Documents
The information in the two pdf documents linked below is to a large extent contained in my book WW1 Aircraft Performance and give a good idea about the type of data and text it contains. The book itself is described in more detail here.
The first paper deals with a subject that there are many different views on: In a matchup between the Fokker Dr.I and the Sopwith Camel, which was the better fighter? While there is historical data available for metrics such as speed and climb rates, solid data on turn performance is non-existent, and it’s in many cases anecdotal evidence that is used to argue either side. The paper linked on the left below attempts to answer this question from the perspective of turn performance: Which one was the best turn fighter and why?
The paper linked on the right covers an even more arcane subject: How do WW1 scouts compare when it comes to dive performance? How fast or slow did they accelerate in a dive, and can we say anything about their terminal velocities, i.e. what was the maximum speed they could hope to attain in close to vertical dives? In addition, how well did they perform in so-called dive and zoom attacks?
The analysis done in both these papers is based on results derived from computer simulations utilizing a C++ program I have developed and which is described in more detail under the About tab on this website.
The paper linked below analyses the performance of the Kh-47 M2 Kinzhal, and how likely it is that this type of missile can be intercepted by air defenses. However, in order to keep this homepage free of text that could be construed to be politically sensitive (thus avoiding removal of links to this page from certain forums), the paper has been redacted so that only the parts relevant to the technical analysis remain.
I did this paper because there have been so many claims and rumors circulating in the media regarding the actual performance of this missile, and some of these have been overly optimistic in my opinion. At least that is what my simulations outlined in the paper indicate.
However, I in no way claim this to be the gospel truth, and this is just my assessment based on a number of assumptions that I outline in the paper. And I would welcome any constructive input on it, which you can send to me via the form on the “Contact” tab on this homepage.
Link to paper analyzing a Patriot PAC-2’s probability to intercept a Kh-47 M2 Kinzhal missile
My latest paper, which is linked below, investigates two quite dissimilar aircraft originating from two completely
different design philosophies: The first one, the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero, was designed
taking every opportunity to save weight whenever possible, even at the cost of
such basics as self-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armour. The second, the Curtiss
P-40E Warhawk, is a more traditional fighter design of the Western type, thus
being somewhat sturdier in its design and trading some weight to add the survivability
features the Zero lacked.
The paper mostly confirms what is today regarded as common knowledge by many, i.e. that
the Zero was the more agile fighter that climbed and turned better, while the
Warhawk was faster and dived better. However, what the paper brings to the table
is that it puts actual numbers on these differences, and provides an idea about
just how large or small this difference was at different heights and under different
flight conditions.
In addition, while the P-40E had its official maximum performance numbers
constrained by a so-called War Emergency Power (WEP) power limit, pilots soon
discovered that this level of boost could actually be exceeded by a substantial
margin with no apparent ill effect on the engine, which in turn meant that the
Warhawk could when coaxed to do so actually climb better and fly much faster than what
was stated in the officially sanctioned flight manual.
