|
|
#41
02-02-2010, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
others technicals performances of the i 153: -max speed at 4600 meters of altitude:444kms per hour -time to climb up at 3000 meters of altitude: 3 minutes -combat range:470 kms -empty weight:1452 kilos -loaded weight:2110 kilos -wingspan:10 meters -length:6,17 meters -height:2, 80 meters 
|
|
#42
02-03-2010, 03:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Buffalo was the most successful fighter of WW2 with a 40:1 kill to loss ratio. The Fins managed a 38:1 kill to loss ratio and the Commonwealth pilots still managed a 2:1 kill to loss ratio. Against the A6M Zero it enjoyed a 1.39:1 kill to loss ratio. The Fins manufactured their own engine parts and other spares for the Buffalo and also fitted bigger cylinder bores in line with Wright's own improvements. Note that the Humu (Reckless) flew with a 950 HP engine taken from an I-153and was found to be underpowered compared to the 1,100 HP Cyclone. The P-36 A-3 had a 950 HP engine, whilst the ex-French Airforce "Cauldron" P-36 A-4 aircraft, bought from the Nazi's, were powered by 1,100 HP engines. One unusual feature of a Buffalo, which is never found on any other fighter, is a seperate cargo hold and seperate passenger space under the pilot. The maximum range of a Buffalo is 1,065 miles without drop tanks or 10.5 hours in the air.
|
|
#43
02-03-2010, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The "F" word came into existance, in the English language in 1872, according to Whitely's Oxford Dictionary of Swearwords and Expletives.
It is a Police charge sheet abreiviation and stands for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" which one would be charged with if caught with one's pants down in a brothel during a police raid. The offence came onto the statute books in the UK in 1872, as part of the government's on going moral campaign to stamp out prostitutution in the UK. Until then, patrons of brothels were allowed to go free and uncharged during a police raid. Prisoners in the cells would ask each other what they were in for and one could be in jail, awaiting trail, for f**king. Its use in films and plays set before this date are historical language errors, in the same way as the Sherif Of Nottingham, in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood film, telling someone to come and see him at 12:30. There are many urban myths about the word's origin, this is the true origin. Last edited by Panzergranate; 02-03-2010 at 03:25 AM.
|
|
#44
02-03-2010, 03:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So once again, the only Buffalo's Finland owned were the 44 F2A-1s that had the -34 Cyclone which only had 940-50hp. There's no where that I can find in my books, or the internet that say the Finnish manufactured their own Cyclone type engines. They did however take the spare parts off ruined/crashed I-153s and I-16s that would fit with their Cyclone engines. EDIT: See, you're looking at the -2 and -3 Buffalo's which had the 1,1-1,200hp. Both of which were terrible because Doolittle was pushing for high octane fuel (high leaded gasoline), and also because they were fitted with more junk. That's the reason the Finnish had such a great success with the Buffalo was because they didn't mess around with adding stuff. They more or less just skeletonize'd the damn thing for lighter weight, while the Americans at Midway had heavier Buffalos. Last edited by Soviet Ace; 02-03-2010 at 03:52 AM.
|
|
#45
02-03-2010, 04:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Fins also received a number of Belgian B-239s, with the more powerful engines, that the Germans had discovered still crated up.
A number of these also saw service with the Luftwaffe as advanced trainers and one was found, and photographed, on an airfield in Luftwaffe markings. The original Buffaloes may have came with 950 HP engines, but the Fins did increase the performance of the engines, as they did with the Moraine Ms-406, Fokker D-21 and other aircraft in their possesion. The Fins were already manufacturing Bristol Centaurus engines and manufactiring Blenhiem IV bombers throughout the Continuation War. The Fins had examples of the more powerful Cyclones in their possesion, from the P-36 A-4, and simply fitting the their own manufactured spare cylinders and pistons was performed. One problem that the 1,100 HP Cyclone engine was plagued with was oil leaking past the oil rings of the top 3 cylinder pistons and fouling the spark plug when the engine was flown inverted or under negative G. It is documented, on the Annals of the Buffalo website, that the Fins solved this by simply inverting the oil rings on the top 3 pistons on the 1,100 HP engines. As only the 1,100 HP and 1,200 HP Cyclone engines suffered from this problem, it proved that the Fins had upgraded their engines to a higher power output. The only difference between the 950 HP, 1,100 HP and 1,200 HP Cyclone engines is the cubic capacity.
|
|
#46
02-03-2010, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So I checked out that site on the Buffalo, that you provided, and I found several mistakes in it that several of my books, and sites I've looked at contradict.
First off, the R-1820-34 and R-1820-G5 are NO different from one another. If the guy who had written that had bothered to look deeper into the engines, he would have realized, that any plane, engine, whatever that is sent from the US or any other nation to another nation is never designated the same as it originally was. There is no difference between the -34 and -G5 besides designation. Secondly, these Belgian Buffalo's were never sent to Finland by Germany, and were not "crated up". What they were, was Buffalos that had been sent by the US to Belgium, but before they could get into combat were captured, where only two were recorded as making the trip to France before their collapse under the Nazi Blitzkrieg. The captured Buffalos were then used as either scrap metal, or used as trainers. Some were even sent to Vichy French in the Med. Third, his report of the Battle between Brewsters, Yaks, Las, and LaGG's is incorrect. The actual dogfight, there were four Buffalos gunned down, not two. Where Three Yak-1s and two LaGG-3s were downed. The La-5s held their own just fine, and all them made it back home. We've already had a mix up with the Vindicator and Sea Wolf, and I think this is just another mix up.
|
|
#47
02-03-2010, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#48
02-03-2010, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#49
02-03-2010, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 38:1 kill to loss rate against Soviet aircraft of all types still proves a mega-point.
No other Finnish piloted fighter type came halfway close to this. Between 1942 and 1943 one BUffalo squadron, with just 18 Buffaloes, managed to achieve 274 confirmed kills for the loss of just 2 Buffaloes through Soviet action, of which was shot down killing the pilot and one was written off when it crash landed at base. The I-153, whether flown by Fins or Russians, was hopelessly outclassed by modern high speed bombers such as the SB-2M, Blenhiem II, Blenhiem IV, etc. with the latter being simply able to throttle up and leave pursuing I-153s far behind. The I-153 makes 288 MPH and the Blienhiem makes 293 MPH. A fighter need to be at least 100 MPH faster than a bomber that it is dealing with. Being slower or just about able to match speed makes it an easy target for a bomber's gunners. With modern bombers being faster and able to out perform the I-153 at altitude (and the I-16), the only other roles open to the I-153 were as a dogfighter and ground attack fighter-bomber. Most bombers it faced could simply fly high and out of reach. As a dogfighter it lacks the performance at altitude and the speed to deal with the fighters it faced, apart from Finnish Gladiators, Bulldogs and D-21, German Hs-123 ground attack aircraft. The I-15 and I-15 Bis may have performed well against other bi-planes such as the He-51 over Spain, but by 1941 it was just a dinosaur fighter in a changing world, only outclassing similar dinosaur fighters and bombers flown by both the Fins and Russians. The premise for creating the I-153 as a dogfighter was flawed because by 1938, the age of the high speed maneuverable monoplane was beginning. As for ground attack, the only other bi-plane to carry rockets was the Fairey Swordfish. Apart from being an easier target for enemy FlaK, bi-planes do perform better in ground attack roles than faster monoplanes with less agility. Short take off and landing is also an advantage.
|
|
#50
02-03-2010, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The reason why Russian planes seemed so outclassed, was because in the 30s, Russia put more effort in their biplane designs than monoplane designs. The reason why? Because during the 30s, Stalin and the rest thought that Biplanes were the way of the future because of their amazing maneuverability, and agility. The USSR, saw monoplanes as basically obsolete before they even really got going.
Same goes for many French planes as well. The reason the MS 406 and other French fighters were slow, was because though they were monoplanes, they wanted to keep that good maneuverability and agility going that many biplanes had. Same goes with Italy, and that's why we have the Fiat CR. 32-42 also. Britain also thought biplanes would still be important, and actually the first designs of the Hawker Hurricane was actually a Biplane design. It was Germany and the US, who started putting more work into the Monoplane structure/design, and that's why it seems like they outclassed most of their allies and enemies.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
