Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: AKDejaVu on August 19, 2001, 01:53:00 PM
-
True Love:
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/06212.gif)
-
It is good to want thing's, trust me I know....
-
agreed
p40 all the way
-
What's the point of an AVG fighter when not a single one of it's historical adversaries is featured yet? ;)
-
Originally posted by juzz:
What's the point of an AVG fighter when not a single one of it's historical adversaries is featured yet? ;)
Good point Juzz. But It wouldnt be to hard to make one of them. A6M2 Model 21 would be an easy variant of the zeke to make.First a Wieght Adjustment, Take the 1x13mm out of the zeke's cowling and replace with 1x7.7mm and modify the exhaust and wings and add a snazzy grey paint scheme and BAM! early war zeke!
But if they did add a P40 lets see an AVG scheme plus a Brit Desert scheme as well!
-
AVG never met the Zero in combat.
Historical opponents of the AVG:
Ki-21
Ki-27
Ki-43
Ki-45
Ki-48
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
S!
Better to make a late model Kittyhawk. It already has the historical matchup of the 109F4, G2 and 190A5.
-
I remember reading somwhere that Chenault (sp) was trying to warn the Air Force about the new Super Plane "Zero" and No one took his warning.
So I think If Chenault new about it I think the AVG new about it, but Im not sure.
-
That's because Chennault was working with the Chinese AF. They encountered the Zero(and got whipped by it), but the AVG did not.
-
Yep Chenault heard about the Zero from the Chinese AF guys.
-
Gets my vote.
-
It'll be in 1.08.....<rumor installed :D>
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Yep Chenault heard about the Zero from the Chinese AF guys.
I believe that the Zero's encountered in China were the A6M1, which were undergoing combat testing. One of these crash-landed and Chennault was able to examine the aircraft (circa 1940).
Those Curtiss P-40/Tomahawks sold to China were unusual in that they were not P-40Bs, nor P-40Cs. In fact, they were not true Tomahawk IIBs either. They were a strange hybrid built by Curtiss using existing over-stocks of parts because the contract with China was extremely vague as to detailed specifications. Should anyone be interested, I can go into greater detail on these aircraft. Back in 1999, after exhaustive research, I was finally able to define the aircraft and resolve the ongoing debate as to the actual model flown by the AVG. Even Dan Ford, recent chronicler of the AVG, has signed on the findings.
My regards,
Widewing
-
There were only two A6M1's constructed, both of which were test airframes. Early war Zero's that operated in China were the A6M2 model 11. Early war means 1937-39/40 area, not 41-43. By the time of Pearl Harbor, the A6M2 model 21 (later changed to A6M2b) was in service. The number after the designation A6M2 indicates the number of engine and airframe modifications (pronounced one-one or two-one, etc.) respectively. Thus, an A6M2 model 21 had two engine changes (mods) and one airframe change.
Later on, the model designation was dropped and zero's were referred to as just plain A6M5 or A6M5 ko, otsu or hei; a,b and c respectively. Incidentally, the A6M2 and A6M5 were on the production lines at the same time, although by different manufacturers. Can't remember if it was Nakajima or Mitsubishi that kept the A6M2 production going.
My references indicate that the AVG did use P-40B's and C's but also had a number of those strange hybrid birds called H-81's I believe.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: EDO43 ]
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: EDO43 ]
-
[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
-
Originally posted by Widewing:
[QB]
Most references refer to the AVG planes alternately as P-40Bs or P-40Cs and sometimes Tomahawk IIBs. All small mouth P-40s/Tomahawks carried the factory H81 designation. Where the AVG planes differed was that they carried the unique factory designation of H81-3. Beginning with the P-40D/Kittyhawk I, they were designated as the Curtiss H87.
The AVG aircraft were a curious mix of Tomahawk IIA and IIB parts. For example, they were fitted with externally sealed fuel tanks, giving them the same fuel capacity of the P-40B (slightly greater than the internally sealed tanks of the P-40C and Tomahawk IIB). Unlike all of the Tomahawk IIB aircraft sold to Britain, the Chinese aircraft did not have a provision for an external fuel tank, nor the plumbing and fuel selector valve associated with it. That more closely resembles the P-40B. Because the Chinese contract allowed for a lot of wiggle room in the aircraft specification, Curtiss used excess parts from the USAAF P-40B production run. Because these fighters were so different from the anything else built, they received a special factory designation.
Another factor that has confused many over the years are the serial numbers. Since these aircraft originally came from a British contract, they were assigned numbers from that future production run. So, many historians and writers wrongly assumed that they came directly from that lot of fighters. They did not. The serial mumbers were assigned long before actual production began and before sub-contractors were began producing such items as fuel tanks, engines and the like. Indeed, Allison had to set up a seperate production line to build the Chinese engines, hand fitting previously rejected parts and components. This was due to the lack of production reserve.
AVG pilot Erik Shilling writes:
"Allison had received a request from China in January 1941 for engines to power their batch of Tomahawks for the planned AVG. Initially no production capacity was available. The British had previously reserved all available production.
However the British traded 100 Tomahawks without engines, in exchange for a larger number of Kittyhawk, but the Chinese had to had to supply their own engines. Someone at Allison remembered that they had a warehouse of "off-dimension" parts, that didn't meet either US Army or British contract spec. but were otherwise sound. The proposal was that by hand fitting and matching and repairing these parts, suitably engines for the order could be provided.
This involved fitting steel inserts that were plated to fit oversized tapped holes, con rod bearings altered to fit slightly undersized crankshafts, and dozens of other similar fixes were made.
When tested these engines developed more horsepower and used less fuel than the standard US military, or British engines. This supplied the needed 100 engines and the balance came from a later production run. A follow up on these engines that were made out of hand fitted matched parts were later found to have a better field record than the standard engines.
These engines were built to Allison Specifications 145A, rather than
Spec 120D and identified as the V-1710-C15A. There were no military designation for these engines.
They were assembled on a separate "Chinese" assembly line in Indianapolis to insure that none of the previously rejected parts would accidently be installed in US or British airplanes. The horsepower ratings for V-1710-C15A for the AVG's Curtiss H81A-2 Tomahawks were the same as for the British V-1710-C15 and the Army's V-1710-33's.
It is estimated that in the heat of the battle or disengaging from enemy fighters, some engines had drawn between 1600 and 1700 Horsepower. (This would give a power to weight ration of better than even the vaunted Zero had.)
At one time on a photo recon flight, while circling my objective, apparently I had run into my own prop wash, but at the moment thought it was AA fire. I pushed the throttle forward, but when I settled down I saw that I pulling 50 in Hg, and quickly reduced it to 40 inches. According to the horsepower chart, 50 inches was 1380 HP."
So, it seems that the AVG benefitted from having hand fitted, blueprinted engines that may have made a bit more power than the standard production model.
So, if HTC does model the AVG's H81-3, they should consider the above and consult with Whitney's Allison book as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
P40 with a hot-rod engine.....kool