Curtiss P-6E vs. Heinkel He-51

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Curtiss P-6E vs. Heinkel He-51

Post by Logan Hartke » 15 Sep 2002 06:51

Even though this isn't technically WWII, I'm hopeing Marcus will leave it here, since I feel that it is most likely to be answered intelligently in this section.

Curtiss P-6E vs. Heinkel He-51
Who do you think would have had the advantage in an air-to-air battle and why? Which one was better?

Heinkel He-51
Image

Curtiss P-6E
Image

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 15 Sep 2002 21:27

No one? Come on, there has got to be someone that has an opinion on the matter. Erich? Caldric? Anyone?

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 15 Sep 2002 21:38

I have only info on the He51 (Max speed 205mph at sea level, Crusing speed 174mph at sea level, Service Ceiling 25,260ft, Range 354miles, and armed with2 MG17's), what's your opinion on the likely outcome :wink:

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 15 Sep 2002 22:57

My opinion is that the P-6E would have a maneuverability advantage (there is no speed difference) and that it would largely depend on pilot skill.

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 15 Sep 2002 23:08

One thing, though; the P-6E did on 600hp what it took the He-51 750hp to do and also, I think that the P-6E would have the advantage the higher the altitude became. In addition to that, I must say that I believe you paid for the extra performance on less since I think the P-6E was more expensive.

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 17 Sep 2002 06:28

Anyone...

Logan Hartke

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Heinkel

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 23 Sep 2002 22:37

In 1938 the only biplane better than He 51 was Fiat Cr 42 "Falco". Most powerful, most manouvrable and lowered needs of handling, it was far better than the 1st generation of monoplane. Fiat Cr 32 "Chirri" was the real counterpart of both planes."Curtiss" was the name Axis pilots gave to Polikarpovs... strange omonymia!

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Heinkel

Post by Logan Hartke » 23 Sep 2002 23:18

gabriel pagliarani wrote:In 1938 the only biplane better than He 51 was Fiat Cr 42 "Falco". Most powerful, most manouvrable and lowered needs of handling, it was far better than the 1st generation of monoplane. Fiat Cr 32 "Chirri" was the real counterpart of both planes."Curtiss" was the name Axis pilots gave to Polikarpovs... strange omonymia!
Not true at all! The Grumman F3F, the Arado Ar 68, the Gloster Gauntlet, the Avia B-534, the Polikarpov I-15, and the I-152/3 were all better than the He-51, and a few of those were better than the Cr 42. Man, you don't know your airplanes. Go out and do your research, my friend, before making unintelligent, ignorant, and opinionated comments without backing...

The Cr 42 would have been sliced and diced...

Image

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-u ... es/f3f.htm

Logan Hartke
Last edited by Logan Hartke on 24 Sep 2002 02:37, edited 2 times in total.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 23 Sep 2002 23:25

Also, the Curtiss Hawks were still capable of winning the dogfights.

Image

http://aerofiles.com/_curt.html

Logan Hartke

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Intelligent opinionated

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 24 Sep 2002 01:10

Sir Hartke,
because you are more intelligent and opinionated than I am tell me how many enemies has the Curtiss shot down..
I could suggest you: NONE.
Shut up.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Intelligent opinionated

Post by Logan Hartke » 24 Sep 2002 02:36

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Sir Hartke,
because you are more intelligent and opinionated than I am tell me how many enemies has the Curtiss shot down..
I could suggest you: NONE.
Shut up.
Really? Which Curtiss? If you meant the last one I posted, then you are still wrong and ignorant. Don't type in all caps unless you are sure of what you are typing.
The Curtiss Hawk III saw limited US Navy service but provided the backbone of the Chinese Air Force’s fighter arm on the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese conflict in July 1937. It fought over Peking and Shanghai before being withdrawn from first-line service in 1941. Thai Hawk IIIs were in action against both French in the Thai invasion of Indo-China in January 1941 and against invading Japanese forces in December 1941.
Looks to me like that is at least 5 years of combat, what about you? I believe that other versions might have been used in S. America as well. Ready for round 2?

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 24 Sep 2002 04:13

Image

Image

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 24 Sep 2002 05:55

Yep, I was right, the Hawk IIs and IIIs saw combat while in the service of Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, China, and Siam. How many countries did the Cr 42 see combat while serving with? Let's see here, Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Hungary. So, now let's see, the Hawks saw combat with more countries than your fighter, did they not?

Logan Hartke

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Fighting Biplanes

Post by varjag » 24 Sep 2002 13:20

Logan and Gabriel - I admire you both for your faith in your native products!And Logan is quite right about the provess of the Curtisse's war service in China.(Courtesy of Martin Caidins; The Ragged Rugged Warriors- required reading for any student of the era). Now to the 'more ultimate biplanes' - a snip of info from Sweden whose RSAF had both the Gloster Gladiator (since 1938) and the Fiat CR 42 (since 1941). Naturally the squadrons 'met in dogfights' where the qualities of the two types were discussed and evaluated. On reading 'the tales', it was much of a muchness - they were pretty even. The Gladiator turned a bit tighter, the Fiat climbed a bit faster....ONE observation was that the peace-time Bristol Mercury of the Glad was much more durable, the war-time 'quality' of the Fiat engine soon deteriorated into something much less than it's rated 840 HP - and the Fiat's performance fell off with only 100 hours or less on the engine. My personal opinion is still, that, given equal pilot training - a Russki in a I-152 or 153 would've licked them both.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 24 Sep 2002 13:29

Sir Varjag,
I am no so nationalist as you think about. In the while my unkind american counterpart surely is a blind one. There was only PZL P24 a biplane effectively outstanding FIAT CR 42 and it was a polish plane serving Greek Air Force. That plane was effectively superior to CR42. Fortunately for italians there were only a bit of them on Greek Front. Ah...but it was a monoplane! (I have seen the photo for the 1st time on the net and i enclose it now.) I heard it directly from certain pilots the reports about air struggles against PZLs over Koritza during 1940 and I thought they were biplanes not "parasol" winged.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sir Logan,
how many enemies the surely best sold out Curtiss shot down? Nothing to say more?What care of the countries bought the plane? Why do you speak about Curtiss while trying to sell me a Grumman? Your own deal must be in used cars...you have good chances to be elected as the next President.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”