Hey TD can you look again at the Corsair..

[horseback]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Not at the altitudes, where they fought (high up with the bombers). Not suited for carriers use and not having the necessary range for default PTO operations, it was best used in ground attack and low alt fight - as especially the russians use to do it.

If it had got the turbocharger, that prototypes had, then the picture would have been different maybe.

Later in the war, after D-Day, when ground attacks in Europe became more important, there were already better types available, like P-47 and P-51 (which could as well fly all the way with the buffs too).

The campaigns the RAF and the USAAF (and very quickly for the USN, after the first carrier battles) fought more or less required ever increasing altitudes; an attacking force would be forced (by radar) to come in as high as possible to make interception both more difficult and hopefully in lesser force. P-39s were found next to useless at Guadalcanal as most attacks air attacks came from over 20,000 ft, which they simply could not reach and be effective at (regardless of the official maximum altitude figure; a lot of early war US fighters were plagued with quality issues in the first 18 months of the war).

In the Soviet campaigns, the Soviets and the Germans were largely unable to strike at each others' strategic assets from the air, and had to attack them as they approached the battlefield, or on the battlefield itself. Striking from high altitudes in this sort of situation made any useful accuracy almost impossible, so everyone was forced to fight at lower altitudes, even though the German fighters were able to use their better high alt performance to patrol and strike from on high. Had the Soviets been able to develop a similarly capable fighter for medium/high alt combat that was still capable (by their definition) at lower alts, they probably would have put it to wide use.

Instead, they mostly kept their fighters operating at their best altitudes and made the Germans come to them. They may have figured they were sitting ducks either way, and their chances of surviving and inflicting damage to the enemy were better at their best altitudes rather than at Fritz's.

Part of the reason that the P-39 couldn't get the turbochargers was that the USAAF preferred to put them in their bombers or in the more promising P-38 and P-47 designs. Remember that the decision was made before we entered the war, and that the company that made them had other priorities (odd as that sounds, it was just more profitable to make other stuff to sell to the public rather than to make very difficult high tech/high cost products for the rather parsimonious (cheap) US military of the 1930s). It was late 1942 before the turbocharger production even began to sort itself out; production and development of the P-38 and P-47 was affected, and it was a bottleneck for the B-17 and B-24 as well at times.

Putting the turbocharger on the Airacobra would also have made it heavier, meaning less fuel tankage and less range, plus there would be poorer performance at low and medium altitudes, limiting its usefulness in support of the Army's ground forces.

cheers

horseback

[horseback]

Comparison Number Two: P-39N, P-40M and the Ki-43-II. I'm going to stay with 1943 fighters for the time being. These were the aircraft flown at the time the tide turned in most respects IMHO. As before, Crimea over the sea, noon, 3050m, 270kph IAS, course due East.

I'm just going to go with a listing of times to each speed this time; from start time to each speed gives a clearer picture of where each plane stands. There are more surprises in this one.

270 to 350 kph: Ki-43-II, 24 seconds / P-40M, 21 seconds / P-39N, 18 seconds

370 kph: Ki-43-II, 35 seconds / P-40M, 30 seconds / P-39N, 23 seconds

380 kph: Ki-43-II, 42 seconds / P-40M, 38 seconds / P-39N, 26 seconds

390 kph: Ki-43-II, 58 seconds / P-40M, 44 seconds / P-39N, 29 seconds

400 kph: Ki-43-II, 1:17 / P-40M, 51 seconds / P-39N, 33 seconds

410 kph: Ki-43-II, 2:11 (top speed) / P-40M, 1:05 / P-39N, 37 seconds

420 kph: P-40M, 1:25 / P-39N, 43 seconds

430 kph: P-40M, 1:34 (top speed) / P-39N, 49 seconds

440 kph: P-39N, 54 seconds

450 kph: P-39N, 1:01

460 kph: P-39N, 1:08

470 kph: P-39N, 1:23

480 kph: P-39N, 1:34

490 kph: P-39N, 1:54

Bottom line, when the Oscar tops out at 2:11 and 410 kph, the P-40M has been at its top speed of 430 for 37 seconds, and the P-39N has been at its top speed of 490 kph for 17 seconds. It hardly seems fair.

Both American fighters should build up a big lead over the Ki-43 fairly quickly; if they drop their noses a fraction, they should have an extra margin of safety. The Oscar is easier to trim and keep level & on course and doesn't overheat nearly as quickly--one of the advantages of a radial engine over an inline type.

The P-40 is the next most manageable, but both it and the P-39 are much easier to trim and hold level than the Corsair or the P-47D. This contradicts comparisons made in America's Hundred Thousand sections on trimming, which I consider the best authority on the relative merits of these aircraft. However, I've been carping about this since 2006 or so, and I don't expect Il-2 '46 to address it during my lifetime.

The Airacobra does NOT like a sudden application of prop pitch and throttle. The nose will twist from the sudden torque and put you at least 5 degrees left of your intended course. It is MUCH faster than I expected--nearly in the Corsair's class in both acceleration and top speed. Maybe it was just the Russian paint job, but I expected it to be just a bit quicker than the P-40 and maybe not quite as fast at the top end. WOW.

Both US fighters tend to climb or dive at a shallow angle if you aren't paying close attention; the climb indicator is kind of slow to respond to changes and divided into unrealistic units, so a tiny deflection can result in a hundred and fifty foot change in a few seconds. That's kind of frustrating.

Next, I'm thinking the F4F-4, Spitfire Mks V and IX, and the Bf 109G-2 and -6 before moving to the Russians and an Italian or two.

cheers

horseback

[The_WOZ]

A comparison between the Spit V and the A6M3 at 15000 ft would be interesting.
The spit is faster, but the A6M3 should have better acceleration. I don't think it's that way in game.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/artic...-the-zero.html

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by horseback

It is MUCH faster than I expected--nearly in the Corsair's class in both acceleration and top speed. Maybe it was just the Russian paint job, but I expected it to be just a bit quicker than the P-40 and maybe not quite as fast at the top end. WOW.

3050m should be very close to full throttle height of the P-39 -if the test were at 7000m results would be very different. The P-39 at 3k is able to run with the German fighters of 1943 in this sim. And if you can get Zeros to fight at your altitude its like driving a Ferrari vs. Fiats.

[IceFire]

P-39 is not at all surprising. It has one of the lowest drag ratios for US fighters. In the same neighborhood as the P-51 and P-47.

[horseback]

I simply expected the P-40 to perform a bit closer to the P-39 at these alts; it is much more -respected- in the US, so one just thinks that the iconic early war fighter would do better than the 'ugly duckling' we so eagerly shunted off to the steppes. My education continues...

cheers

horseback

[Woke Up Dead]

Interesting tests, thanks Horseback.

I'm a bit surprised at all the expressions of surprise here. Horseback's results are fairly consistent with the impressions I have of the planes he tested:

- The 1943 F4Us fly better than the 1943 190s. Faster, better acceleration, better low-speed turn, less twitchy and less nervous at high speeds. The 190 can "fool" you into thinking it should be a better plane because its firepower ends the fight as soon as its opponent makes one mistake, while the F4U needs to peck and peck and peck with its mg's, and also because the 190's quick roll and quick initial turn may leave you with the impression that it has quickness in acceleration too. Things get a bit better for the 190 with the A9, and a lot better with the Doras.

- The P39 is a monster between the deck and 4000m. Its softball lobbing cannon and its infamous stall discourages many players, and it's a lot harder to learn and fly to its limits unlike the Spit, or Zero, or 109. But if you fly with or against a rare P-39 expert, you can definitely see what a great plane it is at low altitudes. The P-40s, especially the M, do a lot better above 5000m.

- The Ki-43 is painfully slow, but only in a straight line. As soon as the US planes start turning, the Ki starts to catch up very quickly, it's almost like it loses no energy in turns at all. It also climbs better at any altitude; as soon as a US pilot starts pulling away the Ki pilot should start climbing steeply. If the US plane comes back, the Ki will be slower but will have an altitude advantage to trade for speed.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

The Ki-43 is painfully slow, but only in a straight line. As soon as the US planes start turning, the Ki starts to catch up very quickly, it's almost like it loses no energy in turns at all. It also climbs better at any altitude

Of course, the Ki-43 is made of tinfoil and is armed with pop-guns, which puts it at a serious disadvantage against the better armed and armored U.S. planes. I can see why it was meat on the table for skilled P-38 pilots like Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire.

That said, it's one of my favorite aerobatic aircraft. I have to wonder why more online aerobatics squadrons don't use it.

[Notorious M.i.G.]

Originally Posted by horseback

Maybe it was just the Russian paint job, but I expected it to be just a bit quicker than the P-40 and maybe not quite as fast at the top end. WOW.

And that's with the N, which isn't nearly as hot as the D-2 (which also has the Hispano to boot). Once I'd gotten a knack for flying the P-39 it soon became one of my top favourites - pleasure to fly yet still very capable. Only thing I really don't like about them is the 37mm gun, so I stick to the early models where possible.

I learned my respect for it a few years back when one of the RAF662 guys stomped me with a P-400. I was pretty careful around P-39s after that

[IceFire]

Thing about the P-39 was that it was more experimental than something like the P-40 design.

The P-40 was based on the Hawk 75/P-36 which traces its lineage back to the early 1930s. The landing gear is not stored in the cleanest arrangement, the radiator systems are draggy (partly for looks apparently), the whole design is traditional.

The P-39 has a number of advanced features including a low drag coefficient, tricycle landing gear, car-door style canopy opening, and it was designed initially to have but never allowed to use the turbo supercharging gear.

I'm sure when the P-39 showed up at Port Moresby the USAAF personnel there... who were having difficulty with the traditional P-40 would have seen these as some sort of aberration. I've read something to that effect before anyways. So the poor frontline conditions, the need to fight high over the mountains, the much more difficult handling of the P-39 with the center of gravity pushed much further back... no wonder it was called the "Iron Dog" and disregarded as a poor fighter. Everything was working against it in early US service and that reputation killed it I think. But the plane itself, in the right hands and performing the kinds of tasks that its best suited for, is actually quite a good performer.

Especially if you have a hot rodded version like the D-2 that we have in-game with 1500hp on tap. Thats an incredible amount of power. Still don't understand why the D-2 has 1500hp and everything else has between 1100 and 1300hp.