RE: Korean Air War

["Daniel T. Fahey" <DanFahey@DanSources.com>]

Yes they did. It was interesting the bombers were faster then the Ki27
Japanese fighters.  Typically a Ki48 or Ki21.  The only reason the AVG
managed to have the advantage was the early warning net to get the slow
climbing P40s to altitude.

For some reason the Japanese Bombers always came in at 18k to 20K alt and
from the same direction everytime.  They knew where to find them.

The AVG did not shoot down 300 planes.  Dan Ford's estimate of 120 is more
realistic The P40 B just did not have the weight of the 6-50cal E model.
Even the simulators Warbirds and AirWarrior bear this out. Most of the
Flying Tigers kills were the bombers.  They avoided the fighters. Got a
bunch of them too.

Take in the considertion shortage of munitions, parts, gas and healthy
enough pilots, 120 was fantastic.  The Tigers lost about 50 planes in the
7-8 month combat existance.From December 1941 to July 1942.

The last two moonths with the E Model they seemed to increase
their kill ratio on the bombers.

Dan Fahey





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
[mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Donald McElfresh
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:15 PM
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Korean Air War


Gentlemen:

Didn't General Claire Chennault's Flying Tigers (in their P-40's or
"Warhawks")
dive down and through Japanese formations, as a standard approach, and then
go
like hell rather than dogfight, where they were at a disadvantage.  They
were
heavier aircraft, also.  No one can discredit their 6 month success record
of
1941/1942.

Don

Diego Zampini wrote:

> Hi, Dan:
>
> >The F86 was a full ton heavier then the Mig with the same power.
>
> And such difference of weight allowed the MiG to accelarate faster in
> leveled flight. This ability was used by many Soviet (and Chinese pilots)
to
> disengage when they were jumped by Sabres.
>
> >It seems all the US planes were lacking in the performance
> >department during WW2. The Mustang could be outturned and
> >outclimbed by most of the Axis and Japanese planes.
>
> I am an expert in American WW2 warplanes, but it seems to me that the
P-51D
> Mustang could easily out-turn the German Bf 109s and Fw 190s (the last one
> was, however, a better match), despite I guess the Fw 190 climbed better
> than the Mustang. The P-47 Thunderbolt was the one who was easily
out-turned
> and out-climbed by both the Messerchmitt and the Focke Wulf. The only one
> thing that the Thunderbolt did better was to dive. Of course, the A6M Zero
> could out-turn the P-51, but the Zero out-turned every existing combat
> plane.
>
> >The F86 below 30k was said to be more maneuverable than
> >the Mig but when you have a plane diving on you it is hard
> >to get out of the way.  All of the exploits by the best pilots
> >always stipulated altitude advantage and using the sun.
>
> In that aspect (to begin a combat with altitude advantage and using the
sun)
> the Soviet MiG-15 pilots in 1951 used to take the best part, due to the
> higher ceiling of the MiG (51,000 feet vs 47,000 of the Sabre). The Soviet
> Ace Nikolai Sutyagin scored most of his Sabre kills with such tactic. His
> first F-86 on June 19 1951 was shot down that way. I only know an occasion
> where the MiGs score a kill while they were lower than the Sabres: on
> October 6 1951 Yevgeni Pepelyayev began a head-on pass against 2 F-86s
while
> he was at 8,000 meters (24,000 feet) and the Sabres at 9,000 meters
(27,000
> feet). Despite that, in such head-on pass was when he shot-up the F-86A
BuNo
> 49-1178. But since 1952 many of the poorly trained newcomer MiG drivers
stop
> using such tactic and lost the advantage.
>
> >Interestingly the early G-suit was the difference in WW2 also.
> >As speeds got up to 500mph and cranking in 6 to 9 Gs helped you
> >focus on a quick leading shot on the enemy before they could react.
>
> Certainly the lack of G-suits by the Communist air forces was an edge in
> favour of the US pilots, particularly since 1952 onwards. A veteran pilot
> could (at least partially) counterest the G-effects, but a rookie one
could
> not. Despite I think the reports about dozens of MiGs crashing into the
> ground after tight turns in May 1953 are mainly USAF propaganda and are
> inflated, I am sure that some of them really happened. In any case, the
lack
> of G-suit sharply limitated the flight envelope of the MiG, not because
the
> plane, but the pilot!
>
> >My comparison: The Mig vs Sabre is like the Warhawk vs Zero
>
> In your comparison, the MiG is the Zero and the Sabre is the Warhawk?
> Regards,
> Diego
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Descargue GRATUITAMENTE MSN Explorer en
> http://explorer.yupimsn.com/intl.asp.