Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[renrich]

Thanks Flyboy, so I gather it would be unlikely that any AC engine would continue to run with a cylinder head completely blown off? Another question, did the RR Merlin engine have overhead camshafts and how about the Allison V1710?

[kool kitty89]

I didn't mean to say the P-39 was definitively tougher, or a better a/c than the P-40, I was just showing some points of view. Personally I think the P-40 was a better (more useful) all around a/c, and by most accounts (except Soviets) a tougher plane. (better ordinance capacity and range especially, and better armament for most purposes in the 6x .50 cals of most models) I forgot about the size issue of the P-39, that would be another reason for Welch's dislike as he was taller than 5'8" iirc.

Also I wasn't trying to use that loss-rate statistic to show better maintenence or servicabillity, I just though it was an interesting point. Plus a low loss rate doesn't necessarily mean greater effectiveness as there is no mention of how much damage was done to the targets.

[renrich]

Interesting comparison between the Model 239 Finnish version of the F2A and the F2A-3 which was the USN model at the beginning of the war. The 239 in the 4 gun fighter role with 110 gal of fuel had a gross weight of 5276 lbs. The F2A-3 4 gun fighter had a gross weight of 6321 lbs. That additional 1000 lbs or so made a nice handling little fighter into a dog!

[kool kitty89]

But you also have to take into account the 1,200 hp engine of the F2A-3 compared to the 950 hp one the finns had, and the 20-30mph greater speed, better armour, and range (over 1,600 mi with max fuel load at ~7,000 lbs total weight) of the F2A-3, though climb and maneuverabillity were down. Plus, at normal combat weight the F2A-3 still better performing (inclimb, speed, and maneuverability) than the F4F-3 and especiall F4F-4 and it had nearly twice the maximum range, and was certainly better than the Buffalo Mk.1. Though the quality and quantity produced by Brewster was a major problem and as talked about in the "worst planes" thread, this was largely due to internal problems in the company and management. At one point Brewster factory employees went on strike (durring the war!), and eventually the US government seized control of the company.

Plus the F2A-2 was a bit of a compromise between the F2A-1 and F2A-3, though it lacked self-sealing tanks and had less armour than the F2A-3, it had much more armor than the F2A-1 (which had next to none), range similar to the F2A-3, with the same 1,200 hp engine but with ~500 lbs less weight and the best speed of any F2A variant of ~344 mph and climb only slightly less than the B-239.

But who knows how development would have gone if management had been better and internal problems resolved. Maby Brewster designers would be able to solve the structural problems and maby enlarge the craft a bit (most importantly increase wing area to decrease wing loading) to compensate for the extra weight by the time the F2A-3 came around and add an uprated 1,300 hp Wright R-1820 engine nedded for the added weight. (which should have been available by then iirc) Maby a 1,350 or 1,450 hp version in later models which could have been compeditive with the FM-2, or maby even the Hellcat. (if enlarged like the Hellcat was over the wildcat) But still this is only a what-if speculation and Grumman had been an established manufacturer while Brewster was rater new and had grown too fast for the current management to maintain it properly... (as management had,'t developed and expanded accordingly)

Still the F2A-1 was possibly the best carrier based fighter in the world at its time of introduction in 1939, though it lacked significant armour and self-sealing tanks. (so did nearly every other combat a/c at the time)


If development of the F2A had paralleled te F4F in improvemnt they may have made good complements to each other, with (in a deffensive position) the F2A's engaging escorting enemy fighters using their better speed, climb, agility, and smaller size, while the Wildcats could focus on enemy bombers and attak a/c using the better firepower (particularly in the F4F-4, and still in the F4F-3's greater ammo and higher rof compared to the nose-guns) and greater armor and damage resistance to take them down while resisting defensive fire.

[Crumpp]

I didn't mean to say the P-39 was definitively tougher, or a better a/c than the P-40, I was just showing some points of view. Personally I think the P-40 was a better (more useful) all around a/c, and by most accounts (except Soviets) a tougher plane. (better ordinance capacity and range especially, and better armament for most purposes in the 6x .50 cals of most models) I forgot about the size issue of the P-39, that would be another reason for Welch's dislike as he was taller than 5'8" iirc.

Also I wasn't trying to use that loss-rate statistic to show better maintenence or servicabillity, I just though it was an interesting point. Plus a low loss rate doesn't necessarily mean greater effectiveness as there is no mention of how much damage was done to the targets.

OK! I misunderstood you and point withdrawn.

I gather it would be unlikely that any AC engine would continue to run with a cylinder head completely blown off?

Yes, A pilot was extremely lucky if this happenend to him. It was a rare event indeed.

All the best,

Crumpp

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by renrich

Thanks Flyboy, so I gather it would be unlikely that any AC engine would continue to run with a cylinder head completely blown off?

Possible but not probable

Originally Posted by renrich

Another question, did the RR Merlin engine have overhead camshafts and how about the Allison V1710?

I believe both engines had overhead cams...

[AL Schlageter]

Allison V1710 Engine


Rolls-Royce Merlin/V1650 Engine

scale Merlin
Merlin XX

[kool kitty89]

One thing I read about the P-43 Lancers passing through the AVG (Flying Tigers) in China wanted to keep some of the P-43s they were ferrying for the Chinese AF due to the tougher engine and far better altitude performance, unfortunately early machines lacked armor or self-sealing tanks and were juged as unusable for the AVG. However later P-43s had added armor and "self-sealing" tanks (as well as the 2x .30 cal guns per wing were replaced with a single .50 cal gun each), but these tanks prooved to be nearly worthless in this reguard and the wet wings prooved to leak constantly with little or no provokation. (the turbochargers were also somewhat unreliable, but this was not a major concern compared to the other problems) Too bad, as this a/c could have prooved valuable to the AVG for high-altitude escort and, though it couldn't out-turn the P-40, the P-43 could out-climb the Tomahawk (as could the lighter P-40B) and had a slightly better roll-rate. The Lancer did see service with the Chinese, but never saw any significant sucesses, partially since tactics optimising the P-43's strengths (as the AVG did with the P-40) weren't used and likewise attempts were made to dogfight Japanese fighters, with predictable results...

I wonder why the Chinese P-43s were of such poor quality... Could Republic have deliberately produced it poorly since they knew it wouldn't be seein combat with US forces, or was development of improvements of the obsolete plane simply not deemed necessary?

Once armor had been added, the unreliable fuel tanks were the only major flaw with the craft and this really shouldn't have been unduely difficult for Republic to correct, especially with the delay of engine availability for producing the P-47B. (which was the main reason for producing the P-43 in any significant numbers in the first place)

I'm also curious as to why there was no thought to use of the craft for carrier opperations as it certainly out-performed the Wildcat and couldn't have been that hard to improve to a fully combat ready quality. (and to add carrier equipment, and strengthened landing gear if necessary)

[kool kitty89]

Did the V-1710 engines use ingected carborators? As the early Merlins had serious problems with negative G-loads on the engine and I've never heard of this problem on Allison engines.

One thing I also hadn't realized was that the early Merlin Marks (prior to the Merlin XX) with single-stage single-speed superchargers were actually lighter than later V-1710's at 1,350 lbs, though, according to AL Schlageter's link, the original prototype V-1710 weighed only 1,010 lbs, and I'm not sure how much the V-1710's of the same period of the Merlin I-X weighed... Though for the same power the Allison engine tends to weigh ~100 lbs lighter than the Merlin (comparing only single-stage supercharged models), though it also tend to be longer with the tranmission section projectiong farther out, though hight and width are about the same.

Does anyone have any better numbers for the size, weight, and power ratings for Merlins and V-1710s? (particularly the Merlin XX and earlier and the V-1710s w/out excessories: only integral supercharger)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Did the V-1710 engines use ingected carborators?

They used "Pressure Carburetors."

[JoeB]

delete double, see below

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I didn't mean to say the P-39 was definitively tougher, or a better a/c than the P-40, I was just showing some points of view.

Also I wasn't trying to use that loss-rate statistic to show better maintenence or servicabillity, I just though it was an interesting point.

That statistic, P-39 lowest per sortie loss rate of any USAAF fighter in ETO/MTO, is interesting. But it has a pretty straightforward explanation, which is that the few P-39 equipped groups in 12th AF were used for a pretty prolonged period, from early 1943 to well into the Italian mainland campaign, for defensive patrols to cover Allied convoys along the North African coast against German bomber attacks which fairly seldom materialized. And one reason for that deployment was one disastrous combat between the 81st FG and JG 77 Bf109's over Tunisia March 13, '43 where 7 P-39's were lost (the Germans awarded between 12 and 20 credits for P-39's in this combat). That one incident comprised a fair degree of the P-39's general reputation in the USAAF as 'not competitive with German fighters'. Eventually the 350th FG, which kept its P-39's well into 1944 when USAAF P-40's were long gone from MTO (though Brit/Commonwealth still operated Kittyhawks into '44 there), did a fair amount of ground support in Italy against serious AA fire, and claimed a few German fighters too; before converting to P-47's. But I don't know of any real apples-apples combat loss rate stats between P-40 and P-39 in US service. That's so often the issue, really comparable loss stats or lack of them, as illustrated in several of the other debates on this thread.

One fairly clear stat I mentioned earlier from the USAAF Statistics Digest is the P-39 had a markedly higher fatal accident rate than the P-40, or any other USAAF fighter, though the overall accident rates wasn't as much higher than the P-40's. The P-40 had a lot of ground loop accidents; but the P-39 had a lot of stall/spin accidents, more often fatal.

Joe

[renrich]

I think that trying to turn a Brewster Buffalo into a silk purse might be a hopeless task. To begin with it was built by Brewster. Even the Corsairs made by Brewster were unsat. By the way, the Hellcat was not an enlarged Wildcat. Any more than a B29 was an enlarged B17. I don't believe that it could be said that the F2A was the best carrier borne fighter in service in 1939. There were just too many structural problems, not the least of which was the collapsing landing gear. Aside from the design deficiencies of the F2A, it was just too small with too small a wing to ever be able to handle the jobs the F4F was called on to handle. The empty weight of the Finnish 239 was 3744 lbs with no armor and no self sealing tanks. The F4F-3 weighed 5426 lbs but had a considerably larger wing area, 260 sf versus 208 sf. Comparing performance the F4F3 could touch 335 mph at 22000 ft, the F2A3 321 mph at 14500. The F4F3 had a SL climb rate of 3300 fpm, the F2A3 could do 2600 fpm up to 10000 ft, the F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at sea level. Not much worse than the Buffalo but with an aircraft with folding wings, 6 guns,armor and self sealing tanks. The F2A never had satisfactory SS tanks. At anywhere near the same weight, the Wildcat could outturn the Buffalo because of it's lower wing loading. The only reason I can think of that the Finns had success with the 239 was that it was stripped down, light and they were fighting at low altitudes with the enemy trying to dogfight with them instead of using energy tactics. The F2A against the Japanese was pretty much a failure.

[kool kitty89]

Down low (below 15,000 ft) the Russians found the P-39 quite effective aganst the Bf-109, though they used many P-39N and Q models which had more powerful engines and improved aerodynamics compaered to the P-400s and P-39D-1s used in this instance with the USAAF (the P-39D had even worse performance, though the D-2 was a rather better a/c with an uprated engine rated for 1,325 hp, with over 1,400 hp for take-off and millitary power iirc)

[renrich]

Aside from the fact that the visibility over the nose of the P43 was insufficent for carrier landings I would bet that it's slow speed handling characteristics were too poor, its landing speed too high, it's takeoff distance too great and by the time you did the structural work to make it robust enough for carrier duty, it would be so heavy it would not outperform a Wildcat. The P43 had good performance up high because of turbocharging but the USN wanted good performance at low and medium altitudes where most ACM took place during sea battles.