On March 19 1945 the US Navy did indeed lose 14 fighters in combat (some only damaged but later tossed overboard after returning). Not all of them were Hellcats and not all of them were lost to NIKs. Indeed, there were Corsairs lost on that day as well. Japanese ground fire also accounted for some of the losses. In fact, through extensive research I determined that only five F6Fs were actually downed by the 343rd throughout the ENTIRE war. On the other hand, US Navy pilots racked up more than a 5:1 kill ratio against the 343rd. This according to the book "Genda's Blade" which detailed every engagement that the 343rd was involved in, using both Japanese and American primary sources.
The Japanese aircraft engineers were the match of anyone on earth but they were plagued by shortages and, in many cases, doctrine that was flawed. Japan was probably doomed when they invaded China and was definitely doomed when they attacked Pearl Harbor but they built some incredible aircraft. Cheers!
About the Sabre engine. It has a complicated story. The early versions had quality control and manufacturing issues. For a time they were turning out occasional engines that simply wouldn't run for no obvious reasons. They would tear them down to the block, put the parts back in the bins, and production would resume with all the engines assembled with those parts running fine. Then the problems were exaggerated by the Typhoon needing high power settings to cruise at useful speeds. The production problems were largely solved by the time the Tempest came along and, with its laminar flow airfoil, it could cruise at much lower power settings. It was, like the Tempest, demanding but it was about as reliable as any engine with such high performance. Better than the highly boosted versions of the DB 605 and Jumo 213 for comparison.
Very different aircraft and difficult to compare. The LA was a classic case of the biggest possible engine in the smallest possible airframe. Stick in a couple guns and go fight. It's a formula that still works. The Tempest, like the Typhoon before it, was designed to use the smallest airframe necessary to hold the biggest available engine and all the equipment necessary for a first class fighter. That formula still works too! Head to head they are close enough that the pilots would be the difference but one can figure out how it would go. If the Tempest kept its speed up, which it was best at, it was pretty much untouchable by any other piston fighter at low level. If it got too slow? It was probably best to dive and run against a lighter fighter. Now let's throw in the Fw 190. It was designed with a similar philosophy Hawker used, including a heavy weapon load, but resulting in a more compact package. Considering it was a generation older than the Tempest or La-7 it was a masterpiece. It did however have a higher wing loading and had a sharp stall to match the Tempest and need for constant pitch trim. They weren't dangerous but they got tricky lower speeds compared to some lighter planes. It would need to use the same tactics against the La-7 that the Tempest would use against it! Cheers!
It's a pity no one thought to keep developing the P-36 with a two-stage R-1830. If they didn't add too much weight it might have given the USAAF a high altitude stop gap until the P-38s took over. On paper it looks like a fair match for the Japanese fighters and the F4Fs performance makes one wonder. Even a small number to fly top cover for P-40s might have prevented a lot of losses. Cheers!
In a way, the early success of the unprotected Japanese fighters cost them the airfare before it began. By the time they figured out even good pilots get hit sometimes, and a littleprotection would allow them to fly home, they were pretty low on good pilots.
I forgot to add that the P-40 is another example of pilot experience being more important than aircraft performance. The guys who learned to use its strengths fought well. And Marseilles would have scored just as many had the aircraft been reversed! It should also be noted that the 109 and P-40 were close enough in speed down low that either could be faster depending on details. The A6M was considerably slower and almost impossible to maneuver if trying to keep up with well flown P-40. When comparing "maneuverability" you have to ask how high? How fast? Who's the pilot? What kind of load are they carrying? That's why the massive P-38s and US Navy fighters were able to easily outmaneuver "much more maneuverable" Japanese fighters. Cheers!
The P-40, like the P-39 and Brewster Buffalo, gained a bad reputation because it was thrown into the impossible situation at the beginning of the Pacific war. When flown by experienced pilots within their limits they could take on anything. It's tough to sort out accurate kill ratios but the concensus seems to be that their kill ratio, fighter against fighter, was a little over 2-1. Considering the fact that they started out at about 10-1 against I think that's pretty impressive.
Another excellent presentation, sir. I commend you. The 123 teaches us some lessons. Keep high performance fighters away from your ground attack planes, stats don't always equate to effectiveness, if speed isnt top priority biplanes did OK by themselves in WWII, and dependable planes with experienced pilots can eventually find a use regardless of performance. The first point has a caveat. Other than being surprised i would be willing to bet the 123 was actually more survivable than the Stuka or Il-2. It, like the Swordfish, was highly maneuverable and well behaved and, lets face it, none of these planes is outrunning anyone so you might as well take your chances trying to make the fighter pilot make a fatal mistake. It happened a lot and to some of the greatest aces ever. I also just have a hunch that, if the 123 was a little bigger and had a rear gunner with power to carry him, it would have outlasted the Ju-87 much like the Swordfish outlasted the Albacore but we'll never know. Cheers!
A wonderful and balanced presentation. Thank you! You touched on maneuverability but its more complex than most people think. Starting with turn. Turn is a function of rate of roll and how many Gs a plane can pull without stalling or breaking. All planes have a best turning speed and none of them match so, in virtually all comparisons, each plane will win or lose at a given speed. Altitude and engine altitude rating are the same. Climb rate is equally hard to define. If a A6M and the other two took off at the same time, pulled up their nose, and raced to 10,000 ft at their best climb speed the Zero would win running away. Lets say the Zero climbs best at 150kn and 30% and the others are about the same. What happens if they dont worry about climb rate, accelerate out to max speed, then pull up to the point where their speed almost bleeds off? They watch the Zero until he decides he needs to dive to keep up and the others use their excess speed to zoom and get on top or run away. Short of being jumped while slow, i dont think i would choose the Zero. Finally, let's touch on "maximum power". Its as firm as mud. Different services defined it differently and it's often not, as assumed, the absolute maximum horsepower achievable. Then there's the supercharger. The Merlin with a two-stage and Allison with a turbo had comparble max power to their single-stage contemporaries but were a whole generation ahead at altitude. Then there's how long they can sustain a maximum rated, but not emergency, power. I think the evidence would support a contention that just about any American or British engine throughout the war and for reasons not reflecting the design, would last longer at maximum power, per flight or over many, than any of their equivalents. I hope I've added to the conversation. Cheers!
Funny. There was a plane coming into service at about the same time that proved to be pretty capable against the 190 down low. The P-39! The Soviets found that by removing the wing guns and some armor and "extra" stuff it could match the speed and exceed just about everything else but rate of climb. If the Brits had a few more and a little time to figure them out they could have, with the help of excellent radar interception, been very effective against any 190s they could get above. The Typhoon and Cobra had a few other relationships. Both failed at their designed role. Both suffered at altitude due to engine performance. And, less mentioned, both had airfoils that were suited for lighter, slower, aircraft. The Cobra never managed 400mph and the Typhoon only did it through brute force. And both evolved into far superior aircraft. It would have been interesting to see a flyoff between a Tempest and a King cobra! One thing they don't share is that no one asks "what if the Typhoon, and Tempest for that matter, had a turbo?" The Brits discovered with the Hawkers what the Soviets discovered with the Cobras. Use your planes to do what they do well instead of giving up because they don't do exactly what you expected.
I forgot a thing about the airfoil. The Typhoon, even with the altitude limitations of the engine, was fast at altitude. The big problem was that the airfoil was so thick that it would hit compresibility before the engine topped out and would stall in relatively mild maneuvers.
The Mossie was a great plane but far from perfect. It handled well but was demanding and had a fairly high accident rate; a common thing for high performance aircraft. Especially twins. The Merlin was a war winning engine but the highly boosted versions used in the "special" Mosquitos were a little delicate. Again, it's not a flaw but a common thing when an engine is pushed way beyond its designed performance. A flaw that was never fully addressed was, ironically, the wooden structure. It wasn't an issue when they were kept in hangers in England but prolonged exposure to the elements could ultimately destroy the structure. The Australians rejected them over it and the Brits sent very few overseas and I've even read a couple anecdotes claiming that a few rain flights could destroy them. This was apparently cured in the Hornet because they served reliably in the tropics for years. Better adhesives and paints I think though I've never found the specifics.
Thanks for the excellent presentation on a much misunderstood plane. One of my uncles was a flight instructor in P-39s and he had absolute confidence in it. He was assigned to P-47s when he went into combat and he thought the 39 was superior down low. I've been building and flying radio control models since 1971 and the Cobra is the best flying WW2 fighter from a modelers perspective. I've had four from 36" to 80" span and all are superb. Stable and aerobatic, it's just beautifully designed for scale modelling. They make me look good compared to those flying just about any other WW2 fighter. Also. Part of the reason the Soviets did so well with the beautiful bird was they yanked out a lot of "extra" stuff then had the time to develop tactics. Most of that seemed to be waiting at their best altitude for the Germans to come down to them and taking the hits from the first bounce. Then? The Cobras held most of the cards. Even the Americans discovered by Guadalcanal that down low and at high speed the Cobra could outmaneuver anything the Japanese had. They did quite well if there were Wildcats or P-38s to fly top cover.
What an absolutely excellent presentation, really enjoyed this and surprisingly learned some info on these aircraft i didnt know, thought id heard the full history but thus has been an educational and enjoyable experience.
Bell engineers MISSED an opportunity to develop the world's hottest piston engine WW II fighter! They apparently did a magnificent job of the engine's rear mounted installation and drive transmission passing under the pilot seat to the propeller in the nose - although you hear a lot of criticisms of the P-39, vibration or failure of this power transmission system is never one of them. Now had Bell engineers simply put a pusher propeller behind the tail, and installed a second motor in the nose like a Mustang (or other typical inline fighter) they would have had a twin engine, pusher-puller prop aircraft with very little frontal area (equals low drag) and thus very high performance, in addition to a more neutral center of gravity. Of course the wings, control surfaces, and fuel tanks would have had to been enlarged, but the aircraft would have had gobs of power, would have been very fast, and with such a favorable center of gravity would have been very maneuverable. The "lowly," unloved P-39 could well have been a twin-engined world beater! It certainly would have been more structurally solid than the P-38 Lightning with those thin, long twin booms and long elevator. p.s. - yes, I am aware of the pusher/puller Dornier Do335 Arrow... a twin-engined P-39 could have been smaller and faster, and much less complex than the big, bulky Dornier
I have a Typhoon/Tempest book. In it is a photo of a perfect, factory fresh Tempest. According to the text it came off the line and was taken apart on the other side of the airfield. What it would be worth now !
I love the greatest generation. They design, redesign, test, build and deploy the most advanced fighter to battle in a few years. Now, it takes them 20 years.
la-5 warthunder bf-109f-4 and The bf-109g2 cannot catch up in terms of speed and climb. spitfire, a5m2, ki-61, ki-43 Ia-5 is superior in maneuver warfare. fw-190A8, N1k2, f6f, It has 800 fronts and strong weapons. The 20mm sHavk guns of the LA-5 are very weak, ammunition is very low. After 630km, la-5 control does not respond.
By 1944, these planes were traveling at speeds over 720km. P-47, P-51, P-38 have speeds over 730km. n1k1 speed 650km is too low. n1k1 is very bad at maneuvering. Spitfire is the only Japanese aircraft to lose in maneuver warfare. n1k1 speed 614km, There are 4 20mm, 400 rounds, 2 7.92mm, 1000 rounds. n1k2 speed is 659km. There are 4 20mm, 900 rounds. f6f speed. Even the hellcat fw-190 turns badly. This is fw-190A8, n1k2, f6f, these planes have a lot of ammunition.
For WW2 the H8K, Do-24, the Catalina and the Sunderland. In that order. From that 4 the Do-24 is the most beautyful one. If I can include actual seaplanes the modern grandson of the H6k - the Shin Maywa (which is the successor comany of Kawanishi) US-2 is by far the best amphibious seaplane that you can get for money.
1st, the plane. Vulnerable; absolutely. But it wasn't meant to engage in aerial combat; that was an incidental risk to be avoided if possible, and not expected to be commonplace during missions. The H6K was intended for longe range reconnaissance, and there it excelled. When sorties can be measured with a calendar instead of a clock, then a lot of ocean is being looked at. Do the math; 4 Mavis could go out and see what was in 3 million square kilometers of ocean in a day. When the opposition is just ships, it could stand off out of AA range and signal positions all day. Its replacement by the H8K Emily coincides with the arrival of mass production of US carriers, meaning more fighters in the air. 2nd, the video. Live narration; stick with it. Understandable English, even with an accent, is preferable to the constant grammatical and pronunciation errors of a computerized voice. I watched this right after 2 videos with a computerized voice that had no accent but still irritated the crap out of me trying to follow what they were saying. I give you credit for learning English so well, which means I can presume that you have dedicated a fair amount of study to the topic of the video as well.
Mit dem DB 605 Motor wurde die Maschine zur G56.Die G56 war den Meisten Deutschen und Alliierten Jägern Ebenbürtig oder sogar Überlegen.Auf Grund von Mangel an Motoren ging diese Version aber nie in Serie.Es wurden lediglich 2 Prototypen gebaut
Thanks for not blaming every sin possible on Yakovlev. The Polikarpov controversy has seen some reignition here, and so far there is more evidence that Yakovlev tried to push I-185 into production (albeit a small scale one, alongside his Yak-9 with M-107 since both engines needed to be produced very precisely). As for my favourite Soviet fighter of WW2, I could go with La-5FN or La-7, but my favourite is Yak-3. When it comes to pilot friendliness and overall comfort, Yak is superior. Say "hello" to La's 40-60°C temperatures in the cockpit.
P-40 was a bruiser with the heart of a lion forged in combat, it did enough to hold the line against the odds, so respect to this bruiser and the men who flew this plane and for those who made the ultimate safice.
I used to find slavic accents hard on my ears. In this day and age of crappy AI content read by robots who don't understand their subjects, I find it nice to feel a human being on the other side of the channel, who clearly has enthusiasm and expertise on their subject and puts emotion in the narration. This is a gem of a video.
I agree about the video but I've always enjoyed accents, dialects, and languages even if I have to think to make sense of it or don't understand it at all. There were a couple women on the bus who were speaking a language I didn't recognize but it sounded like they were singing. Maybe they were? I thoroughly enjoyed it!
