listed weight.
I believe he was a good pilot trying to use a few tricks to make his aeroplane look better than it should have.
Like overboosting the engine on takeoff? Risking engine damage or failure? What did takeoff run matter in these tests? More likely a novice pilot in an unfamiliar airplane.
First of all, I am not trying to "prove" anything other than the fact that you can't do math. Another personal attack, thanks.
Even when I claim that the A6M2 was probably faster than 335 MPH, I qualify what I claim as a GUESS.
Perhaps the Aleutian A6M2 rebuilt after a crash and with a poorly rebuilt carb and running at part throttle was the fastest Zero ever built. I don't think so, but maybe SOME people do. People also tend to write books very often without primary sources by just quoting from others who have written books. Just because a statistics is often repeated doesn't mean it is correct. We finally agree on something. The last sentence.
You might observe that Richard Dunn, who certainly knows more about the A6M2 than I do, does not state his conclusion as an absolute but just as "very likely". Saburo Sakai states that 345 MPH was the maximum speed of the A6M2 based on his personal experience but you will note that Dunn did not take that as conclusive evidence either though it certainly was a strong data point. I saw a documentary on TV once and the veteran surviving Japanese pilot said the top speed of the Zero was 308mph.
You are also making claims for performance when:
1. The client DIDN'T WANT the changes you propose. Who is the client? The AAF? Or the combat pilots? Who wouldn't want a faster climbing airplane? At the expense of four .30caMGs?
2. The operators didn't agree that those changes were a good idea. They wanted more armour, not less. According to which operators? The Russians certainly didn't agree.
3. You are using techniques to estimate performance that do not follow good aerodynamic principles. My only premise is that weight affects climb, all other things being equal. In other words if a plane is made lighter it will climb better, and the improvement in climb can be quantified by the amount of weight removed. Can you argue with that?
And nobody ever notes the attrition of the best Japanese pilots by the P-39, P-40 and F4F. The P-39 and P-40 were still the most numerous AAF fighters in NG until Sept '43. The newer AAF pilots were much better trained than the earlier pilots, and the Japanese replacements were much worse in their training. The P-38, Corsair and Hellcat pilots were facing declining competition.I've heard similar, somewhere I think it was calculated a 1 to 1.45 kill/ loss ratio, Zero to P-39
If you want to include all causes
Some points made, the P-39, despite it's reputation in the SWP did hold it's own but at the same time look at some of the P-39 units that transitioned into the P-38 in the later part of 1942 and the leap in combat victories. Those same early P-38 units operated under dismal conditions as well and had the P-38 been available earlier it would have made a huge difference. Research the 39th and 80th fighter squadrons and some of the aces that emerged from those units and how things turned around into 1943, all occurring when they got the P-38.
In the 19:35 comments "they were too heavy and lacked a supercharger". Everyone knew they were too heavy, why didn't they reduce the weight? And the lack of a supercharger is another myth that has been perpetuated for 75 years.
That is what Claringbold writes, but not clearly; it can be misconstrued that these are the total combat losses for both sides during the campaign/ time period. That is not the case, for both sides lost P-39's and Zero's to enemy action on missions where they didn't meet in combat.You said 15 P-39s were shot down by zeros, 44 lost total, this against 15 zeros lost to P-39s, this is a 1 to 1 ratio in the air. If you include the total 44 lost P-39s this comes out to 2.9 to 1
Also wouldn't it be more fair/factual if we're going with 44 TOTAL Airacobras lost with how many TOTAL Zeros were lost, if that number were possible to find? I mean, apples to apples right?
Not in late 1942/ early 1943 and it depends where we are talking. Many seasoned JN pilots were lost at Midway and that attrition never fully recovered. JAAF pilots were a different story. The P-39, P-40 and F4F over the Solomons barely scraped over a 1 to 1 kill/ claim ratio. Once the P-38 came on scene scores jumped. This is well documented in the 39th and 80th FS histories as well as other units that gave up their P-39s for P-38s. With that said, the P-39 did serve a purpose, it did hold the line but we weren't going to win the war with a 1:1 kill ratio.And nobody ever notes the attrition of the best Japanese pilots by the P-39, P-40 and F4F. The P-39 and P-40 were still the most numerous AAF fighters in NG until Sept '43. The newer AAF pilots were much better trained than the earlier pilots, and the Japanese replacements were much worse in their training. The P-38, Corsair and Hellcat pilots were facing declining competition.
These are not kills they are claims. There is usually a large difference.As far as I know, there are two ways to calculate kill-to-loss ratio:
1) Own losses in air-to-air combat alone against air-to-air victories, and
2) All combat losses against all victories.
The real issue is that the USAAF and the USN / USMC do NOT save the data the same way.
The Navy breaks out losses as losses on action sorties and losses to non-action missions. Losses on action sorties are losses to: 1) Enemy aircraft, 2) losses to AAA, and 3) Operational losses on combat mission unrelated to combat (ran out of fuel, engine malfunction, mid-air collision, post a prop). Losses on non-action sorties are losses: 1) Losses on Ship (carrier sank) or Ground, and 2) Losses on Other Flights (such as repositioning flights, maintenance flights, etc.).
The USAAC/F, on the other hand, just tracks all Combat losses, but they break victories up into: 1) Air-to-air, and 2) Ground.
By way of example, take the F6F Hellcat: Air-to-air: 270 air-to-air losses; 5,163 kills = 19.1 : 1 in air-to-air combat. But, if you look at ALL combat losses, you get: 1,163 losses against 5,163 kills = 4.44 : 1 overall.
If you look at the P-51 Mustang, we see: 2,520 combat losses, 4,950 air-to-air victories = 1.96 : 1 in air-to-air combat. But, the P-51 also had 4,131 ground kills. If you add air and ground kills, you get 9,081 kills. So, we have 2,520 combat losses against 9,081 kill = 3.60 : 1 kill-to-loss combat total.
We can't break out air-to-air losses for the P-51 and we can't break out air versus ground kills for the F6F. So, the only real comparison is total ratio: F6F = 4.44 : 1 and P-51 =3.60 : 1. The only thing we CAN say is that the F6F kills can't have too many on the ground versus the P-51's total because the ocean won't support stationary airplanes. Therefore, there are many fewer ground kills in the case of the F6F. But, we can't say how many.
By the way, the data for the P-51 is ETO-only from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes. The data for the F6F is from Naval Combat Statistics of World War II.
I show the P-39 as 107 combat losses against 32 kills for a kill-to-loss ratio of 0.3 : 1. But, that is for the ETO only. I don't have the P-39's Pacific numbers and am not sure where to find them.
And the original point of the P-51B/P-51D comparison, was that the P-51D (empty) was heavier than the P-51B (empty), yet had better performance - contrary to someone's insistence that a lighter P-39 would have had better performance.
So again: weight alone is not the magic solution to a type's performance.
So many variables! Nothing's simple anymore!Without the racks, the P-51B was probably faster, not slower. With racks on, the positions switched. P-51D used more streamlined racks, 4 mph cost vs. 12 mph on the B.