Curtiss P-6E vs. Heinkel He-51

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » 24 Sep 2002 20:47

Come on guys let try and remain civil

The Greek Air Force as of 28/10/1940 had some 36 PZL P.24's in service with 21,22 & 23 Mira Fighter Sqn's.

Andy from the Shire

Juha Tompuri · Post by **Juha Tompuri** » 24 Sep 2002 21:32

Hey guys,
Stop fighting and let`s be more polite. Facts can ( and should ) be presented in not so hostile way.
Varjag really knows what he is writing, about Gladiators ( I or II?), CR 42 and I-153`s. We finns had some experience from Gladiator II`s, all kind of I-fighters and Fiat A74 engines. Major drawbacks of Gladiators were that it caught fire easily and breaking away from combat was difficult.

I think the Fiats saw much more combat than the US biplanes. Colombian war was something new to me.

Then two quotations:

Axis Aircraft of WW II by David Mondey:
"Chinas CR 32`s gave a good account of themselves against the invading Japanese, and were regarded as superior to the Curtiss Hawk biplanes"

Hungarian Air Force by George Punka:
"Hungarian CR 32 fighters engaged Slovakian Avia B534 fighters and Letov bombers. The Hungarians emerged the victors, shooting down three aircraft over Ungvar and six over Szobranc."

JT

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 24 Sep 2002 22:54

First of all, where did I state that I thought the American biplanes were the best? Personally I think that a Finnish pilot in an I-153 would be about the best biplane pilot in the world.

The reason that I got angry was that gabriel pagliarani said...

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.

...after which I named at least 7 planes that could best the He-51. He ignored this and then he said...

gabriel pagliarani wrote: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.

...after which I proved him incorrect, AGAIN!
Then he says...

gabriel pagliarani wrote:In the while my unkind american counterpart surely is a blind one.

Which I understood as, "He only thinks what his country builds is any good." Again, where did I say that America had the best? Also, what does this...

gabriel pagliarani wrote: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.

Where did I "try to sell him a Grumman"? Also, what did the first two sentences of that phrase mean?

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 24 Sep 2002 22:55

This is the winner in my opinion...

Logan Hartke

Daniel L · Post by **Daniel L** » 24 Sep 2002 23:21

How about the Bristol Bulldog? I've forgotten much about all the planes- shame on me...

Juha Tompuri · Post by **Juha Tompuri** » 25 Sep 2002 20:31

Logan,
The 21 FAF I-153`s served well, and our pilots were highly motivated: everybody here knew what would happen to our country and people, if the russians would win ( =occupy). In theory good planes, but suffered from technical unreliability: undercarriage and engine especially. They claimed six kills: SB-2, 2 I-16, I-153 (!!!), Pe-2 (!), and P-39 ( 29. 7. -44 !!!!!).

Charlie,
Both our countries entered WW II with Bulldogs. We started the war with 10 planes ( 35 Fokker D21`s and Bulldog IV`s were theonly fighters in the beginning ). Thanks for the donation of two Bulldog II`s.
Bulldogs claimed also six kills 2 I-16 ( including the firs FAF kill ) and 4 SB-2. Bulldog coded BU-68 was the most succesful: two SB`s and one I-16.
Not bad forplane first flwn 17. 5. 1927.

JT

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 25 Sep 2002 20:40

What gabriel? Where have you gone now, and where is the "world's best biplane"? Now that you feel like a jerk for calling me a "blind, opinionated, american" after I didn't say America's were the best, and all of your points were procen wrong, you just slink ot of here? Man, get back and admit you were wrong, and apologize for forgetting some truly superb biplanes of many nations. You have said "SHUT UP" and "Nothing to say more?" and were proven wrong on both occasions. Now, come back, apologize and then stick to the aircraft involved in the original question without referring to anything produced in Italy if you can help it. I said it before and I'll say it again, I believe that in a dogfight between the two superb and beautiful planes it would come down entirely to pilot skill except at high altitudes where the Curtiss might have a slight advantage.

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 25 Sep 2002 20:46

Juha Tompuri wrote:In theory good planes, but suffered from technical unreliability: undercarriage and engine especially. They claimed six kills: SB-2, 2 I-16, I-153 (!!!), Pe-2 (!), and P-39 ( 29. 7. -44 !!!!!).

True about the reliability, but if there are examples still flying, that has to give the plane some credit in that arena. The airplane wasn't superb, but I think that you'd have a hard time finding a good competitor for it among other biplanes. Possibly, however, the CR 42DB would be the best out there, but not the standard CR 42. (55mph speed difference - 267 for normal CR 42, but 322mph for the CR 42DB!!!)

Logan Hartke

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 25 Sep 2002 20:49

Okay, that's enough of a tangent; I'll make a new thread for it, but let's get back to the original question for this thread.

Logan Hartke

varjag · Post by **varjag** » 26 Sep 2002 14:10

Gabriel - I had not the slightest idea of forcing you into some nationalist corner.Far from! I am certain that most IAF pilots in their CR 42's as in their underpowered CR 50's and Macchi 200's - would have OUTFLOWN most of the opposition! By saying that, I am trying to draw the forums attention to the QUALITY of the Italian pilots. They might have flown 'all those underpowered/underarmed' fighterplanes 'as the books keep telling us' - but, they mostly had superb flying training and were expert pilots,and given a 2/10ths of a second chance - scored against the enemy.
Italy, as not Germany, did not seem to have sent 'lambs to the slaughter' but maintained a high standard of training - before action.

CurtissP-6EHawk · Post by **CurtissP-6EHawk** » 19 Nov 2002 06:46

It looks like I missed a good fight here! Sorry I missed it!

http://www.curtisshawkp6e.com

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 20 Nov 2002 18:26

I'm still here; any opinions or further info would be welcome.

Logan Hartke

varjag · Post by **varjag** » 22 Nov 2002 12:49

Thanks for the P-6E picture by it's namesake - it's sheer poetry!!!!!!!
Just a little note about the 'flying I-153's' - and their quality. They are not restored wrecks - they are brand new aircraft, built in Siberia for New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum with brand new engines.And can be viewed at Wanaka Airport, South Island, New Zealand. Together with three I-16's likewise new. I believe one I-153 was sold last year to the US. Every second Easter they are displayed in the air at the Warbirds over Wanaka Airshow - your next chance is Easter 2004. I was there last Easter - and lemme tell you - when 1000 Shvetsov horses start moving a little airplane of less than two tons - things MOVE!

Percy Mandible · Post by **Percy Mandible** » 23 Nov 2002 02:43

Back to Hartke's initial poser - interesting notion, so I have to add my own ramblings to the mounting pile, though this is just throwing out ideas because the two aircraft seem so well matched, so who knows. Both aircraft being based on earlier successful designs tells me they PROBABLY had had the worst of any faults already ironed out. The He 51 certainly had more power available than the Curtiss, but the nomal loaded weight of the Curtiss was lower, thought the wing area was also lower. Overall the wing loading of the Heinkel looks a little higher than its opponent. Yes the max speeds are similar but the Heinkel seems to have the edge there. Initial climb rates are close, with the Curtiss having a slight advantage. Structural strength - The Curtiss products were typically of sturdy construction, I think that is common knowledge. But the Gunter brothers were innovators and aeronautical engineers of renown, so I am confident the He51 had a basically sound airframe too. Armament was virtually identical. I guess I have to record my own view as 'unproven' in this 'paper contest', and as a previous poster said - it would likely come down more to the skills of the individual combatant pilots. I do think the more powerful, radial-engined Hawk III would have a slight edge over the He51 - and (quite irrelevantly) it also looks much neater, more interesting, and would make a nicer model than the P6E, I think.

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 23 Nov 2002 03:08

I think that I'd have to agree with everything that you've said, Percy. Welcome to the forum.

Logan Hartke

Axis History Forum

Curtiss P-6E vs. Heinkel He-51

Logan vs. Gabriel & referees Varjag and Andy

Achievements of Regia Aeronautica

He51 v. P6E