drgondog
Major
LOL.. and JUG's are the dual mammary glands on a well endowed female
Hardest plane to take down in WW2?
- Thread starter Hunter368
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
LOL.. and JUG's are the dual mammary glands on a well endowed female
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The P40 is an interesting airplane, perhaps deserving the honor(dubious) of being the most underappreciated AC in WW2. It was there in the beginning and at the end and served all over the world. It was rugged, well armed,was maneuverable and had good performance below 15000 or 20000 ft. Perhaps the biggest knock was it's performance above 20000 ft. It was a good looking bird too.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Merlin (single-stage 2-speed supercharger) engined P-40's were good to ~20,000 ft, the Allisons to ~13,000-15,000 ft, though I think the P-40M's V-1710 was rated for 1125 hp at 17,300 feet. The Allison engined P-40s were somewhat lighter though, and faster at critical altitude with the P-40E being about as fast at 15,000 ft as a Merlin P-40 was at 20,000 ft, with the Allison P-40s performing better at low level than the Merlins did at altitude and low level. (except for the stripped-down short-range P-40L)
It was good looking in the sleek B/C/Tomahawk, but the larger radiator and less streamlined/less shark-like nose on P-40D and later models made it somewhat ugly, though somewhat more menacing. (akin to the Bf-109's Ugly beauty) Though performance, firepower, and cockpit visibility were decidedly better. We've discessed this already here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-beautiful-planes-3322-42.html and more http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-beautiful-planes-3322-43.html
I'd say that the P-39 and F2A would rank along with the P-40 as underappreciated, though with the Finns and the Russians the planes were well liked, though for some reason the Russians disliked the P-40, though not so much as the Hurricane. Though the P-39 had a speed and high speed maneuverabillity advantage, the P-40 was tougher (by most accounts, and particularly the wings) and had better low speed and stall characteristics, debatably better firepower, and much better range. (in fact enough to make a decent escort, particularly for low-level duty)
And I'm sure the Flying Tigers apreciated their P-40s. It was possibly the toughest liquid-cooled inline-engined fighter of the war. And interesting to compare to the Hurricane as both airframes are from around the same time in the P-36 and Hurricane Mk.I, though the P-40 certainly out developed the Hurricane. (though by the time it entered service the Spitfire was certainly outperforming it)
I rember reading in The Amazing George Welch: Part One how it wasn't the poor high-alt performance of the P-39D that gave Welch his bad feelings tward his "Iron Dog," but the small combat radius (the P-39D wasn't equiped for drop-tanks, though the P-39D-1/2 were iirc, though still shorter ranged than the P-40) which was why he was so eager to get a P-38, and with ~1,400 mi combat range with a 140 gal tank (nearly 2,000 mi ferry) I bet it would have been much preferred.
It was good looking in the sleek B/C/Tomahawk, but the larger radiator and less streamlined/less shark-like nose on P-40D and later models made it somewhat ugly, though somewhat more menacing. (akin to the Bf-109's Ugly beauty) Though performance, firepower, and cockpit visibility were decidedly better. We've discessed this already here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-beautiful-planes-3322-42.html and more http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/most-beautiful-planes-3322-43.html
I'd say that the P-39 and F2A would rank along with the P-40 as underappreciated, though with the Finns and the Russians the planes were well liked, though for some reason the Russians disliked the P-40, though not so much as the Hurricane. Though the P-39 had a speed and high speed maneuverabillity advantage, the P-40 was tougher (by most accounts, and particularly the wings) and had better low speed and stall characteristics, debatably better firepower, and much better range. (in fact enough to make a decent escort, particularly for low-level duty)
And I'm sure the Flying Tigers apreciated their P-40s. It was possibly the toughest liquid-cooled inline-engined fighter of the war. And interesting to compare to the Hurricane as both airframes are from around the same time in the P-36 and Hurricane Mk.I, though the P-40 certainly out developed the Hurricane. (though by the time it entered service the Spitfire was certainly outperforming it)
I rember reading in The Amazing George Welch: Part One how it wasn't the poor high-alt performance of the P-39D that gave Welch his bad feelings tward his "Iron Dog," but the small combat radius (the P-39D wasn't equiped for drop-tanks, though the P-39D-1/2 were iirc, though still shorter ranged than the P-40) which was why he was so eager to get a P-38, and with ~1,400 mi combat range with a 140 gal tank (nearly 2,000 mi ferry) I bet it would have been much preferred.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Kitty - the F2A and the Brewster Model 239 had some notable differances and the Finns did some work on the aircraft as well.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I know, and as said before, some USN aviators preferred the F2A to the F4F, under normal load conditions. (at half fuel load the F2A-3 had better speed, climb, agility and about the same range as the F4F-3, while the F2A-2 was even better, though with less armor and no self-sealing tanks)
Still the Finns a/c were fairly slow at just under 300 mph top-speed and relied mostly on agility and firepower (more than most other Finnish fighters, and most earl-war Soviet fighters) Still the B-239 was virtually the same as the F2A-1, though less powerful (950 hp, compared to 1050 hp iirc), slower, slightly lighter with naval equipment removed and armor added. Though engine reliabillity was improved with some modifications on the Finnish machines. I just wonder what the Finns would have done with B-339s had he gotten some, nothe the heavier E modelof the Buffalo I, but the lighter model received by other users in the Pacific. It would have still been somewhat heavier than the B-239, but with 1,100 hp and better speed and range along with similar Finish improvements and the same excelent tactics used to play to the a/c's strengths, it would probably have been sucessful as well.
Still, I wonder why the Soviets disliked the P-40E/M compared he P-39N/Q, maby due to the lower speed and high-speed agility, or maby they liked cannon armament more aganst the German a/c. It may have been better matched aganst the Bf-109 than the P-40 was as well. Iremember reading that the Soviets also found the P-39 to be more durrable than the P-40, maby the P-39 stood up better to the coold climate... Plus the P-39D-2, G, K, and Q had more powerful engines than the P-40. Though the light weight early P-40N was as fast as most P-39s.
And the internal oil cooler and wing root radiators may have been less volnerable to ground fire than the P-40's ones. (though probably more volnerable to enemy a/c, especially the rear-mounted engine.)
And here's one interesting statistic: (from: Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF)
Still the Finns a/c were fairly slow at just under 300 mph top-speed and relied mostly on agility and firepower (more than most other Finnish fighters, and most earl-war Soviet fighters) Still the B-239 was virtually the same as the F2A-1, though less powerful (950 hp, compared to 1050 hp iirc), slower, slightly lighter with naval equipment removed and armor added. Though engine reliabillity was improved with some modifications on the Finnish machines. I just wonder what the Finns would have done with B-339s had he gotten some, nothe the heavier E modelof the Buffalo I, but the lighter model received by other users in the Pacific. It would have still been somewhat heavier than the B-239, but with 1,100 hp and better speed and range along with similar Finish improvements and the same excelent tactics used to play to the a/c's strengths, it would probably have been sucessful as well.
Still, I wonder why the Soviets disliked the P-40E/M compared he P-39N/Q, maby due to the lower speed and high-speed agility, or maby they liked cannon armament more aganst the German a/c. It may have been better matched aganst the Bf-109 than the P-40 was as well. Iremember reading that the Soviets also found the P-39 to be more durrable than the P-40, maby the P-39 stood up better to the coold climate... Plus the P-39D-2, G, K, and Q had more powerful engines than the P-40. Though the light weight early P-40N was as fast as most P-39s.
And the internal oil cooler and wing root radiators may have been less volnerable to ground fire than the P-40's ones. (though probably more volnerable to enemy a/c, especially the rear-mounted engine.)
And here's one interesting statistic: (from: Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF)
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
A big part of the problem with the P39 was that it was just too small. Both to carry much fuel and to carry much pilot. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5'8" tall. Pilots taller than that had a problem. Being so small it was difficult to "stretch" the design to meet the US mission requirements such as long range or additional ordnance capacity. One of the main problems with the F2A as far as the USN was concerned was that it's landing gear was not robust enough for carrier landings.
There are just too many factors for that to be a viable statistic on the vulnerability or maintenance of the P39.
All action is not equal in combat and the logic of using this as evidence the P39 was less vulnerable in combat breaks down.
For example, I went to Desert Storm. That makes me a combat veteran no matter where else I served.
In comparing soldiers in Desert Storm to US Army soldiers on D-Day, we can now logically conclude that the human body was much more vulnerable in 1944 than the human body of today.
We are just tougher than they were 60 years ago.
Doesn't work too well, huh?
All the best,
Crumpp
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I have posted on occasion statements I have read where certain AC engines(mainly radials) have come home with "jugs" cylinders missing. Others on this forum have also done so. I have been thinking about this and although I am not an engineer, I don't see how this is possible. If a cylinder on a radial engine is badly damaged wouldn't it mean that the cylinder would be deformed so that the piston would be jammed and then tear loose the connecting rod? If the cylinder is damaged enough to deform would not the oil leak out? Can someone explain this to me?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
On a radial there is a lot of mass at the crankshaft and any potential "jamming" of a piston would be quickly overpowered, but what you described has happened. If the engine is lucky enough to have just a small tear in the head there might be enough engine oil to keep the engine operating - remember radials used a dry sump system and the oil capacities of these tanks were huge. Also keep in mind that even if a radial was running with a limited oil supply, cooler temps at altitude as well as running the engine rich will help as well.
Here's a pic of a recovered P-47 engine - this will give you an idea of the size of the jugs, pistons and crankcase.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
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)
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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)
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They used "Pressure Carburetors."
