Favorites and their achilles heels!

[Milosh]

These are the service ceiling numbers I have, but it doesn't say if these are loaded or unloaded altitudes.

Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" - 33,730'

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" - ~30,000'

Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" - 32,800'

Nakajima Ki-49 "Helen" - 26,772'

Kawasaki Ki-48 "Lily" - 33,135'

 

[oldcrowcv63]

These are the service ceiling numbers I have, but it doesn't say if these are loaded or unloaded altitudes.

Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" - 33,730'

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" - ~30,000'

Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" - 32,800'

Nakajima Ki-49 "Helen" - 26,772'

Kawasaki Ki-48 "Lily" - 33,135'

As I recall, USAAF PS-17 was often scrambled to intercept G3M, G4M and Ki-21 bombers. The figure most often quoted in Bartsch was "3,000 feet above" the P-40Es when they had reached 26-27,000 feet and could coax no higher altitude from their worn out engines.

 

[muscogeemike]

My favorite is the Corsair. Unfortunately for the purpose of this discussion, the Corsair had no weaknesses! Ha. I guess I would have to say range. It also could do a 4 G inverted negative dive! hahaha.

I would refer you to THE THREADBARE BUZZARD, by Thomas M. Tomlinson. He was from Montana but went to Canada and enlisted in the RAF. After Pear Harbor he joined the USMC and flew Wildcats and Corsairs in the original VMF 214 (pre "Pappy" Boyington). He evaluates both aircraft and addresses their good points and faults. The Corsair, especially the early Corsair (like most early models of all aircraft), did have faults.

He is also critical of the US Navy treatment of the USMC and of Boyington and the later VMF 214.

 

[pbfoot]

I would refer you to THE THREADBARE BUZZARD, by Thomas M. Tomlinson. He was from Montana but went to Canada and enlisted in the RAF. .

RCAF or RAF he wouldn't be to bright to take that big pay cut

 

[MikeGazdik]

First off, I must confess that I LOVE the P-40B/C. But trying to be objective. I think the success the AVG had compared to other, later, P-40 outfits were: tactics, the aforementioned early warning, and the foe, the AVG was not fighting Zeros.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

First off, I must confess that I LOVE the P-40B/C. But trying to be objective. I think the success the AVG had compared to other, later, P-40 outfits were: tactics, the aforementioned early warning, and the foe, the AVG was not fighting Zeros.

I think that's correct Mike, but of course with a higher ceiling and better climb rate the P-40B/C was able to resort to the succcessful Boom and Zoom tactics Channault promoted. Reading Bartsch, I definitely got the impression the USAAF pilots knew about and wanted to Boom and Zoom but just weren't able to control the circumstances of the engagement, typically surrendering altitude superiority to the Zero. They were very frustrated with the E's inability to climb to intercept altitude, let alone gain altitude superiority. My impression is that the B is fundamentally a better airplane weapon system than the E.

 

[Tangopilot89]

Carburettors rather than injectors on Spitfire and Hurricane, plus the lack of range (I know some have already mentioned this)

A weakness to the Lancaster and Halifax I think was the lack of belly armament, exploited by night fighters with the fixed upward firing cannon.

 

[Maximowitz]

The Messerschmitt 410 Hornisse. A favourite of mine.

Achilles heels:

Taking off

Flying

Landing

 

[A4K]

McDonnell-Douglas A-4K Skyhawk, one of my all time favourites.

Achilles heel: The New Zealand government.

 

[buffnut453]

Actually, on reflection it's not that funny...just sad.

 

[A4K]

Exactly mate...

 

[bowfin]

P-38 Lightning: Everybody was scared to dive in it once the compressibility phenomenon reared its ugly head.

 

[tomo pauk]

Everybody?

 

[MikeGazdik]

I think that's correct Mike, but of course with a higher ceiling and better climb rate the P-40B/C was able to resort to the succcessful Boom and Zoom tactics Channault promoted. Reading Bartsch, I definitely got the impression the USAAF pilots knew about and wanted to Boom and Zoom but just weren't able to control the circumstances of the engagement, typically surrendering altitude superiority to the Zero. They were very frustrated with the E's inability to climb to intercept altitude, let alone gain altitude superiority. My impression is that the B is fundamentally a better airplane weapon system than the E.

What is the difference in climb rate of the P-40B vs the E? I didn't know there was that big of a difference. Yet another reason to like the B/C version of the P-40 even more. Looks wise, the early P-40 is just perfect for me. Nice swept nose, radiator just the right size. The upper fuselage from cocpit back is sweet.

 

[tomo pauk]

deleted

 

[Shortround6]

It is not just the climb rate but the difference in ceilings, it is not exact but but having a climb rate, say 200ft per minute slower at sea level often means a climb rate 200ft per minute slower at 20,000ft and that is were things get really interesting or really difficult.

I don't have any figures for the P-40s but some figures for the Spitfire and Hurricane might be interesting. While a look at typical "book" figures doesn't show huge differences, like the Spit I having a service ceiling of 37,400ft to the Hurricane's 34,000ft or time to 25,000ft of 11m 33 s for the Spit and 13m 12s for the Hurricane the actual performance at high altitudes was quite different. the "operational" ceiling (height at which 500FPM of climb could be reached) was 34,000ft for the Spitfire (note that the Hurricane could do just 100FPM at that height) and 31,400ft for the Hurricane. Climb rate at 25,000ft for the Spit was 1660fpm vs the 1260fpm of the Hurricane or about 4 ft for every 3 feet of the Hurricane. at 30,000ft the climb rates were 1020fpm vs 660fpm or about 3 feet for every 2 of the Hurricanes.
Instead of the 10% difference in performance a comparison of the service ceilings show or the 14% difference in time to 25,000ft there is a 33-50% advantage for the Spitfire between 25,000 and 30,000ft.

I think something similar happened to the P-40. As it gained weight and lost climb and altitude performance, it lost it much faster or in a larger amount at high altitudes than the "book" figures really show. Going from a "service ceiling" of 33,000ft to 29,000ft means that the "operational" ceiling went down almost as much. Say to 26,000ft? and climbing at even 500fpm is not that good for 1941/42. A 109E was supposed to be good for 1340fpm at 25,000ft and 740fpm at 30,000ft let alone what an "F" was good for.

 

[drgondog]

Shortround - I have a slightly different perspective on the B vs E question. I feel that the critical altitude advantage of the blower gearing for the P-40B of +3000 feet altitude over the E was more of a factor than the apparent weight differential of approximately 300 pounds due to the all .50 caliber battery.

There is no question in my mind that weight was a key factor, just reflect on where the second gear kicked in for the P-40B when considering performance above 12,000 feet.

While the E was slightly heavier it also had the later Allison 1710 with about 6% more power.

 

[tomo pauk]

The engine from P-40B was producing 1040 HP at 14300 ft, military rating, same as the engine for P-40E at same altitude. The -E's engine was in advantage down low, producing 1150 HP at 12000 ft, military. The supercharger gearing was of the essentially of the same ratio, 8,77:1 (for the -B's engine) and 8,80 (-E's engine). Both were single speed engines, so no second gear here.

Without fuel, ammo pilot, the P-40B weighted just under 6000 lbs, and P-40E 700 lbs more.

 

[bowfin]

Not a favorite, but Dehavilland Mosquito:

Bad hydraulic design

According to a WWII crew chief stationed at Shepherd Airfield in World War II, the hydraulics for the Mosquito was powered by one of the engines. The only Mosquito he ever saw was a beautifully marked American one that made an emergency landing on one engine. Unfortunately, (he claimed) the Mosquito's hydraulics derived its power from that one engine, and with that engineout , it meant no hydraulic power, which meant no landing gear.

A belly landing turned the Mosquito's plywood and lacquer airframe into tinder, and the aircraft burned at the end of the runway, with the pilot making good his escape.

I can't vouch for any of this on my own, just a story passed down from a vet.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-38 Lightning: Everybody was scared to dive in it once the compressibility phenomenon reared its ugly head.

Not true. I worked with guys who flew the P-38 in combat, it was just something to be aware of on earlier models if you did go into a dive.