Author Topic: P40's next! (Read 1816 times)

Raptor · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:30:01 PM »

According to a book on the Flying Tigers I read, the AVG did go up against zeros (fixed gear version I do believe) as well as ki-27s.
When the AVG arrived they went through Chennault's training a few weeks. After a few months the RAF stationed at Rangoon had challenged an AVG pilot to go up against his spitfire. Tex Hill flew agaisnt the RAF Pilot and won.

Grits · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:36:14 PM »

AVG never fought Zero's (to my knowledge), they saw Ki-43's and mistook them for A6M's. They were against IJA fighters, the IJA didnt fly Zero's.

Karnak · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:37:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raptor01
According to a book on the Flying Tigers I read, the AVG did go up against zeros (fixed gear version I do believe) as well as ki-27s.

"fixed gear version I do believe"

There was no such thing. All Zeros had retractable landing gear and enclosed cockpits. You're thinking of the A5M 'Claude'.

Calling the Claude a Zero is like calling the P-36 a P-47.

Ted Strykker · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:57:35 PM »

Quote:The first production version received a more powerful engine than the prototype and was designated the 'A6M2'. As it was first produced in 1940 - the Japanese year 5,700 - it became popularly known as the "Zero-Sen" ("Type 00 Fighter"). Two squadrons with 15 planes were sent to China in July 1940 for trials under operational conditions, and quickly eliminated all opposition. The effectiveness of the Zero was urgently and emphatically reported to Washington by General Chennault, commanding officer of the Flying Tigers, but his report appears to have gone unnoticed

Karnak · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2005, 04:33:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
Quote:The first production version received a more powerful engine than the prototype and was designated the 'A6M2'. As it was first produced in 1940 - the Japanese year 5,700 - it became popularly known as the "Zero-Sen" ("Type 00 Fighter"). Two squadrons with 15 planes were sent to China in July 1940 for trials under operational conditions, and quickly eliminated all opposition. The effectiveness of the Zero was urgently and emphatically reported to Washington by General Chennault, commanding officer of the Flying Tigers, but his report appears to have gone unnoticed

As I recall, that was based on Chinese reports of fights with the A6M, not on AVG encounters with it.

Grits · « **Reply #20 on:** August 17, 2005, 04:43:11 PM »

From warbirdsforum.com

[The following was written by Erik Shilling and posted on the web. Bear in mind that Erik himself was never in combat with a Japanese fighter, and only once with Japanese bombers. Nor did the AVG ever encounter the A6M Zero in combat. Still, it's a first-person account from a man who was both a skilled pilot and trained in AVG tactics. Also see Erik's account of his dogfight with a Brewster Buffalo. -- Dan Ford]

http://www.warbirdforum.com/shilling.htm

Slash27 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2005, 05:44:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ted Strykker
Quote:The first production version received a more powerful engine than the prototype and was designated the 'A6M2'. As it was first produced in 1940 - the Japanese year 5,700 - it became popularly known as the "Zero-Sen" ("Type 00 Fighter"). Two squadrons with 15 planes were sent to China in July 1940 for trials under operational conditions, and quickly eliminated all opposition. The effectiveness of the Zero was urgently and emphatically reported to Washington by General Chennault, commanding officer of the Flying Tigers, but his report appears to have gone unnoticed

Chennault was in China fighting the Japanese before he formed the A.V.G. According to the books the IJN pulled out of China before they could encounter the Tigers. Does that mean that 100% without a doubt they didnt encounter the Zeke, I dont know. Like Grits said, they most likely mistook the Ki-43 for the Zeke. They are similar as far as looks go.

ps, I love the P-40 and the Ki-84 is no dweeb ride:D

Morpheus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2005, 05:50:59 PM »

P40 is such a useless plane. I like to fly it because it gives me some sort of an excuse when I die.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #23 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:07:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
True against the A6M.

Doesn't say very much about it against the Ki-84, P-51D, La-7 or Spitfire Mk IX though.

I would have dreaded going up against the rare late war combo of a fully functional Ki-84 and a skilled Japanese pilot in it if I were a USAAF pilot in the P-40 of your choice.

Couldn't have been all that bad of an aircraft. It was 2nd to the P-38 for the number of aces that flew it in the PTO.

ack-ack

Karnak · « **Reply #24 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:28:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Couldn't have been all that bad of an aircraft. It was 2nd to the P-38 for the number of aces that flew it in the PTO.

ack-ack

It did that against Ki-43s and Ki-27s. Ki-84s with good pilots would be a whole other ballgame. The power advantage the Ki-84 has over the P-40, any P-40, is tremendous. I'm not saying that the P-40 couldn't shoot a Ki-84 down, that'd be silly of me. I am saying that the Ki-84 is a better fighter as designed and as a some actually flew.

Ted Strykker · « **Reply #25 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:31:07 PM »

Quote

It did that against Ki-43s and Ki-27s. Ki-84s with good pilots would be a whole other ballgame. The power advantage the Ki-84 has over the P-40, any P-40, is tremendous. I'm not saying that the P-40 couldn't shoot a Ki-84 down, that'd be silly of me. I am saying that the Ki-84 is a better fighter as designed and as a some actually flew.

If that were true we would most likely be speaking Japanese.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #26 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:31:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Slash27
Chennault was in China fighting the Japanese before he formed the A.V.G. According to the books the IJN pulled out of China before they could encounter the Tigers. Does that mean that 100% without a doubt they didnt encounter the Zeke, I dont know. Like Grits said, they most likely mistook the Ki-43 for the Zeke. They are similar as far as looks go.

ps, I love the P-40 and the Ki-84 is no dweeb ride:D

Japanese planes encountered by the AVG over China/Burma.

Nakajima K-27 Nate
Engine: 650 hp Nakajima air-cooled radial
Crew: one
Wingspan: 37 feet 1 inch
Combat weight: 4,000 lb
Maximum range: 500 miles on internal fuel
Top speed: 290 mph at 13,000 feet
Armament: two 7.7 mm machine guns in nose; four 55-lb bombs

Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa
Engine: 1,050 hp Nakajima air-cooled supercharged radial
Crew: one
Wingspan: 37 feet 6 inches
Maximum range: 750 miles (greater with drop-tanks)
Top speed: 305 mph at 15,000 feet
Ceiling: 39,000 feet
Combat weight: 5,000 lb
Armament: one 12.7 mm and one 7.7 mm machine gun in the nose; two 33-lb bombs

Kawasaki Ki-48 Lily
Engines: Two 950 hp Nakajima air-cooled radials
Crew: four
Wingspan: 57 feet 4 inches
Combat weight: 13,000 lb
Maximum range: 1,500 miles
Top speed: 300 mph at 11,500 feet
Armament: Three 7.7 mm flexible machine guns; 880 lb total bomb load

Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally"
Engine: two 1,500-hp Mitsubishi air-cooled radials
Crew: seven
Wingspan: 74 feet
Maximum range: 1,500 miles
Top speed: 300 mph at 15,500 feet
Armament: one 12.7 mm and four 7.7 mm flexible machine guns; 2,200 lb total bomb load

Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu
Engines: Two 950 hp Nakajima air-cooled radials
Crew: two
Wingspan: 49 feet 3 inches
Combat weight: 11,600 pounds
Maximum range: 1,400 miles
Top speed: 340 mph at 23,000 feet
Armament: one 20 mm cannon and two 12.7 mm machine guns in the nose, one 7.92 mm flexible gun; 1,100 lb total bomb load

ack-ack

Grits · « **Reply #27 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:33:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It was 2nd to the P-38 for the number of aces that flew it in the PTO.

Second USAAC plane behind the P-38 or second of all services? I'd be very suprized if the P-40 had more aces than the F6F or F4U but I guess its not impossible since so many USAAC guys flew it early in the war, and RAAF and RNZAF flew them too.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #28 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:41:04 PM »

Sorry, out of the U.S. Army Air Force planes in the PTO. When looking up what the USAAF aces flew in the PTO, came as a surprise that the P-47 was #3 and the P-51 was #4. And of the aces the flew the P-47 and the P-51, the majority of them were already aces in the P-40 before transitioning to the P-47 and the P-51.

ack-ack

Grits · « **Reply #29 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:43:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Sorry, out of the U.S. Army Air Force planes in the PTO.

Still, that is pretty impressive for the P-40 to hold second even in USAAF planes considering the performance increase the P-47 and P-51 brought, even if it was late.