Видео

Nice introduction to Pete Brothers. 10 victories in Hurricanes during the BoB. Very skilled fighter pilot and good leader, finishing as an Air Commodore.

Pete Brothers. Extraordinary pilot. He, as CO of the Sqn, signed off on my fathers logbook. Everyone glad to be on Spitfires rather than the Hurricanes.

Death by Mosquito

Thank you for this great video. Your research skills and narration, despite the fact that English is not your first language, are impeccable! BTW, one of the first model planes I ever built was a Matchbox 1/72 scale Hawker Tempest II.

Did the Soviets prefer the P-400 version to the 37mm cannon equipped version? I would think that the smaller cannon in the P-400 would still be more than enough destructive force to cripple, or completely destroy anything the Luftwaffe flew in WWII. IMO having sufficient firepower coupled w/the fact that (I assume) the 20mm cannon had greater ammunition stores, and higher rate of fire than the 37mm.

This plane was shot out of the skies by the Japanese aircraft.

Excellent channel.

One of the best computer games ca.1990 was flying a Mosquito fighter. The only reason I quit playing it was that when I got the hang of it, the German planes wouldn't engage or even show up on radar, even starting from scratch.

imho one important bit was left out in Ash-82 vs Sabre comparison. In drag/frontal area .. is that big radiator's underneath tempest's engine cross-section and drag added in, or it's "engine only"?

Dude, it was a superb machine!

Stalin was so paranoid that it costed USSR very good soldiers and engineers

Ни чего не было бы абсолютно, Александру Филиппову максимум что было это, отставка .

Short video but very interesting. Thanks for sharing your research and experiences in producing it. 🙈🙉🙊 😎 🇺🇸

I would think that the LA-7 would be a livelier plane, a pilot's plane. No nonsense and quick to respond.

Adolf Galland said it looks like a fighter, which of course it was.

BRITISH MADE MOSQUITOS MADE BY DE HAVILLAND.. RAF FIGHTER.BOMBER. AND RECONISCENCE.ETC. ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN ENGINES.

Years ago I knew a SAAF pilot who flew Gladiators in 40/41, I remember him saying that their "kites" had the advantage over the "eyties in their 42's"

Beaumont is quoted as saying he did 495mph at RAF Newchurch. Then he used the word Formidable.

Great job thanks

Nice work Sir, first time I’ve come across this channel and what a debut upload! There’s so little spoken about this and a few others that we’re all aware of so as an English man I wish you the very best and I’ll subscribe and tell my friends. 🎧🇬🇧👏

I'm paraphrasing but I've heard two different quotes from German pilots one I think was Adolf Galland The first was the only good thing about the Tempest was that there were so few of them. The other was The most Dangerous opponent of the ME262 was the Tempest Very fast at low altitude and heavily armed

Bravo, well done...

For some reason, Soviet aircraft tended to have short fuselages - material shortages? - while German planes tended to have long fuselages. American and British design seemed to fall in the middle ground.

Great video. Very interesting aircraft. Italy did produce some very fine aircraft in ww2.

It was my understanding the P63 couldn't fly efficiently, so couldn't fight, higher than 20,000 ft. Because bomber escorts would fly up to 40,000 ft in order to see the German interceptors/fighters and attack them from high above. Though they would sometimes mix it up at higher altitudes. It worked well for the Soviets because the Eastern front air battles were fought at much lower altitudes, mostly under the 20,000 ft ceiling of the P63.

The real fail for the German and Japanese air forces altimaltly came down to not rotating their combat hardened pilots back to the training schools. They flew them till death. Allied pilots returned during rotations educating/hardening the next classes of pilots to face the enemy with their experience and knowledge. Meanwhile the Axis ran short of fuel for basic training.

With the Macchi 205 in my heart and the Saggitario being strikingly beutiful and dangerous, I will have to concur with the German commisuon's assessment that the best of the trio indeed was the Fiat G55

It was NOT the Apex fighter

Excellent comprehensive well researched and presented video. Fantastic graphics too. Well done!

Thanks

what is no5? its look very interesting

Why would you even compare the two.....both were on the allied side in WWII. !

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!

It's just wonderful to learn more about these planes from a not-British/American perspective.

The deep air-scoop from a front-on view makes a most fearsome sight to have in your rear-view

Oh I already liked this video :(

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.

Awesome thanks

Superb presentation and information, one of the best i have seen, i subscribed.

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!

Good book❤😊

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.

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.