Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on July 03, 2005, 12:06:14 AM
-
Most JAAF pilots don't really like the Ki-44 since it lacks the ability to perform "circus acts" like the used to with Ki-43 :)
Now the question... did JAAF turned and BnZ with US fighters?
-
Hi 1K3,
>Most JAAF pilots don't really like the Ki-44 since it lacks the ability to perform "circus acts" like the used to with Ki-43 :)
>Now the question... did JAAF turned and BnZ with US fighters?
The Ki-44 has a 1600 HP engine in a 2800 kg airframe. Its top speed is sort of low, but it climbs like mad. Its turn rate might not have been great by Japanese standards, but compared to Western designs, it must have been one of the best.
A P-51 pilot in China commented that the Ki-44 was the only Japanese aircraft that was not out-classed by the Mustang. (On terms of speed, it certainly was, but it tells us about the level of appreciation the Ki-44 received.)
Apparently, the Ki-44 could be dived at high speeds as well.
I'd say that as long as the fight stays below 4 km, the Ki-44 would be a very competent fighter with speed as its only Achilles' heel.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
whoa.... you're almost talking about Ki-84...:)
-
Hi 1K3,
>whoa.... you're almost talking about Ki-84...:)
Well, the Ki-44 was a step towards Ki-84 performance, except for its lower top speed.
Technically, however, the Ki-84 was very close to the Ki-43 in dimensions and layout, while the Ki-44 was the odd one in between which combined a high-powered engine with a much smaller airframe.
The Ki-44 has about the same weight and wing area as the Me 109E, but close to 1600 HP instead of around 1000 HP.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
i just like the J2M2/M3 more..now THATs an airplane :-)
-
Im not exactly familiar with the Ki44 on how good it was but it like almost all Japanese planes had a great climb rate. This though doesnt make it or other Jap planes great BnZers as their dive characteristics wherent as good as american planes. Im not sure how good the dive of the 44 was but since it was a relativly light plane it wouldnt outdive the american planes. Also while climbing good the light weight really makes zooming bad as zoom is about energy retention much more then anything.
Tex
Edit: Note that "beeing able to dive at high speed" doesnt make it a good diver. If a plane is light it wount accellerate in a dive as well as a heavy plane.
-
Hi Tex,
>Im not exactly familiar with the Ki44 on how good it was but it like almost all Japanese planes had a great climb rate.
I figure it actually had the best rate of climb of all Japanese planes :-)
>This though doesnt make it or other Jap planes great BnZers as their dive characteristics wherent as good as american planes.
Unfortunately, there is not much data on the diving capabilities of the Ki-44. What little there is seems to indicate they were good, but that's a rather fragmentary impression.
>Edit: Note that "beeing able to dive at high speed" doesnt make it a good diver. If a plane is light it wount accellerate in a dive as well as a heavy plane.
Generally, that's true, but of course power-to-weight ratio helps in the initial phase of the dive. Likewise, it helps when zooming, and while a heavier aircraft carries more energy at the bottom of the zoom, it also has to spend more of it in the pullout between dive and climb.
Not that I think you're wrong - I'm just trying to explain how the asymmetric performance could create an impression of parity in spite of the differences in design :-)
If the US aircraft chooses to dive and run, I don't think the Ki-44 would be able to keep up, though, provided the US fighter creates some separation before the dive.
(One US fighter that could not match the Ki-44 was the P-40. The AVG actually met early-series, lower-powered Ki-44s over China, feeling they were out-performed badly. To re-gain air superiority, the AVG staged a long-range strike against the enemy base, destroying most Ki-44s on the ground.)
I'd expect the F6F, which is unusually slow for a US design, would have some difficulties against the Ki-44, too. However, the US engine has a better supercharger, so above 5 km the Hellcat would still hold the speed advantage.
The Ki-44 would probably require tactics similar to those that work for the Me 109: Employ the climb rate to stay on top of the fight and attack lower enemies in short dives that don't get too fast or go down too low. You could probably try some aggressive, E-bleeding turns as well, but break off combat as soon as the enemy plunges for the deck.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun
Interesting that you mention the AVG.
What the AVG did in combat, which other US forces didnt do, is to dive away. I remember reading in a quite long article about the AVG that it was the use of this tactic and use of head ons that was one of the keys to their success in the air, ofcourse there where alot of other components to their success as well. They never ever turned with the Japs and all they did was ho and dive.
The early model planes they faced where hugely out gunned by the american planes, hence the use of HO tactics.
But the article doesnt really go into what planes they where up against, still a good read though. http://historynet.com/ahi/bl_flying_tigers/index.html
The AVG used mainly P40Bs (Hawk 81A3, export version of P40B). So the them struggling vs Ki-44 wouldnt come as a supprice. But still the dive ability is there due to the high mass.
And yes you are right that the accelleration of a plane does play part in the initial face of the dive. So diving with enemy tight in on your six is very dangerous but is still the only way out of the situation as you cant out climb or out manouver your enemy.
But if the tactic (for the AVG) was to set up HOs then they would have had the enemy facing away from them when they dove away. But remember this is early war before the Japs introduced cannon planes.
Tex
-
Originally posted by HoHun
... of course power-to-weight ratio helps in the initial phase of the dive. Likewise, it helps when zooming, ...
I have a couple of stupid questions to make, HoHun, I hope you have the patience to answer.
When you talk about the "power-to-weight ratio", are you talking about the relationship between the thrust developed by the propeller and the weigth of the plane?
If so, shouldn't it be less relevant than inertia (or, better, momentum) in the beginning of a zoom? (btw, by "zoom" I mean a climbing movement); it should become more relevant after the initial climb, am I wrong? And shouldn't it be the same in a dive?
Sorry if I bother you with this and if I said nonsense, but I'm not an engineer or a real life pilot, I just want to understand better the physics of flight.
Thanks for your patience.
-
Hi Gianlupo,
>When you talk about the "power-to-weight ratio", are you talking about the relationship between the thrust developed by the propeller and the weigth of the plane?
Actually, I'm talking about the engine power in relation to the weight of the plane. Piston engines yield constant power (approximately), so it's more convenient to consider power instead of thrust, which decreases as speed increases. (For jet engines, thrust is constant and power increases with speed, so there you'd prefer to talk about thrust-to-weight ratio.)
>If so, shouldn't it be less relevant than inertia (or, better, momentum) in the beginning of a zoom? (btw, by "zoom" I mean a climbing movement); it should become more relevant after the initial climb, am I wrong? And shouldn't it be the same in a dive?
Exactly :-) The higher power-to-weight ratio makes the largest diference at the low-speed end of both the dive and the climb, while the mass helps most at high speeds.
There's one additional complication, though, and that is that pulling out of a dive burns more energy for a heavier aircraft than for a light one.
That means the Ki-44 has an advantage at the beginning of the dive, during the pull-out, and at the end of the zoom while the US aircraft is better off in the straight high-speed parts.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Tex,
>The AVG used mainly P40Bs (Hawk 81A3, export version of P40B). So the them struggling vs Ki-44 wouldnt come as a supprice. But still the dive ability is there due to the high mass.
Well, I don't believe any version of the P-40 stood much of a chance against the Ki-44. The problem with diving away from one in a P-40 is not the dive itself, but the superior level speed of the Ki-44 once the dive has been completed.
The AVG faced a special experimental unit combat-testing the first Ki-44 in service. These aircraft didn't reach the level of performance the later Ki-44-II achieved, but still the AVG considered the aircraft a major threat.
Fortunately for the Flying Tigers, there was only a small number of these Ki-44s available, and by a well-planned raid, the AVG managed to wipe out most of them on the ground.
As far as I know, the AVG fought against the following types: Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45.
The AVG received the following fighters available: P-40, P-43, CW-21. The P-40 was the predominant type. Only a few P-43s were received, which were preferredly used as top cover for the P-40s since they enjoyed better high-altitude performance due to their turbo-supercharged engines. The P-43s were troubled by leaking tanks, however, and didn't see much combat before being grounded. Of the CW-21, there were only a handful sent, and it seems they all were lost on their ferry flight.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi HoHun!
Thank you for the answer, it helped me to have a more precise picture of what happens in a vertical manuever.
Just another question, if I may ask
Piston engines yield constant power (approximately), so it's more convenient to consider power instead of thrust, which decreases as speed increases.
What is this decrease in thrust due to? Something that has to do with the propeller?
Thanks again for your patience.
-
HoHun,
It is great to see this plane discussed as it is my favorite and the one I want to see added to AH the most. My questions to you are....
1). The major production version of this fighter was the KI-44 IIb which I have seen to be armed in 3 ways, 4 12.7mm mg, 2 12.7mm mg 2 20mm Ho-5 cannons or 4 20mm Ho-5 cannons. Do you know which one is correct?
2) I understand that the KI-44 shoki also had a excellent roll rate do you know what it was?
3) You state that the Shoki's top speed is slow but I have seen it listed as 376 mph is that really slow compared to other AH aircraft below 10,000 ft?
Thanks for any info I have been looking all over the web for information on this aircraft. I am even going to be ordering a book on it soon.
BSB
-
BSB,
The Ki-44-II-Otsu (Ki-44-IIb) was armed with four Ho-103 12.7mm machine guns.
-
Karnak,
Thanks for the info Karnak! And the speedy reply. Would you happen to have any information on my other questions? Also how does the Ho-103 12.7mm guns compare to our .50 cals?
Thanks for any information.
BSB
-
The cowl guns on the Ki-84 are Ho-103 12.7mm guns as are the wing guns on the Ki-61 and, I think, the guns on the Ki-67 other than the Ho-5 20mm dorsal gun.
I have killed many fighters with just the two on the Ki-84 or Ki-61. They aren't quite as good as the Browning .50 (which is what they are based on), but they are much lighter and so incur much less of a performance penalty.
-
Hi Gianlupo,
>>Piston engines yield constant power (approximately), so it's more convenient to consider power instead of thrust, which decreases as speed increases.
>What is this decrease in thrust due to? Something that has to do with the propeller?
No, it's a result of the constant power piston engines running at constant speed yield.
With power being the product of thrust and speed, thrust drops when speed increases.
Jet engines are different thermodynamically as they breathe more air when going fast, which in turn enables them to burn more fuel, and that translates to power increasing with speed.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi BSB,
>1). The major production version of this fighter was the KI-44 IIb which I have seen to be armed in 3 ways, 4 12.7mm mg, 2 12.7mm mg 2 20mm Ho-5 cannons or 4 20mm Ho-5 cannons. Do you know which one is correct?
I haven't personally done any reasearch in that matter, but I remember a discussion somewhere where a lot of guys went looking for photographs to prove the use of 20 mm cannon in the Ki-44, and if I recall correctly, they ended up empty-handed. The only cannon for which photographic evidence could be found was the 40 mm recoilless gun.
>2) I understand that the KI-44 shoki also had a excellent roll rate do you know what it was?
Unfortunately, I don't have any data on roll rates :-(
>3) You state that the Shoki's top speed is slow but I have seen it listed as 376 mph is that really slow compared to other AH aircraft below 10,000 ft?
Well, below 10000 ft it was at its best, and it wouldn't lag much behind most contemporary planes, but it is a mid-war fighter, and if you pit it against late-war fighters it's inevitably to look slow in comparison.
It undeniably has a bit of a sweet spot at low altitude, though, a bit like the Fw 190A.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi BSB,
>Also how does the Ho-103 12.7mm guns compare to our .50 cals?
They are lighter, 23 kg compared to 29 kg, but that's not much of a difference when we're talking about an aircraft of 2800 kg total.
The Ho-103's rate of fire was a bit higher than the Browning's, but it fired slightly less powerful ammunition at a slightly inferior muzzle velocity, so it provided about 60% - 70% of the Brownings firepower (judged by total projectile energy).
It was closer to the light MG131 than to the Browning in performance, but superior to the Italian 12.7 mm machine guns.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
(http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/capturedby/b-17/b-17_japmks.jpg)
Is the CW-21 the plane in the middle? I know, not a very good photo.
ack-ack
-
Hi Ack-ack,
>Is the CW-21 the plane in the middle? I know, not a very good photo.
Wow, I hadn't seen this one before! :-) Yes, it must be the CW-21 ("Demon") in the middle.
I assume the aircraft in the foreground is a Curtiss-Wright trainer from the same "family" as the CW-21.
I don't remember exactly what I read about the CW family, but Vultee attempted to provide a range of designs from basic trainer to fighter aircraft with a maximum of commonality in parts.
Thanks for the photograph! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The AVG faced a special experimental unit combat-testing the first Ki-44 in service. These aircraft didn't reach the level of performance the later Ki-44-II achieved, but still the AVG considered the aircraft a major threat.
Fortunately for the Flying Tigers, there was only a small number of these Ki-44s available, and by a well-planned raid, the AVG managed to wipe out most of them on the ground.
As far as I know, the AVG fought against the following types: Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45.
The AVG received the following fighters available: P-40, P-43, CW-21. The P-40 was the predominant type. Only a few P-43s were received, which were preferredly used as top cover for the P-40s since they enjoyed better high-altitude performance due to their turbo-supercharged engines. The P-43s were troubled by leaking tanks, however, and didn't see much combat before being grounded. Of the CW-21, there were only a handful sent, and it seems they all were lost on their ferry flight.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Are your referring to the USAAF units that replaced the AVG? On July 4, 1942 the AVG was officially disbanded. Most pilots left China, although a handful stayed on to assist in the transition.
These units still used the name Flying Tigers, but were not part of that original unit.
6 prototype Ki-44 were combat tested in SE Asia. None were involved in combat with the AVG in the defense of Rangoon. Production Ki-44s didn't reach front line units until well after the AVG had disbanded.
Also, the AVG ferried P-43s to the Chinese Air Force, but Chennault would not allow the AVG to fly them in combat due a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later P-43s supposedly
had self-sealing tanks, but they leaked so badly that Chennault still wasn't interested.
See Dan Ford's work on the AVG for details on the types encountered by the AVG.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Ack-ack,
>Is the CW-21 the plane in the middle? I know, not a very good photo.
Wow, I hadn't seen this one before! :-) Yes, it must be the CW-21 ("Demon") in the middle.
I assume the aircraft in the foreground is a Curtiss-Wright trainer from the same "family" as the CW-21.
I don't remember exactly what I read about the CW family, but Vultee attempted to provide a range of designs from basic trainer to fighter aircraft with a maximum of commonality in parts.
Thanks for the photograph! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
That CW-21 in the photo was captured from the Dutch. It was a CW-21B. It was designed with inward folding landing gear. Those aircraft given to the AVG were standard CW-21s, with gear that folded aft and pivoted (like the P-40). Speed and agility was on par with the Ki-43. Climb was better, approaching 4,500 feet/min.
The CW-21 was a light-weight fighter concept developed from the CW-19 trainer. Not many were sold, with the Dutch being the prime customer.
Unfortunately, they were not armed better than Hayabusa and had no armor or fuel tank protection. Range was greatly inferior to the Hayabusa as well. Shilling and two other AVG pilots were forced to make emergency landings due to contaminated fuel and all three CW-21s were write-offs (one pilot, Lacy Magdenburg was killed).
My regards,
Widewing
-
more on the captured CW-21
http://www.pluth.net/captured/capturedby/cw-21/captured_cw21.htm
-
HoHun, Karnak,
Thanks for the response to my questions! Now for a new question....do you gentlemen have any information on the final version of the Shoki the KI-44-III? This version had a 2000 hp engine and a slightly larger airframe. Should climb like a frighten angel:) Not much information out there on it. Thanks again for all the information didn't know that about the Japanese guns...
Sincerely,
BSB
-
BSB,
Very few Ki-44-IIIs were built. I don't have any hard data on it.
-
Hi Widewing,
>Are your referring to the USAAF units that replaced the AVG?
I was relying on my memory from Dan Ford's book, but my memory appears to have been flawed. (I never read the complete book, only the chapters he published online.)
Before posting, I had merely checked the (experimental) service entry date, and finding that the test unit was deployed to China in mid-1941.
However, it appears they were immediately transferred out of China again, so apparently you're right they couldn't have faced the AVG after all.
In that case, what I remember probably refers to the USAAF experience in China. Unfortuantely, Dan Ford has taken down most of the chapters of his book so I can't check this assumption.
>Also, the AVG ferried P-43s to the Chinese Air Force, but Chennault would not allow the AVG to fly them in combat due a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later P-43s supposedly
had self-sealing tanks, but they leaked so badly that Chennault still wasn't interested.
With regard to the P-43, I relied on a history posted on Dan Ford's site:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm
Seems I mixed up AVG and USAAF again :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi BSB,
Here's an interesting article on the Ho-103:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafmgs.htm
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
thank you again for your kindness, all clear now.
See you.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
In that case, what I remember probably refers to the USAAF experience in China. Unfortuantely, Dan Ford has taken down most of the chapters of his book so I can't check this assumption.
>Also, the AVG ferried P-43s to the Chinese Air Force, but Chennault would not allow the AVG to fly them in combat due a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later P-43s supposedly
had self-sealing tanks, but they leaked so badly that Chennault still wasn't interested.
With regard to the P-43, I relied on a history posted on Dan Ford's site:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/richdunn.htm
Seems I mixed up AVG and USAAF again :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Yes, that is interesting info from the link. However, use of the P-43 was not by the AVG, but by the USAAF units that replaced the AVG.
Personally, I believe that the P-43 was superior to the P-40 in vitually every aspect of combat performance. Why more were not purchased by the USAAF is a mystery to me. It was the only combat-ready high altitude fighter available to the USAAF early 1942. Even though the P-47 was well into development, it was still a long way from combat-ready in the summer of 1942.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Widewing,
>Personally, I believe that the P-43 was superior to the P-40 in vitually every aspect of combat performance. Why more were not purchased by the USAAF is a mystery to me. It was the only combat-ready high altitude fighter available to the USAAF early 1942. Even though the P-47 was well into development, it was still a long way from combat-ready in the summer of 1942.
You have a point there ... the turbo-supercharger made the P-43 a better altitude performer than the Allison-powered P-39 and P-40. I'm still not certain why the USAAF really refused the use of a turbo-supercharger for the P-39, either!
One thing counting against the P-43 might have been its wet wings. I'm not sure it was ever fitted with proper self-sealing tanks, this appears to be very difficult at least without sacrificing a large share of the fuel capacity.
Recently, I tried to get an idea of how the P-43 performed in comparison to the P-40 and prepared the following chart. The P-43 bit is more of a rough sketch as I couldn't find much data on the type, but it still serves to illustrate its strong points:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/P-43AvsP-40E.gif
It would be interesting to compare it to a contemporary Spitfire V, too. I'd say the P-43 would have been competitive above its full-throttle height - good news at a time when the fights were carried to ever higher altitudes.
Maybe if the USAAF would have purchased the P-43, they would not have needed to rely on British Spitfires in the ETO.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
From everything I've read, the USAAF had the turbo removed from the P-39 in order to better streamline it, and also because
the GE turbos were single sourced and in relatively short supply.
Plenty of Allison powered planes would have been MUCH more competitive had they also had GE turbochargers and Hamilton Standard props. The USAAF/USAAC and the War Production Board
really screwed the pooch on second sourcing.
There was a guy who had a P-39 with a P-38 engine complete with the B-33 turbo setup and I think a four blade prop who was
the man to beat for a few years after the war.
As small and light as it is, I've often wondered why no one has built a P-39 air racer with an Allison and turbo setup recently.
The turbo Allison is making well over 3000HP in unlimited hydro
racing and lasting all season. You'd think a P-39 with 3000 HP and a good prop would be a serious bird to contend with.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There was a guy who had a P-39 with a P-38 engine complete with the B-33 turbo setup and I think a four blade prop who was
the man to beat for a few years after the war.
As small and light as it is, I've often wondered why no one has built a P-39 air racer with an Allison and turbo setup recently.
The turbo Allison is making well over 3000HP in unlimited hydro
racing and lasting all season. You'd think a P-39 with 3000 HP and a good prop would be a serious bird to contend with.
I also heard that after the war the P-39 was succesfully used for air racing. What races and how the plane was set up (maybe the way CVH suggested?) I do not know. I suspect Widewing will know this kind of stuff.
Besides, the P-39 is darn pretty airplane ;)
-
Hi Hilts,
>From everything I've read, the USAAF had the turbo removed from the P-39 in order to better streamline it, and also because
the GE turbos were single sourced and in relatively short supply.
Ah, thanks! I had read about the streamlining issue, but the turbocharger procurement concerns are new to me. Baugher mentions that the turbos were abandonded as a result of isolationist ideas (no aircraft could possibly threaten continential USA, so no high-altitude fighter was necessary), but your suggestion seems more sensible to me.
>As small and light as it is, I've often wondered why no one has built a P-39 air racer with an Allison and turbo setup recently.
The turbo Allison is making well over 3000HP in unlimited hydro
racing and lasting all season. You'd think a P-39 with 3000 HP and a good prop would be a serious bird to contend with.
Maybe it's a question of size? Where were the turbo-superchargers located in the XP-39? The P-38 superchargers seem to be rather bulky, even though they are so well integrated in the twin tails that one tends to forget about their size.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
I also heard that after the war the P-39 was succesfully used for air racing. What races and how the plane was set up (maybe the way CVH suggested?) I do not know. I suspect Widewing will know this kind of stuff.
Besides, the P-39 is darn pretty airplane ;)
Here's some info on the post-war racing P-39s.
(http://www.percongrp.com/pelikan/aircraft/images/cobra2_008.jpg)
1/48th scale model of the 1946 Thompson Trophy winner. Tony LeVier's P-38 finished 2nd, a P-51B finished 3rd.
From Baugher:
After the war was over, the USAAF rapidly disposed of most of its Airacobras, with most being scrapped during 1946. However, a few were sold as surplus on the commercial market.
Some surplus P-39s ended up on the postwar unlimited racing circuit. Perhaps the best known of these were a pair of surplus P-39Qs named Cobra I and Cobra II. They were originally P-39Q-10s 42-20733 and 42-20869 respectively. Bell test pilots Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin, Alvin M. "Tex" Johnston, and Jack Woolams prepared these planes for entry into the Thompson Trophy race which was to be held over the Labor Day weekend in Cleveland, Ohio in 1946. They were lightened by the removal of all military equipment, and they received uprated Allison V-1710-135 (G4) engines taken from P-63s and were fitted with four-bladed propellers. When so equipped, they were capable of achieving speeds as high as 420 mph at low altitude.
On August 29, both planes qualified for the race. Untortunately, before the race was run, Cobra I was lost on August 30, 1946 over Lake Ontario, killing the pilot, Jack Woolams.
Cobra II (flying under the civilian registration of NX92848) went on to win the 1946 Thompson Trophy air race, with Tex Johnston at the controls, at an average speed of 373 mph over the 300-mile course. Cobra II raced again in the 1947 Thompson Trophy race, finishing 3rd. It raced yet again in the 1948 Thompson trophy race, but was unable to finish owing to engine difficulties.
Cobra II did not race again. It sat derelict for many years and was sold to Ed Maloney in 1960. He restored it to wartime colors and displayed it in his museum in Claremont, California. It was purchased in 1967 by Mike Carroll for use in an attempt to break the world piston-engine speed record, held at that type by the Messerschmitt Me 209. He installed a highly-modified V-1710-CG engine rated at 2850 hp, driving a four-bladed propeller. Four feet of outer wing were removed from each tip. Unfortunately, Cobra II crashed on August 10, 1968 during a test flight, killing pilot Mike Carroll.
P-39Q-15 (44-2433/NX57521) was flown in the 1946 National Air Races by Earl Ortman. This plane is now in storage at the NASM facility at Silver Hill, Maryland painted with the name Galloping Gertie.
(http://www.warbirds.jp/data/us/phto/cobra2.jpg)
A photo of the Cobra II.
(http://www.internetmodeler.com/2001/april/columns/box-lg.jpg)
Revell's model kit box.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The AVG received the following fighters available: P-40, P-43, CW-21. The P-40 was the predominant type. Only a few P-43s were received, which were preferredly used as top cover for the P-40s since they enjoyed better high-altitude performance due to their turbo-supercharged engines. The P-43s were troubled by leaking tanks, however, and didn't see much combat before being grounded. Of the CW-21, there were only a handful sent, and it seems they all were lost on their ferry flight.
The book I read on the AVG did not mention P-43s, but did state that they recieved a new P40 varient that had a bomb rack (their P40Bs did not have then and they did not like being asked to go on straffing missions) and they used their new P40's to bomb and perform straffing missions while they used their older P40s as top cover.