[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by horseback

As I said, the results from the 190 and the Zero don't make sense to me; I wonder if these aircraft flown by AI would get better numbers, because they sure seem faster when I'm flying against them in a QMB or a campaign. Maybe having Insta-Trim confers more Mojo than even I thought it does.

While the Zero makes perfect sense to me, it is out of its ideal performance envelope almost into the beginning of the test, the Fw190 is a bit astonishing - maybe not its best altitude though. Or maybe it is the way it is -similar power/weight, but more power at the Corsair - if it has a comparable front area that would then give it an edge.

Originally Posted by horseback

I'll want to try the F4F-3 and -4, the P-40E, the Ki-43 and maybe the Ki-27 (which was active over the Philippines as well as China during the early war). We might want to check the IJN/IJA fighters vs the USN/early USAAF fighters at 5000 ft as well; the early contests of 1942 often took place at lower alts. If the Japanese birds perform better there, it might start to give us a better picture.

I'd be interested in P-39s, I somehow have the feeling the later ones accelerate pretty good. Maybe I get to testing some this week -I'm intrigued by what's been done.

Originally Posted by horseback

I'm also wondering if we couldn't test and compare dive acceleration in a similar way...

I don't see how - the problem beeing the dive angle - would have to test parallel or flying pursuit.

Originally Posted by horseback

cheers

horseback

Thanks for getting all the data - especially as it didn't back up your original claim -other people wouldn't have had the balls to post it.