Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[Marcel]

Later versions of the Buffalo were too heavy for their enginepower. This especially concerned the RAF versions which had a lot of modifications, making them about 900 pounds heavier than the original version. The B239 of the Finnish airforce on the other had didn't have this problum, thus performed well.

[Juha]

Hello, yes 339E's gross weight seemed to be nearly 1000 lb more than that of 239's, but it had 150 hp more at take-off power but only 100 hp more at military power and of course wing loading also went up. F2A-2 should not be too bad, gross 400 lb more than that of 239 but 250 hp more at take off power setting. But F2A-3, gross 1100 lb more than that of F2A-2 with same engine, clearly too much was tried in that version. More protection clearly not always made a fighter more safe in combat.

[Marcel]

I think it was the F2A-3 that got beaten at Midway, leading to the bad reputation the Buffalo got. It really was a bad aircraft. Not confinced if the other models were. The dutch put up a helluva fight in their 339C's in the dutch east indies and while aiding the British.

[Juha]

Hello Marcel
Yes, all 18 Brewsters on Midway were F2A-3s. Now the weights I cited earlier were manufacturer's numbers from Dean’s American 100 000. On next double page there are different sets of numbers and according to them F2A-2 had almost 1400 lb greater gross than Model 239 and F2A-3 1630 lb greater, so the difference between -2 and -3 might not be so great after all. When we think that Model 239 had a powerloading of appr. 5.3 lb per 1 hp and F2A-2 and -3 had 200 hp more power at Military rating we see that powerloading got worse and wing loading even more so. So at least the idea to put more fuel into that small plane was mistake, greater fuel capacity added 440 lb if we only count liquid weight without changes in structural weight. Clearly too much was put into the plane.

Juha

[16KJV11]

Any opinions on the Bell Airacobra? I'm sure some remarks were made earlier in the thread, but I'm not privy to them.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by 16KJV11

Any opinions on the Bell Airacobra? I'm sure some remarks were made earlier in the thread, but I'm not privy to them.

Not one of the most brilliant fighters, but performed very well in the ground support role with the ruskis

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Not one of the most brilliant fighters, but performed very well in the ground support role with the ruskis

not just ground support... they effectively used it as a low and med altitude fighter. Five Russians shot down more aircraft in a P-39 than Richard Bong in a P-38

Soviet P-39 Aces




.

[16KJV11]

Originally Posted by comiso90

not just ground support... they effectively used it as a low and med altitude fighter. Five Russians shot down more aircraft in a P-39 than Richard Bong in a P-38

Soviet P-39 Aces




.

Did the Russians have a Fly 'til you die policy like most Axis powers?
Or, were they rotated like US pilots?

[comiso90]

I'd astonished if the Soviets didnt fly to ya die in most circumstances but like us, they needed experienced pilots to train youngens too. also their home front needed a few heros alive... On the whole i'm sure they grounded their pilots down but transfered a few for training.

I think one of the reasons the P-39 performed well on the Eastern front is IMO aerial engagements tended to take place at lower altitudes where the P-39 could compete better. I suspect much of the Soviet victories in P-39's were against aircraft in ground attack or anti-tank roles.

.

[16KJV11]

Originally Posted by comiso90

I'd astonished if the Soviets didnt fly to ya die in most circumstances but like us, they needed experienced pilots to train youngens too. also their home front needed a few heros alive... On the whole i'm sure they grounded their pilots down but transfered a few for training.

I think one of the reasons the P-39 performed well on the Eastern front is IMO aerial engagements tended to take place at lower altitudes where the P-39 could compete better. I suspect much of the Soviet victories in P-39's were against aircraft in ground attack or anti-tank roles.

.

Did any King Cobras go for Lend Lease to the Reds?

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by 16KJV11

Did any King Cobras go for Lend Lease to the Reds?

Google, "P-63 Lend-lease" and this is what you get:

In total 2400 airplanes P-63 "Kingcobra" were supplied to USSR in accordance to Lend-Lease terms.

Russian site with good info:

P-63 Kingcobra

Google is your friend


.

[16KJV11]

I was reading about the Soviet P-39 aces and I thought it was noteworthy that they wouldn't recognize one of the greatest aces as Hero of the Soviet Union b/c he became such a top scorer in the P-39 instead of one of the Reds workhorses.
Such pride!

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by comiso90

not just ground support... they effectively used it as a low and med altitude fighter. Five Russians shot down more aircraft in a P-39 than Richard Bong in a P-38

Soviet P-39 Aces

.

Good point, I think one of the reasons that the P39 wasn't the fighter it was supposed to be, was the fact that early Alison engines didn't perform wel at high altitudes, at least compared to the RR Merlin and the DB601. I think more fighters with this engine suffered from this (like the P40).

[16KJV11]

The ME 210 would probably rank up there amongst the 10 worst aircraft of WWII.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by 16KJV11

The ME 210 would probably rank up there amongst the 10 worst aircraft of WWII.

I'd have to say that it is the COOLEST looking poor performer.

.