[Fraxinus]

I believe that many American fighters get a bad rap from WWII for being sub optimal dogfighters. E.G. The P-40 should be compared to the Hawker Hurricane not the Spitfire. American fighters tended to be bigger and more heavily armed (and armored) that those they fought against. The size and weight works against turning radius, but allows much larger fuel tanks (increasing range). The Allison Engine used in the P-40, P-38, and P-39 had equal or better performance than the Merlin at med to low elevation, but the Merlin was much better over 20,000 FT.

The Japanese got very impressive performance out of the Zero, but only by removing all possible weight.

[knarf]

I love WW2 development trivia

Television was perfected during the war and didn't change much until the flat screen .. etc.

[pfflier]

The Germans and Japanese had no fear of the P-40. The P-39 underperformed at fighting altitudes but average below 10K AGL. The P-38 wasn't as maneuverable as the Zero or the Me-109 but was a devastating gun platform. The F-4F had the same flaws as the P-40 not agile but it had the same strengths too, rugged and heavily gunned.

The early strength of American fighters was their ability to absorb hits from opposing fighters. When armed with the 50 cal machine guns, they were also more lethal because of the amount of firepower they could muster on a target.

I left the P-36 out of the mix because it was mostly not a factor. Then there was the Brewster Buffalo...