# Rising Sun warbirds



## Aggie08 (Jul 21, 2005)

What I've realized about this site is that there is seemingly no one defends Japanese planes when they get bashed, I do it too. A very negative spin is put on them because of this and I was wondering if anyone would care to put down their unbiased opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of these birds. There are so many members from around the globe and everyone tends to back up their own country's machines. It's just that no one talks about these planes much. I'm just looking for a good discussion, what do you think?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2005)

If you look further back through the site history you'll find that A) We once had a Japanese member and B) It wasn't until recently that Japanese planes have been "bashed". 

We all recognise the strength's and weakness' of Japanese planes. I think it was well discussed in the A6M2 vs. Spitfire IIA discussion, actually.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 22, 2005)

I dont remember any Japanese members...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

Check out the thread about Japanese aviation Aggie.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2005)

Dead Parrot was Japanese, or at least his little flag thing said so. I shouldn't believe that since yours states you're Italian - and you're about as Italian as the Pope is Polish.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

yes we will defend a jap plane if it is for example the better plane in a comparison, but there is no point in defending it if there is nothing to defend...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

Why did France put up a fight in WW2 then? they had nothing important to defend at all  


And I'll have you know I am Italian.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

yes Demitri.......


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If you look further back through the site history you'll find that A) We once had a Japanese member and B) It wasn't until recently that Japanese planes have been "bashed".
> 
> We all recognise the strength's and weakness' of Japanese planes. I think it was well discussed in the A6M2 vs. Spitfire IIA discussion, actually.



I've been on the forum for a few months and I didn't see anything positive about them, I'll take a look at that discussion.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes Demitri.......



Since when was that an Italian name? 

Call me Giancarlo....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

that's an italian name!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

Dmitri is a Russian name  On the front of those books, *Dmitri Khazunov*. Id never consider it an Italian name.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2005)

mmm, now i'm not sure........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

I'll just call you a tit, CC.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

And a big, DD sized tit at that.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

Shall we call you DD from now on?  

Here's a little contribution to this thread from a British pilot in Burma - 

He says that on the 15th January, 1944 _"...we met them in equal strength and had a field day."_ - Gordon Conway. 

Some flaws in the Japanese aviation; they generally attacked landing grounds as opposed to lines of communication. They fought individually. They had no armour. They never used cloud cover. They received no instruction when landing blind. They had no air-to-ground communication.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > If you look further back through the site history you'll find that A) We once had a Japanese member and B) It wasn't until recently that Japanese planes have been "bashed".
> ...



We are not going to say somethign positive just to say soemthing positive. Thats like praising the *Fiesler S*torch as the *greatest fighter plane* to see service in WW2.  We give credit where it is due.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 25, 2005)

It was the greatest fighter plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

You and I know that CC but know one else does!  8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 25, 2005)

Well no-one else has our level of intellect 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

Fer Sure.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2005)

I tried to crawl down to your level once, CC but it was just too large of a fall really.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 26, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 28, 2005)

See, thats basically what I was looking for. I was looking for more in-depth discussion but this is fine, just shows that in this forum most people do not favor Japanese planes. Case closed. 8)


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

Hey, I volunteer at a WWII aviation museum that has one of the 2 Zeroes that are still flying. I like that old bird for it's history, but I have seen it and a hellcat fly at the same time and I can tell you, it is abundant clear which aircraft is the better of the 2. Not only watching them fly together, but having pulled cowlings and panels off to get underneath, it is clear which plane was made to survive.

Very early in the war, the Zero had an almost mystical reputation that was finally proven unwarranted. It was a good fighter, early in the war. I would not have ever called it great at any time though.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

It wasn't a good fighter though, it was just shrouded with mystery.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

That is what most of us are saying. Sorry Aggie but we are not going to say the Zero was the greatest thing to taxi down a runway and take off. We give the aircraft credit where it is due though.


----------



## Aggie08 (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm not looking to glorify it. It's just that American and European birds get more coverage here. I think that I got caught up in the early war mystery of the Zero and was surprised as to why it didn't receive more attention. No worries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2005)

No problem. Feel free to start up threads about Japanese aviation if you would like. Everyone here has no problem discussing it.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2005)

The Zero fighter in the first several months of the war in the Pacific was a great fighter. Soon outclassed, but none the less, in the hands of a good pilot, it was deadly. Perhaps its greatest assett was its tremendous range. In 1942, the allied planes could not hope to even come close to its range. In the Pacific, the distances are vast. The short ranges of supposedly "great" fighters like the Spit and the -109 made them essentialy useless. 

Ive added a couple of pix for your viewing pleasure


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2005)

As posted in earlier threads, I don't consider the Zero a great fighter. What elevated the Zero was it's alleged "mystic" abilities mainly through poor intellegence and propaganda, which were soon countered by tactics and teamwork. It was shown in an earlier post the F4F had nearly a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero, much of that had to do with tactics and pilot skill.

Bring a Zero into a dogfight above 300 mph and it's mystical abilities were erased......


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2005)

A kill is a kill. Untill their mystique wore off, they were a great fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> A kill is a kill. Untill their mystique wore off, they were a great fighter.



You're right, a kill is a kill - and the Zero was shot down at a rate to almost 4 to 1 by an inferior aircraft!

The only thing that could be bestowed on the Zero was the myth created by early war lack of intellegence. It was easily defeated at speeds over 300 mph, had heavy controls in high speeds, and the lack of self-sealing tanks was abundantly indicated. It it did have great range but wasn't even the most maneuvable Japanese fighter! 

Maybe you're right - the Zero was a great fighter - great for establishing myths, propaganda and it turned out to make a great target.


----------



## Aggie08 (Aug 7, 2005)

What was the best Japanese plane of the war in your opinion? This sounds sort of like a new post but since we're already on the topic...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2005)

I would just like to comment on syscoms attack on the Spitfire calling it "supposedly 'great'" - I would like to point out that the war against the Japanese wasn't just fought in the seas of the Pacific. It was also fought in China-Burma-India, where the Spitfire and other short range British interceptors provided invaluble service against Japanese aircraft. 

They may have had a short range but they were amazing machines and the Japanese had nothing to match up to the Spitfire over Burma. It achieved a 8:1 kill ratio over the IJAAF. 

The British also stationed eight Spitfires 150 miles behind (yes, BEHIND) enemy lines during Operation Thursday. They fended off several Japanese attacks on their airfield until being told to withdraw as they were taking up space for the Dakotas. 

As I said earlier in the post, the war wasn't fought all over massive distances of sea. It was also fought over jungles, mountains, paddy fields and swamp marshes. And even in a time the Hurricane had become obselete in Europe it still stood up to the IJAAF with increasing effectiveness. 

I know the IJAAF didn't use the Zero but it's just a show that the British fighters were able to fight the Japanese air power with their inferior range aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> What was the best Japanese plane of the war in your opinion? This sounds sort of like a new post but since we're already on the topic...



I think the "Tojo" (KI-44) was their best interceptor - they gave any bombers that came their way (including the B-29) problems. The Tony was a good aircraft as well - it had armor....

The Frank KI-84 was probably their best over-all fighter in terms of speed, firepower and range.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2005)

The Spit was legendary in European theater, but essentially useless in the Pacific in the key years of 1942 and 1943. Too top it off, the CBI was a sideshow compared to what was happening in the Solomons and New Guinie. Dont forget that the Japanese airforce in 1944 was a shell compared to its former self in 1942. 

The airwar in the Pacific was far different than the European airwar. Range was foremost the key to a successfull fighter in the Pacific theater. The Zero could fly non stop from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. Could any allied plane other than the Lightning be able to do that?

In Britain, the Spit was able to use radar info to excellent use by being in the right place at the right time to intercept the Germans. In the Pacific, untill late 1942, many allied bases didnt have that radar luxury other than to give a general warning to takeoff and get out of the way. I doubt the Spits could have done anything at Port Moresby or Guadalcanal. They would have run out of fuel by the time the got to altitude and caught up with the Japanese forces.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2005)

I see we have another non-thinker on our hands. The CBI is a sideshow in modern thinking because the CBI is a forgotten theatre. The Pacific and Europe get all the praise but the CBI contributed a lot to the entire war effort against the Japanese. Much more than you believe. 

The Spitfire didn't just use early warning, it was a more than capable interceptor with remarkable dogfighting abilities. The Spitfire didn't even arrive in the CBI until 1943, when it did arrive however it came as a shock to the IJAAF as it could dance around any Japanese plane at high speeds. 

When it did arrive, the RAF had a more than capable fighter to handle the IJAAF. The ranges weren't a problem in the CBI, the engineers were excellent and built airfield after airfield. The airfield I mentioned 150 miles behind enemy lines lacked any early warning radar, yet the Spitfires managed to intercept incoming Japanese planes time and time again. 

The Seafire was also a capable carrier defence aircraft. More than enough to intercept the Fw-200 "Kondor" spotting the convoys for the German U-Boats. 

Don't dismiss the CBI just because the U.S had little part in it. The Spitfires and Hurricanes provided invaluble service to the largest British Army of the war, the "Forgotten 14th". 

Range was important in the Pacific but the plane had to be able to handle itself against the opposition. The Zero might have out-ranged the USN fighters in the Pacific but the USN fighters were superior. The F4F Wildcat was able to overcome the Zero with simple tactics. 

The Zero was a long-ranged paper airplane.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 7, 2005)

The bulk of Japanese resources went to the SW and Central Pacific. What ever happened in the CBI was meaningless. It was called the forgotten theater for a reason.... it had no strategic value. Even if the allies had abandoned the whole area, nothing about the war would be different. The amount of material and personel the Japanese commited to the SW Pacific showed they knew what was more important.

In 1943, the only shock the Japnese pilots had was not over a few Spitfires in Burma (whose short range meant they were incapable of offensive operations) but of US and ANZAC Lightnings, Corsairs, P40's and Hellcats that were escorting heavy bombers at long ranges (for 1943) throughout the SW Pacific.

Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.



If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this.

I agree the Ki-84 was the best for Japan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.



Lets see... 4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F

I think THOUSANDS of shotdown Japanese pilots may disagree with you.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 8, 2005)

4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
- Only a couple of planes were lost to the P38. Most P38 squadrons werent into the thick of things untill early 1943
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG) 
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
- Irrelevant cause the F4U wasnt in combat untill summer 1943 
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F 
- Irrelevant cause the F6F wasnt in combat untill early 1943

"If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this. "
Every AF has attrition rates. The Japanese were even worse than the Germans in a pilot training program, and eventually as the pilots were shot down or incapacitated from the tropical diseases, they lost most of their experienced pilots. If you read my posts, I said for the first year of the airwar, the Zero was a great fighter.

Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

You obviously do not have a clue about the CBI, syscom. You have provided perfect evidence of that. The CBI had all the strategic value for the Japanese, the CBI was exactly where the Japanese resources were coming from. 

They had captured Singapore, Burma, Malaya and Indonesia to secure _vital_ oil, coal and rubber for their war effort. The shock came to the Japanese in the form of the Spitfire over Burma. The Spitfire was perfectly capable of offensive operations over the CBI because the distances were not too great, the Japanese and British forces were face to face all the time. 

It was nothing like the PTO, it was a land theatre not an ocean theatre. The Japanese only sent their IJN to defend against the USN, that's not strategic value that's an active defence. 

Do not bother me with the China-Burma-India theatre, as you do not have a clue on the issue. Go read about it and then come back to me. 

The Zero was a paper airplane with only two decent characteristics, long range and low-speed turning. It wasn't capable in a fight, the USN developed simple tactics to defeat it with the Wildcat. 

If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were. 

The reason the CBI was forgotten was because the ETO and MTO had all the news as it was closer to British home. The reason the CBI is forgotten now is because people like you do not care to read up about it. 

I have the benefit of hindsight over those pilots that were being attacked by an aircraft shrouded in mystery. If I could go back and tell all those people what the Zero was really like, they would agree it was a paper airplane.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 8, 2005)

"Do not bother me with the China-Burma-India theatre, as you do not have a clue on the issue. Go read about it and then come back to me."
- the more you speak, the more ignorant you show me you are.

The riches of Indonesia and Mayasia were located a thousand miles south of Burma. If the IJA thought the CBI theater as important, they would have commited more units there and KEPT them there

No matter how much spin you put on it, the CBI was strategically irrelevent. Just like the Aleutians..... just Like Italy (after the Normandy landings). 

"It was nothing like the PTO, it was a land theatre not an ocean theatre. The Japanese only sent their IJN to defend against the USN, that's not strategic value that's an active defence."
- Of course you know that the IJN had resposibility for Rabaul and the IJA responsibility for northern New Guinie? It was IJA air units that were stripped from CBI to reinforce the more important theaters. And of course you know the japanese were still attacking allied bases throughout the SW Pacific well into the spring of 1943. I guess thats an active defense?

And of course, I suppose all of the P39/P41/Wildcat pilots who somehow ended up under the 'chute or in a crater on the ground (or splash in the ocean) were shot down by an inferior fighter.

"If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were."
- All the Japanese had to do was fly around for several minutes and then your vaunted Spits would need to land to refuel, heheheheheh.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were.



The Spits would have ended up the same as the Spits in northern Ozland did, scrap metal. That is is if they could get off the ground due to the very numerous mech problems. Did you conviently forget the first battles between Spit Vs and Zeke?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.



And why was that? Becuase throughout 1942 the Zero was starting to get it's butt kicked. You just want to make a case for the Zero based on 1 year of fighting. That's nonsence! Even with 1942 kill ratios, the Zero was getting smoked and it was becuase of those early losses the situation only got worse........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

I've got a reply to this but it won't let me post it! This is beyond odd, seriously I've got this massive reply and I'm not allowed to post it. It says it cannot detect the website. Even if I cut the reply down to a paragraph of it, it won't let me! And if you don't believe me I could even start a new threat with the exact reply. And it was all written by me too!

In fact, I'll PM someone it and they can try and post it. Who wants to be the test subject?

It won't even let me start a new thread with it. Man, this is f*cking wrong. How the hell can it do that!? I can write all this but not all what's in my reply. Conspiracy!

Holy shit! I can't even PM it to people. Someone PM me their e-mail so I can send it to you via e-mail, then try and post it on here.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2005)

If the IJA thought the CBI as unimportant they would not have bothered at all. China and Burma were both important areas of conflict. In fact, more Japanese units were stationed in China than against the U.S. Burma was vital for the Japanese to cut off the supply route into China and create a shield from the British in India. 

Had the Japanese abandoned Burma, China would be supplied by the U.S lend-lease, the British could have attacked all Japanese gains in the South-West Pacific from the land. On top of that, Burma has it's own oil reserves or did you forget that?

Obviously you do not know what "active defence" means. "Active defence" refers to a defence created by offence. The attack on Pearl Harbour was "active defence" in Japanese eyes as they saw the threat from the U.S. 
The assault on Imphal by the IJA was part of their active defence. It was to destroy the British offensive capability in India/Burma. So, yes, the Japanese assaults throughout late 1942/1943 were in active defence. 

The Japanese knew they needed to keep Burma that is why there was such dogged resistance from the Japanese units in Burma. If it had been so unimportant, it would have been abandoned. You just don't have a clue about the CBI, do you?

The Zeke's could have flown around in circles constantly losing speed while the Spitfires intercept the bombers and shoot them down. The idea of an interceptor is to rise to the offence of the enemy, the Zero would come on the offence and the Spitfire would rise to meet it. 

The first Spitfires met the Japanese over India/Burma in 1943, they achieved a 8:1 kill ratio over the IJAAF and IJN. It didn't take long for the RAF to know how to utilise their superior characteristics (which was basically everything) against the slothe paper Zero. 

Yeah! It worked!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It didn't take long for the RAF to know how to utilise their superior characteristics (which was basically everything) against the slothe paper Zero.
> 
> Yeah! It worked!


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Aug 9, 2005)

There was a Japanese aircraft... I believe it was called the ki 87 or ki100, that could outfight the p-51h and the (sob!) p-47N. I happened to fly It in cfs 2, and it is a dofighter's dream. It WOULD NOT STALL!!! It acellerated like a champ, and could out-turn and outclimb almost anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> There was a Japanese aircraft... I believe it was called the ki 87 or ki100, that could outfight the p-51h and the (sob!) p-47N. I happened to fly It in cfs 2, and it is a dofighter's dream. It WOULD NOT STALL!!! It acellerated like a champ, and could out-turn and outclimb almost anything.



The KI-87 and the KI-100 were excellent aircraft and were probably par with the P-51. The P-47N, well I don't know?  

As far as them not stalling, that's impossible! Any aircraft with conventional control systems (no fly-by-wire) will stall, regardless of weight, airspeed and altitude.....  

Henri Mignet's popular Flying Flea sports airplane was supposed to be stall proof. Folks bought the kit, flew it and tried to stall it, eventually they were successful - eventually they also died!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2005)

I wouldn't use a computer game flight simulator as the basis for the flight characteristics of any airplane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I wouldn't use a computer game flight simulator as the basis for the flight characteristics of any airplane.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2005)

Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 9, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The KI-87 and the KI-100 were excellent aircraft and were probably par with the P-51. The P-47N, well I don't know?



Only 1 Ki-87 was built. The Ki-87 was to use a turbocharged engine(Nakajima Ha-217).


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2005)

The Japanese had a plane under development, the "The Kyushu J7W Shinden"

It had canards which does lower the stall speed to a quite low airspeed.

http://members.aol.com/pelzig/shinden.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.
> 
> Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".



Agree for the most part but there are still many "shortfalls" inherent in flight sims, especially to the non-pilot who, unless properly trained,won't recognize them....


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2005)

Japanese aircraft were well designed and well engineered. They were reliable and had decent armament. Their weakness was a lack of regard for pilot safety, a tenant of the Samurai.

With mostly non-sealing fuel tanks, they were vulnerable to weak hits, even fro 30-cal MG. With no regard for pilot safety, they had no armor plate for protection.

As a result, they were VERY maneuverable at slow to medium speeds, a bit tricky above 400 mph, and were not designed for long life. Also, the Japanese flew mostly on 87-Octane fuel, which resists supercharging at high altitudes with great skill.

I see the Japanese aircraft of WWII as the best that could be done at the time with what was available to the Japanese at the time. 

If you dont think that, try to make a better fighter than the Zero in 1943 with no raw material and no production lines. At the time, the Zero was fantastic, and was not expected to be eclipsed. Imagine their surprise when the Hellcat, P-38, and Mustang came along ... not to mention the F4U Corsair. They msu have thought they were being punished by the Gods.

Designs don't stand still in wartime. If either the Bf-109 or the Spitfire had stood still, they would also have been eclipsed. They didn't. The Japanese must have been running a government wothout a knowledgeable aircraft advocate in power. Otherwise, the Zero would have been replaced or improved to meet the challenge.

By 1945, the quality of the steel was so poor that landing gear legs on the Shinden-Kai were regularly fracturing on landing. So, I'd say the Japanese aircraft effort was laudable in the effort, but not particularly well done due to lack of resources.

The Zero, even the A6M3, was simply not all that competitive in 1945 unless you wanted to slow down and fight at their game. At that, it was unbeatable.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.
> 
> Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".



Some aircraft yes, but not all aircraft. The Japanese aircraft mentioned that could not be stalled, a good example. Obviously if there were a lot of the aircraft made and people who flew them still around, the accuracy will be better.

But if you do not fly, or have not flown small aircraft or even in small aircraft with someone else flying, you don't know what the feel of the aircraft is. That is one severely lacking part of sims. Good example, fly in a twin engine aircraft with the engines not running the same RPM, you can hear and feel the difference that a sim cannot give you. But it is something that you cannot miss if you are inside the airplane.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2005)

Thats an easy fix to do. The main issue is if the flight sims closely match the flight charachteristics of the real aircraft. In most cases, they do.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 10, 2005)

But you can't simulate the feel of the aircraft. Some things are more subtle than others.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2005)

well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.

If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.

Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Aug 10, 2005)

Of course it could stall, I was just exaggerating the fact that I could turn tightly at high speed without the aircraft showing any tendency to stall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?



No, but I could tell you what one feels like a Cub or a Cessna 150 - a lot more violent than 110......


----------



## evangilder (Aug 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.
> 
> If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.
> 
> Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?



Don't get me wrong, there are some that are great. BUt the point is that there are some things that can not be simulated. Some of the aircraft in the simulators are a best guess based on who knows what, especially with aircraft that were one of a kind. 

What I am saying is that you cannot completely base how an aircraft performs solely on what you experience in a flight simulator on a computer.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 10, 2005)

Im looking for a Grob Tutor to download for FS2004 so that when I go up in one ill have a better idea than most of its layout. I should also do the tutorials on how to fly with the instruments...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> 4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
> - from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
> 8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
> - Only a couple of planes were lost to the P38. Most P38 squadrons werent into the thick of things untill early 1943
> ...



Hello the only reason the Zero was good at first is because it was unknown by the allies. They did not know how to counter it. As you said after 1942 the rate was higher for the allies and you know why because the Zero was not very good!



syscom3 said:


> well i guess you couldnt be satisfied no matter what.
> 
> If you dont think the simulators are 100% effective, dont bother with them.
> 
> Bye the way, how would you know what an Me-110 in a stall feels like? you ever experienced it?



No matter how well a flight simulater models an aircraft flight characteristics you will never get the full effect of an aircraft. There are just too many variables that a home bought computer simulator for you home PC can not simulate. Flying the real deal is totally different.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im looking for a Grob Tutor to download for FS2004 so that when I go up in one ill have a better idea than most of its layout. I should also do the tutorials on how to fly with the instruments...



CC - Great Idea! PM me when if you find a download, i could give you some info!


----------



## R Leonard (Aug 10, 2005)

> syscom3 wrote:
> 4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
> - from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
> 8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
> ...



The obvious question is that if the Zero was so good how come the best it could do against such purported inferiors such as the F4F was one to one?

I'd also note that for the first six months of the war, through the Battle of Midway, the score was more like 14 Zeros shot down by F4Fs in exchange for 12 F4Fs shot down by Zeros (actually that's 9 F4Fs for sure and 3 probably - no separate US confirmation, just missing F4Fs and corresponding Japanese claims). So giving full credit, that's 1.167 in favor of the F4F before the widspread adoption of the Thach Beam Defense. Hardly what I'd call an overwhelming performance by the Zero and its supposed commonly acknowledged super pilots.

To put forward that the Zero was such a great fighter plane when the best it could do was not quite 1:1 during the period that was supposedly its heyday is somewhat illogical, i.e., the proof belies the theory.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

Really, only that many F4Fs were lost? The impression I get from histories (not aviation histories just general Pacific histories) is there were massive air battles between the USN and IJN during the first 6 months. 

I know this is asking a lot but how many aircraft did the USN lose against the Japanese in the first six months up to Midway?


----------



## R Leonard (Aug 10, 2005)

USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:

Carrier aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 68
To enemy AA fire: 28

Land-based aircraft:
To enemy aircraft: 33
To enemy AA fire: 5

and 

Land-based aircraft (USMC):
To enemy aircraft: 22
To enemy AA fire: 4


Rich


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

Not really a lot, is it? Especially since most of those lost would be bombers, I assume. Since the mainstay fighter was the Wildcat...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 11, 2005)

There were only two big carrier battles in the first 6 months.... Coral Sea and Midway.

Once the Guadalcanal campaign started, there were two more big sea battles between the carriers (Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons), plus numerous times in which the carrier groups had to deploy and fight from Guadalcanal itself. The whole campaign was a meat grinder for both the Japanese and American air forces


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:
> 
> Carrier aircraft:
> To enemy aircraft: 68
> ...



Boy - that "Great Zero Fighter" really scored a lot of kills against the US Navy!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2005)

You call that a "meat-grinder" syscom? Look at the losses, it's nothing. 123 to enemy aircraft, that's nothing! How can the Zero have any claim to sweep everything from the skies when the whole IJN only achieved 123 air kills against it's main opponent the USN.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 11, 2005)

Were all those enemy aircraft losses only attributed to the Zero?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2005)

Probably not.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 11, 2005)

That's what I was thinking, so that makes the Zero even less impressive.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2005)

Well that's changed my view of the IJN in the first six months completely. Having finished "Burma-The Forgotten War" for the second time, I'm still impressed with the complete ignorance of the Western world about Japan and it's military ability or lack of.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

That is what pretty much kept Japan in the war. They were not understood by the allies even before the war started. If you look though at the way the fighting went, sure the Japanese were fearless soldiers and the jungle fighting lasted months and years, but overall they were not the deady military that they were thought to be at first.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2005)

The only reason Burma lasted so long was because it was at the bottom of the supply and manpower priorities. Plus the fact they basically had to build the country as they advanced. 

I finished that book, now I'm reading _Monte Cassino_ by Matthew Parker. I must have some infatuation with conflicts that revolve around engineers. The unsung heroes of any war!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

That I will agree with you. Engineers are a great reason why most battles are won.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> ...engineers. The unsung heroes of any war!


Too true. They're invaluable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Yeap


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 13, 2005)

R Leonard said:


> USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:
> 
> Carrier aircraft:
> To enemy aircraft: 68
> ...



There is something strange with numbers!
Rich reported this statistics of negligible losses, but when we look at some production numbers, FOR INSTANCE at the main US naval fighter of the time (F4F Wildcat, delivered starting Nov. 1941) we see a production of about 7900 aircraft, of wich at least 6600 were built before Grumman gave production to GM in mid 1942.
Given that only a few were lost in action, and even considering that a few hundreds went to other Air Forces, where all the remaining thousands went? Were they all scrapped ?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 13, 2005)

The stats on USN aircraft lost were for the first 6 months of the war, through the battle of Midway. These stats dont show what was about to happen in the Guadalcanal campaign.

There were two main battles fought in the first 6 months. Coral Sea and Midway. At that time of the war, carrier battles were small in terms of aircraft participating, cause ony a few carriers were in use.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> R Leonard said:
> 
> 
> > USN aircraft lost in combat from 7 December 1941 through 6 June 1942:
> ...


 *YES THEY WERE* - after WW2 someting like 120,000 aircraft were scrapped here in the US. Check the numbers of operational US aircraft after the war, many were used by training squadrons into the late 1940s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The stats on USN aircraft lost were for the first 6 months of the war, through the battle of Midway. These stats dont show what was about to happen in the Guadalcanal campaign.
> 
> There were two main battles fought in the first 6 months. Coral Sea and Midway. At that time of the war, carrier battles were small in terms of aircraft participating, cause ony a few carriers were in use.



So let's include Guadalcanal, there the F4F had at least a 3 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. Many of the aircraft lost at Guadalcanal were lost on the ground. The remaining F4s has to keep up a high Kill ratio or Guadalcanal would of fallen, and as we know it didn't......

Bottom line the major fighter of Guadalcanal was the F4F and still dominated the Zero....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

I think we have proven that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think we have proven that.



Yep - the mystical Zero was a Zero!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Well most people will see that.


----------



## GregP (Aug 13, 2005)

Hey! The Fiesler Storch was a stealth fighter! If painted to resemble a haystack, the rest of the fighters couldn't see it as they flew by at high speed, so it was almost invisible.

Other fighters could easily be shot down by an alert Storch pilot, who only had to make the haystack seem to rise by climbing. Startled opposition pilots were rendered speechless and probably flew into the ground.

The power-to-weight ratio was superior to a Morris Minor.


----------



## R Leonard (Aug 14, 2005)

> Rich reported this statistics of negligible losses, but when we look at some production numbers, FOR INSTANCE at the main US naval fighter of the time (F4F Wildcat, delivered starting Nov. 1941) we see a production of about 7900 aircraft, of wich at least 6600 were built before Grumman gave production to GM in mid 1942.



Losses through 6 June 1942 were ALL USN combat losses, not just F4F.

I think you need to check your F4F numbers; the Grumman F4F-3, F4F-3A, and F4F-4 production totaled 1550; 285, 95, and 1170 (including 1 XF4F-4), respectively. Most F4Fs were produced before September 1942, though production continued into December. There were also 21 F4F-7’s, 2 XF4F-8, and one each XF4F-2, XF4F-5 and XF4F-6. Also, the first USN squadron to receive the F4F was VF-4 in *November 1940*.

There were at least 25 USN or USMC squadrons that saw combat with the F4F-3, F4F-3A, or F4F-4. Strengths of these squadrons varied from a low of about 18 F4F-3 or 3As at the beginning of the war to 36 F4F-4s by the fall of 1942 and into the summer of 1943. And there were, what, some 485 or more F4F-3, -3A, and -4 that went to the FAA (including 20 that were lost when their transport was torpedoed).

Anyway, F4F production was far below your noted 6660. On the otherhand, FM-1 and FM-2 production ran to 5837, 1060 and 4777 respectively.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Well either way, the numbers speak for themselves and I think it proves what was better, Zero or the Wildcats, Hellcats, etc.


----------



## Chocks away! (Aug 14, 2005)

Are we all forgetting that some Japanese aces achieved maybe up to a fundred kills in Zeros? Or that a certain ace flying a lightning was shot down by a Zero when slowing down to dogfight? Or that many renowned aces perished thus? I don't recall the name of said ace at the moment but i'll research a bit


----------



## Chocks away! (Aug 14, 2005)

Furthermore i'd say the late war A6M5 was a rather potent aircraft, not as fragile as the well known A6M2 and could threaten any allied plane if flown well.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 14, 2005)

Rich,

yes, I understood that your figures referenced all losses, I used the example of the F4F to highlight the big gap between the delivered aircrafts and the related losses.
If you include all the US aircraft in line in 1941-42 (dauntless, buffalos, P40 etc.) the gap between lost in war and scrapped is even bigger.

About production figures, I just googled the net and all numbers I found agreed on a production of about 7900, here is some source 

http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4f.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/f4f.htm
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/us/F4FWILDC.html

And yes, 1941 was a typing mistake!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Well lets see the highest Japanese Army Ace was W/O Hiromichi Shinohara with 58 victories, and the highest Japanese Navy ace was Hiroyoshi Nishizawa with 87 kills. That is not quite a 100 my friend.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well lets see the highest Japanese Army Ace was W/O Hiromichi Shinohara with 58 victories, and the highest Japanese Navy ace was Hiroyoshi Nishizawa with 87 kills. That is not quite a 100 my friend.



The list I have quotes Nishizawa at 103 as Japans leading ace. Is there some contention against some of his kills?

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

I dont know I have never seen it over 87. From what I can tell though the Japanese did not have a real system of confirming kills though as other countries did, so that could explain some of it.


----------



## R Leonard (Aug 14, 2005)

> About production figures, I just googled the net and all numbers I found agreed on a production of about 7900, here is some source




In my experience the best place to look for production numbers for USN aircraft is the USN itself rather than what someone else, even myself, might interpret. 

The best way to do that is to use the bureau numbers assigned at time of production and then just work the math. Try 

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/history/app09.pdf

Further, it would appear that your sources are lumping the F4F series in with the entire FM series. The USN doesn’t figure it that way. In its statistical reporting the USN considers the FM-2 to be a separate type and it’s wartime results are tabulated separately. So, if you want to lump the FM-1 in with the F4Fs, okay, that gives you a total of 2636 F4F types, but there’s still a separate 4777 FM-2s.

Not counting the squadrons that did their duty and spent the war on tedious, fruitless searches on patrols with no results, there were 37 USN squadrons, mostly of the VC-x variety, operating for the most part from CVEs, that shot down at least one enemy aircraft in the course of a deployment, ranging from VC-27 with 59.5/1/6 credits down to VC-11, VC-63, VC-66, and VC-86 all with 1/0/0 credits.

The FM-2 was faster and more maneuverable than its little brother, the F4F and racked up a fairly impressive performance. Combined, the squadrons engaged in combat were credited with a total of 428/37/33.5 versus total FM-2 losses of 13 to enemy aircraft and 62 to enemy AA fire. Credits break down thusly:

A6M Series - 102/5/8
D3A - 93.5/5/1
Ki-43 - 43.5/7/6
Ki-61 - 36/2/3
Ki-21 - 21/2/2
P1Y1 - 21/0/6
Ki-48 - 21/4/1
Ki-44 - 20/3/1
B6N1-2 - 14/0/1
J1N - 10/5/1
E13A - 9/0/0
B5N - 8/1/1.5
D4Y Series - 8/0/0
G4M - 7/0/1
Ki-45 - 5/3/1
Ki-46 - 2/0/0
G3M - 1/0/0
J2M - 1/0/0
Ki-57 - 1/0/0
Ki-51 - 1/0/0
Ki-27 - 1/0/0
U/I 2/E VT - 2/0/0

The last FM-2 to score was on 5 August 1945 when Lieut Eugene R Beckwith, of VC-97 off USS Makassar Strait (CVE-91), scored a P1Y1 over the East China Sea while performing CAP duties. 

Regards,

Rich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Good info there.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 14, 2005)

Thank you Rich

Well, I have no background on the Pacific theatre, but looking at the numbers you bring, and considering that the other main fighters (F6F and F4U) were far superior to the wildcat the only possible comment is that the air battle was mere target practice!
Either the reported stats are completely wrong or the Japanese aviation was totally non existent as an Air Force.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2005)

There's no denying that the Japanese did score many victories, but I think a lot of the mysticism of the Zero, IJAAF and IJN lies with the allies (mainly the US) making their opposition look tougher than they actually were. When you hear stories about the mystical Zero and really do the research and math like Rich did (thanks Rich, great job!), I think it's alleged superiority was a product of exaggeration and folklore. Comments anyone?!?


----------



## R Leonard (Aug 14, 2005)

> I have no background on the Pacific theatre,



I know how that works  only from the other side. I rarely comment aspects of the European war except where topics involve naval aviation. I doubt there are more than three or four books in my library that deal specifically with the war in Europe as opposed to about 240 on naval subjects of which about 140 are on naval aviation subjects. Then there's the three file cabinets full of reports and such from USN air operations in WWII. Europe in World War II is a land of mystery for me.

Rich


----------



## Chocks away! (Aug 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well lets see the highest Japanese Army Ace was W/O Hiromichi Shinohara with 58 victories, and the highest Japanese Navy ace was Hiroyoshi Nishizawa with 87 kills. That is not quite a 100 my friend.


 They are still huge numbers and many of their victories were not comfirmed because of the relative lack of interest of the Japanese in personal victories. People here are implying that the Zero didn't stand a chance in the face of modern opposition which just isn't he case


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Well lets see the highest Japanese Army Ace was W/O Hiromichi Shinohara with 58 victories, and the highest Japanese Navy ace was Hiroyoshi Nishizawa with 87 kills. That is not quite a 100 my friend.
> ...



No no one here said that. We are saying that the ZERO was not the far superior plane that everyone else likes to make it out to be. It was not, it was just a myth. The Zero was still a dangerous plane and no one denies that.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Aug 15, 2005)

I finally got my numbers right( I'm terrible with japanese aircraft) It was the Ki 84 Hayate. I did not base everything that I said on the flight simulator. I read up on the aircraft, and it stated that it could outfight the p-51 and p-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

The Ki-84 was a great plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2005)

Agree - I think one of their best!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

Certainly better than the Zero.


----------



## chris1966 (Aug 30, 2005)

I read a book recently by Saburo Sakai (hope I spelled that right) and he describes his kills (64 of them) and most of them were P-39's and 40's. Maybe some of this "myth" was developed on Army aircraft and not Navy aircraft.

The F4F had the advantage of speed, firepower, dive, and the ability to absorb damage. the zero could climb faster and turn better. Thus the American F4F pilots could choose to have combat on their terms, a major advantage.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

How about the Ki-115? Whats the deal with that?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> How about the Ki-115? Whats the deal with that?



It was designed for Kamikaze missions - It had landing gear that could jettisoned...... 

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/nakatsurugi.htm


----------



## Aggie08 (Aug 31, 2005)

Good they never got into service, tons of kamikazes with 1800lb bombs=no bueno!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2005)

Yeah that would have sucked. Its pretty bad though when you have to waste materials in designing an aircraft for suicide missions.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 1, 2005)

It does suck, but the damage they could do... yikers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 1, 2005)

They should have made a plane with a huge bomb/warhead that they would fly into bomber formations and then detonate it.


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 1, 2005)

The Japanese actually something similar, dropping large white phosphorus bombs into allied formations. Visually spectacular, but not very effective.

Rich




Edit, somehow managed to leave out the word "not". Sorry if anyone got a wrong impression.

R


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 1, 2005)

I think the US devised a seminuclear warhead to detonate against enemy planes in the 60s or so...can't remember much about it, not sure if it was ever made, but I know it was under consideration at some point


----------



## evangilder (Sep 2, 2005)

Yep, they had the MB-1 Genie that was used with the F-101 Voodoo.



> Douglas began developing the air-launched MB-1 (later Air 2) Genie rocket in 1955, with the Los Alamos National Laboratory responsible for the nuclear warhead. The Genie rocket was carried by the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo and was unguided, relying on the power of its 1.5-kiloton nuclear warhead. The Genie was the first nuclear-armed interceptor rocket to be tested, and its first flight was July 19, 1957. Lethal radius was an estimated 1,000 feet.


http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/gargoyle.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2005)

I think a nuclear warhead for air to air interception is overkill.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

Interesting how in that article they state that Voodoos were built under licence in Canada. They weren't. The RCAF acquired 58 of them made to order from McDonnell, and then traded them in for 66 apparently more up to date used ones some years later from the USAF.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

Yep - for it to really be worth it a formation of 100 bombers would have to be in front of you, someting someone thought might happen!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think a nuclear warhead for air to air interception is overkill.



Its not overkill if that bomber youre shooting at has several nukes aboard.

No points for second place in nuke warfare


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

You'd just better hope you're out of the blast radius when that mother goes off.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 3, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Its not overkill if that bomber youre shooting at has several nukes aboard.
> 
> No points for second place in nuke warfare



Too true.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> You'd just better hope you're out of the blast radius when that mother goes off.



Even if you're destroyed, youve saved cities or installations. Fair trade in the cold math of warfare.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

Right.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2005)

unless the plane you destroyed turned out to be some civilian airliner that just happened to be an ex-soviet bomber


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

I am sure thought that they would not mistaken a civilian liner like that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2005)

and if, as i said, this airliner happened to be an ex soviet bomber  

what, it could happen


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

I wouldnt fly with an airline like that, or "Bearline" as they might call it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

The idea of a "Bearliner" could "Backfire"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 4, 2005)




----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 4, 2005)

Stop "Badger"ing us with all these jokes willya!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

What a "Blinder" of a pun!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

bloody hell you guys.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Oh my god!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

you sound like a 13 year old girl.........

oh god i just walked into a joke about me wanting to have sex with your or summit didn't i


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

You are a 13 year old girl.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 5, 2005)

When it comes to young girls lanc is a bit of a "Fiddler" 

Oh, are we not playing this game anymore?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Yeah its getting old.


----------



## GregP (Sep 11, 2005)

The Japanese made some very good aircraft. Some that come to mind are:

1) Ki-46 Dinah. 1941. Recon aircraft. Beautiful, fast, and one of the best at its task.
2) Aichi B7A Ryusei. 1944. Torpedo Bomber. Again, beautiful, fast, and not too bad at defending itseld when the torpedo was gone.
3) Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. 1942. Fighter. A good climber, reasonably fast, and well armed.
4) Mitsubishi Ki.83. 1944. Heavy Escort Fighter. I'm stretching a bit since they only made 4 of these, but it was fast (438 mph) and well armed, but the factory was bombed too often to continue building it.
5) Nakajima C6N "Myrt". 1943. Recon. One of the best Japan made.
6) Nakajima Ki-84 "Gale". Allied code name Frank. 1944. Fighter. Equal to or better than every Allied type it encountered, and they made ver 3,000 of them.
7) Rikugin Ki-93. 1945. Heavy Fighter. Could have been a good one, but the war was winding down quickly by the time it flew.

There were others. Their aircraft had many excellent qualities, but were almost all built with less concern for the pilot than were Western types. That is not a design flaw. It is a reflection of the culture at the time. Had they so desired, the Japanese could have built a well-armed and well-armored aircraft, but it was not in their minds to do so.

All aircraft have flaws, even the mighty Spitfire and Mustang and Fw-190.

We make light of the flaws in these aircraft and decry the flaws of the Japanese aircraft. However, many an allied plane found itself right squarely in the middle of a Japanese aircraft's best performance envelope and didn't make it home to fly another day.

In 1942, the Zero was invincible. By 1944, we had learned how it fought best and how to counter that. In 1945, if a rookie forgot and tried to dogfight a Zero, he found out the hard way that it was still a pretty good fighter.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 11, 2005)

The Zero was never invincible. It's capabilities were unknown and it somehow reached a mythic status. I know of at least one occasion when a Zero got shot down by a P-26! That was late 1941, when the Japanese invaded the Philippines.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 11, 2005)

GregP said:


> The Japanese made some very good aircraft. Some that come to mind are:
> 
> 1) Ki-46 Dinah. 1941. Recon aircraft. Beautiful, fast, and one of the best at its task.
> 2) Aichi B7A Ryusei. 1944. Torpedo Bomber. Again, beautiful, fast, and not too bad at defending itseld when the torpedo was gone.
> ...



Late war Japanese fighters suffered badly in terms of quality control. Performance had generally improved, but lagged well behind western and Soviet designs. They had better aircraft in prototype stages, but they were never going to get them into service.

Later Zeros were still very underpowered and suffered greatly when encountering Allied fighters. Early Zeros (A6M2, Zeke 21) were highly maneuverable and good climbers. However, they were far from invincible. P-39s and P-40s were considerable faster, especially in a dive. Above 250 mph, the Zero's roll rate was almost non-existent due to incredibly high stick forces. Exceeding 425 mph in a dive would result in structural damage, beginning with wrinkled skin. Their interim A6M3 wasn't a lot better.

Some aircraft were capable, but not first tier by any stretch. These would include the N1K2-J, Ki-84, Ki-100 and JM2-3. The fastest of these was the Ki-84, capable of speeds in the high 300s (382-391 mph). However, it was not as structurally study as the Allied aircraft, being dangerous to dive at high speeds. Mitsu's Raiden had potential, but suffered from engine unreliability and poor outward vision. For some undefinable reason, many feel the Ki-100 was a match for the P-51D. However, it was no faster than its ancestor, the Ki-61 (about 360 mph) and was a poor performer above 20,000 feet.

By 1945 Japan's fighters were facing Allied fighters such as the P-51D, P-38L, P-47N, F4U-4, F4U-1D, F6F-5, Spitfire Mk.VIII and late marks of the Seafire. In the pipeline, arriving in theater at wars end were the P-51H, F8F-1 and F7F-2, all considered to be among the best piston-engined fighters ever made. Thus, had the war not ended when it did, things would only have become vastly more one-sided.

By early 1944, Japan was well behind in fighter performance and would never have any opportunity to recover. They simply lacked the industrial power to compete equally and their factories were now exposed to vast hordes of B-29s. They didn't lack for brilliant designers, that's for sure.

Nonetheless, Japanese fighters and their pilots gave a good account of themselves. No one should be bashing Japanese aircraft or airmen.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

GregP said:


> In 1942, the Zero was invincible.



Not really, look at the stats posted here - it was invincible because those fighting against it gave it that much respect. In reality, the Zero didn't come close to what it's reputation personified.....



GregP said:


> In 1945, if a rookie forgot and tried to dogfight a Zero, he found out the hard way that it was still a pretty good fighter.



In 1945 if a rookie tried to dogfight a Zero, he probably got what was coming to him - but then again that lapse of judgment probably would of been evident during flight training....


----------



## d_bader (Sep 11, 2005)

I think that we are all slightly biased and I think that we should be fairer with our opinions. The zero desrved its fame because it did cause a lot of trouble for allied forces and must have been quite good to get a reputation like that. If planes like the mustang and thunderbolt were used in the pacific then maybe a more realistic story of how good the zero was would of appeared.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 11, 2005)

Hey d_bader, do me a favour. Put your one line comments in one post from now on. Use the edit function if necessary. I did it this time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

d_bader said:


> I think that we are all slightly biased and I think that we should be fairer with our opinions. The zero desrved its fame because it did cause a lot of trouble for allied forces and must have been quite good to get a reputation like that. If planes like the mustang and thunderbolt were used in the pacific then maybe a more realistic story of how good the zero was would of appeared.



You are right about the Zero causing trouble for allied forces as US obsession with it used up valuable manpower and resources, but what you're missing is the combat record shown what the Zero actually accomplished does not make it out to be that great of a fighter. Considered the worse US Naval fighter by many, the F4F had almost a 4 to 1 kill ratio against it, and even at Coral Sea where the Zero had just over a 1 to 1 kill ratio over the F4F, you would of thought the Zero would of performed a lot better for being this swift, mystical, super maneuverable fighter against a fighter that it was faster and more maneuvable than......

No bias here - just facts.......

Oh and for your information bader, the P-51 and P-47 *were used *in the Pacific. Find out who Neil Kearby was.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 11, 2005)

i think he knows they were used in the pacific and what he's trying to say is that the zero mush have been pretty good if they had to get great planes like the -51 and -47 in to counter them........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think he knows they were used in the pacific and what he's trying to say is that the zero mush have been pretty good if they had to get great planes like the -51 and -47 in to counter them........



The -51 came in late in the war, the -47 was there in limited numbers starting in late 43' (I think). By then the Zero was being pretty well pounded......

I don't know Lanc, the F4F did pretty well against it - the F6F slaughtered it!

And as far as the USAAF - the P-38 also gave it (and other Japanese fighters) a good thrashing, not to say at any given time it was a cake walk for the USN or the USAAF.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

I am sorry if you feel that way. Most people here have to come to the conclusion that your precious Zero is overated and a myth. And based off of facts it is. Hell the Great Turkey Shoot is a great example of the Zero getting destroyed by so called inferior allied planes. I think it is the other way around.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am sorry if you feel that way. Most people here have to come to the conclusion that your precious Zero is overated and a myth. And based off of facts it is. Hell the Great Turkey Shoot is a great example of the Zero getting destroyed by so called inferior allied planes. I think it is the other way around.



Yep!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 11, 2005)

that wasn't my opinion i was just trying to expalin what i thought he was saying.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that wasn't my opinion i was just trying to expalin what i thought he was saying.........



No worries Lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

My post was not meant for yours Lanc. It was meant in general to d_baders post about how we are biased. I think we have based out bias off of facts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

Yep - especially some of the facts posted by Rich.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

I just think that if the Jap planes were so superior then why dont the kills show that.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 11, 2005)

d_bader said:


> I think that we are all slightly biased and I think that we should be fairer with our opinions. The zero desrved its fame because it did cause a lot of trouble for allied forces and must have been quite good to get a reputation like that. If planes like the mustang and thunderbolt were used in the pacific then maybe a more realistic story of how good the zero was would of appeared.



P-47s (522) out numbered P-38s (315) and 100 P-51s were also in service Jan '44. 

By May '44 there were 502 P-38s, 1.42 P-47s and 200 P-51s. 

By Jan '45 on there were up to 1,500 P-51s and P-47s and P-38s rose to 1,142.

From Jan '43 to Sep '44 there was a relitively constant 500 P-40s 

The AAF only averaged 1,100 fighters against Japan in '43 and 2,100 in '44.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2005)

And the Wildcats and Hellcats were doing just fine against the Zeros themselves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the Wildcats and Hellcats were doing just fine against the Zeros themselves.



Yep!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

A decent pilot, flying a zero, of the A6M5 series, or even the A6M2 could cope with the average american pilot in a wildcat or hellcat. it was the attrition, and numbers disadvantage that cursed the zero. Not to mention the P-38 and the F4U. Theyre speed and superb ruggedness made them almost invulnerable to the zeke.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

you make it seems as though the zero was a substandard mount. in my personal opinion, it was a fine aircraft, even though it lacked the armor, self-sealing tanks, and high speed and alititude performance of its contemporaries both axies and allied. The armament was limited yes, but for a decent pilot, it was enough for single engined aircraft.....Like i said before, the curse of the zeke was the F4U and the P-38, along with americas industrial might....As well as the zero reaching its modified maximum around 1943, when the japanese should have had a new airframe to replace it. But the case was much the same for the Bf-109. Everyone, or more appropriatly most people here think japanese aircraft were junk, and thats a real shame.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 11, 2005)

For the first several months of the war, the Zero was a deadly foe. The Japanese never improved on it, or fielded soon enough, a fighter to counter the F6F/P38/F4U. As a result, by the end of 1942, it was at a decided disadvantage.

In early 1942, the Zero and Zeke both handled P40's over the Philipines, Java and Darwin with no problem. I dont think it was any different with the RAF over Burma.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

The zero was improved as its designation number, A6M2, A6M5, and later variations came out. A faster firing 20mm wing cannon was incorporated, and a slightly more powerful engine was introduced, some had clipped wingtips, and even a few were tested with 30mm cannon as intereceptors...to say they werent improved upon is untrue, but a replacement was needed.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 11, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> In early 1942, the Zero and Zeke both handled P40's over the Philipines, Java and Darwin with no problem. I dont think it was any different with the RAF over Burma.



Most P-40s in the PI were knocked out on the ground. Those that got airborne gave a good account of themselves. Darwin was a evolving story. Once the 49th Fighter Group arrived, the Japanese began getting punished.

During the invasion of Burma, there were no Zeros as this was strictly a JAAF operation. They largely flew Ki-27s with some Ki-43s coming in to units. Brewster Buffalos were the primary fighter used by the Brits. Bolstering the Brits was the 3rd Squadron of the AVG, flying their Tomahawks. Indeed, the AVG inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese in exchange for minimal losses.

Most of the fighters in the SWPA were P-40s and P-39s. They more than held their own until P-38s (mostly the F and G models initially) began arriving, at which point the Japanese began losing aircraft at a rapid rate. Two of the 49th's squadrons flew the P-40 until August of 1944. They maintained a 6:1 kill to loss ratio in the Curtiss, despite it being generally obsolete by 1943.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## evangilder (Sep 11, 2005)

Having seen the Zero and the Hellcat and Wildcat side by side, flying together and undergoing maintenance in the msueum where I volunteer, I can say that I have a pretty good idea of what these planes are all capable of. I have also spoken with the gents that fly these airplanes regularly at air shows. The Zero was far from invincible and against the aircraft from the Grumman Iron Works, no match. 

The mythic invincibility of the zero was just that, a myth. Yes, an inattentive pilot could get into trouble with the Zero, but an inattentive pilot could get into trouble with ANY aircraft.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 12, 2005)

You make it sound as if a wildcat pilot had nothing to fear from a zero. Is that why they had to develop special tactics to deal with the A6M? Is that why american pilots would shit theyre pants when flying against a trained enemy in one of these aircraft? I think, maybe, just maybe, someone might be a little biased.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 12, 2005)

Lets go over this shall we, some obvious things to start off..

F4F: the wildcat, was slower, not much, but slower than the zero, less manouverable, yet could dive and roll better. It carried six heavy machine guns, and was much more rugged, but could not climb to meet the zero. 

A6M: The zeke was faster, had two 20mm cannon, and two machine guns, could out climb and out run the wildcat, as well as out turn it easily, on speeds below 275mph. It had no armor, but it was many times more manouverable. 

You can argue either way, but dont say the zero was crap...it could be a very good aircraft, with a decent pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> For the first several months of the war, the Zero was a deadly foe. The Japanese never improved on it, or fielded soon enough, a fighter to counter the F6F/P38/F4U. As a result, by the end of 1942, it was at a decided disadvantage.
> 
> In early 1942, the Zero and Zeke both handled P40's over the Philipines, Java and Darwin with no problem. I dont think it was any different with the RAF over Burma.



SHOW STATS MY FRIEND! The actual numbers add up - the Zero was a paper tiger!!! Look at numbers and sources posted by some of the folks here who I would consider real experts in the PTO (Rich and Naviar has come up with some good stuff). I was amazed by this too but the numbers don't reinvent history, they invalidate a myth.....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 12, 2005)

On several occasions over Burma the Ki-27 got hammered from the RAF and AVG. The RAF in Burma suffered more due to lack of spares and the terrible weather than to enemy action. 

On the Zero;

The Zero suffered heavily at the hands of anyone once they knew the ability of the Zero, which was not much. The Zero achieved success the secondary theatres. 

The British even turned down a prototype in 1937 which had the same dimensions and practical ability as the Zero because they stated it was already obselete. The said aircraft was the Gloster F.5/34.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Are you saying that in the first 6 months of the war, all of those P40's sent to the PI, to Java, to New Guinie, just sort of all dissapeared on their own? They never saw battle, they just took off one day, never to return? And of course the Japanese couldnt shoot them down cause our planes were indestuctable, and the pilots were better! And of course the people on the ground were imagining things when they saw allied planes flying straight down into the ground. Engine failures no doubt.

Hmmmm. Maybe some UFO got in their way?

Lots of allied planes (P40 included) went up to fight the Japanese, decided to dogfight the Zero/Zeke/Oscar and plenty ended up shot down. Takes awhile for lessons of aerial combat to sink into a doctrine. Once those lessons were learned then loss rates went down in a hurry.

Note - too bad the tactics that Chenault learned in China were not taken seriously by the AAF untill it was obvious he knew what he was talking about. Untill that time, the slow learners ended up dead.

Im getting some figures for you. Perhaps you were unaware that plenty of P40's were not destroyed at Clark Field. Perhaps you were unaware that the AAF was sending P40's to Java, staging through Darwin and they were sent right into the thick of things.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 12, 2005)

You're claiming the Zero as a capable aircraft technically, using the Western ignorance and arrogance as evidence. The Zero was not a capable machine technically, it was shrouded in myth and defended by the opposition ignorance. 

The Western pilots were inferior to the Japanese in most cases. Due to the simple fact that the Japanese had combat experience over China. But that does not mean the Japanese aircraft were technically superior. 

For Burma, at the initial invasion the offensive was carried on the shoulders of those on the ground. Not the flyers in the air. The British retreated which gave the IJAAF good chance to attack retreating columns. As well as having a breathing space while the RAF moved backwards. On top of that, the RAF was often grounded by lack of spares. 

However, between January 23rd and 29th the IJAAF attempted to gain complete air superiority over Rangoon. During which seventeen Japanese planes were shot down and ten badly damaged for a loss of two AVG P-40s and ten RAF Buffalos. 

From the book _Burma - The Forgotten War_ by Jon Latimer:

_"Between 23 and 29 January the Japanese made a determined effort to establish air superiority and there was much fighting over Rangoon, during which 17 Japanese planes were shot down and 10 badly damaged for the loss of 2 AVG and 10 RAF machines, forcing the Japanese temporarily to concede."_

It continues:

_"Chennault was insisting on withdrawal from Rangoon by 25 January unless he received reassurances on replacement aircraft, which were eventually forthcoming. British fighter strength was down to practically nil when three squadrons of Hurricanes flew in from Egypt (fitted with long-range tanks and having made nine three-hour hops from Iraq to Rangoon led by a Blenheim as navigator). But the planes were obsolescent Mark Is, and spares shortages meant that never more than 30 were available, a number that steadily dwindled."_

Read for yourself, the IJAAF didn't have an easy time in Burma. They had to concede a few times during their invasion against inferior planes without updated tactics. 

The RAF suffered greatly from a lack of spares which meant they could never send up more than thirty aircraft between three squadrons! The odds are the Japanese would have always had a numercial advantage in air combat over Burma. 

Not only did the Japanese aircraft lack technical ability but the Japanese had a lack of tactical ability too. They rarely used cloud cover, they would bomb runways more than lines of communication, they acted as individuals, they didn't use air-to-ground control on blind landings, ultimately...they lost!

The Zero had three defining features, long range, climb rate and slow-speed turning rate. If it's opponent kept above 300MPH the Zero would not stand a chance!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Are you saying that in the first 6 months of the war, all of those P40's sent to the PI, to Java, to New Guinie, just sort of all dissapeared on their own?



And Curtiss built 4,000 P-40s before Dec 7?!?!? How many P-40s you think were there? Find the numbers, they will surprise you!



syscom3 said:


> Lots of allied planes (P40 included) went up to fight the Japanese, decided to dogfight the Zero/Zeke/Oscar and plenty ended up shot down. Takes awhile for lessons of aerial combat to sink into a doctrine. Once those lessons were learned then loss rates went down in a hurry.



And you're definition of 'LOTS'?!?! Your in for a rude awakening when you find out how many aircraft were there.



syscom3 said:


> Im getting some figures for you. Perhaps you were unaware that plenty of P40's were not destroyed at Clark Field. Perhaps you were unaware that the AAF was sending P40's to Java, staging through Darwin and they were sent right into the thick of things.



WOW - PLENTY! If I was working in an aircraft factor before the start of WW2, I'd be in Buffalo - cranking out all those P-40s!!!!!

How many USAAF P-40s do you think were deployed in the South Pacific in 1942 (excluding the AVG) and how many do you think were lost?!?!?

Here, I'll throw you a bone, got this from another site....

Dr. Frank J. Olynyk: "USAAF (Pacific Theater) Credits For The Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-To-Air Combat World War II" P-38 unk: 1085/177/110 P-38-5: 001/000/000 P-38E: 002/000/000 P-38F: 088/027/026 P-38G: 115/029/015 P-38H: 290/050/027 P-38J: 060/007/011 P-38L: 058/003/007 P-39: 242/056/012 P-40: 706/087/030 P-47: 697/053/034 P-51 unk: 030/002/000 P-51D: 248/037/110 P-61: 065/006/004

The overall AAF totals in the Pacific are 3960 air kills and 925 air losses - do you think 900 of those were P-40s and they all happened in 1942-43?  

I believe the columns are Destroyed, damaged, lost-

And I think the biggest point you're missing is most of the early combat around Java and New Guneia was against the IJA - they flew Oscars, commonly mistaken for Zeros, throw that into the mix.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Lets go over this shall we, some obvious things to start off..
> 
> F4F: the wildcat, was slower, not much, but slower than the zero, less manouverable, yet could dive and roll better. It carried six heavy machine guns, and was much more rugged, but could not climb to meet the zero.
> 
> ...



Yeah you may be right about the stats but please dont be one of those people that thinks whatever is written on paper is the bible. If the Zero was so much better than the Wildcat, why did the Wildcat shoot down more Zeros than vise versa. Actually if you go an dlook at just about all the great Carrier Battles of the Pacific the Zeros were slaughtered by Hellcats and Wildcats and then when the Corsair came around it just got worse for the Zero. I don think the Zero was a terrible plane I just think it was overated and it was a myth. 

Basically what I am saying is give up the whole this is what is said on paper about statistics for an aircraft because time and time again it gets disproven here on this forum.

Paper is not everything.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 12, 2005)

The Zero was only more agile than the Wildcat below 275 MPH. In any case, one on one the Wildcat at best is going to fight for his survival. Quite easily done at altitude as the Wildcat would just dive away and the Zero wouldn't be able to follow. 

However, with two Wildcats and four Zero the Wildcat's would be able to win if handled properly. They just have more potential for tactical alteration. The only thing the Zero can do is hope it's opponent is foolish enough to become low and slow.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 12, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> You make it sound as if a wildcat pilot had nothing to fear from a zero. Is that why they had to develop special tactics to deal with the A6M? Is that why american pilots would s**t theyre pants when flying against a trained enemy in one of these aircraft? I think, maybe, just maybe, someone might be a little biased.



I never said the Wildcat pilot had nothing to fear. What I did say is that the Wildcat was a much more survivable airplane than the Zero. Do you have any documented sources of American pilots that "shit" themselves when facing off against a Zero. How would they know that the pilot of the Zero was a well trained or seasoned pilot? Theye didn't carry kill markings on their aircraft.

Biased, no. I have seen all of these aircraft fly and I have seen them in various states of disassembly. I have also had the privilege of sitting in each of them. Spend a couple of hours in a maintenance hangar and compare the outer skin thickness and the frame structure of the aircraft and you will leave with little doubt that the more rugged of these is NOT the Zero. 

As stated before, below 275, the Zero could out-turn most aircraft. It was light and had good range, that I will give you. But once in your sights, a quick burst of .50 caliber ammo into the wing is all it takes. The fire will do the rest. The wing cord on the Zero is very thick, making it not a fast diver. Above about 275 MPH, the ailerons become like concrete (I specifically asked the pilot of our Zero about high speed performance). 

The numbers tell a big story in combat against the Zero. Again, the invincibility myth was a myth. Nothing more.


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 12, 2005)

Numbers don't lie. By the end of the Battle of Midway, the F4F pilots already had an upper hand against the A6M2 drivers, this without the wide spread adoption of any special defensive tactics such as Jimmy Thach's Beam Defense, later known as the Thach Weave.

Personally knowing many of the fighter pilots involved in the actions at Coral Sea and Midway (for example, when I think of Jimmy Thach, I don't see some picture in a book, I remember a tall thin man sitting in our living room who was kind to children with lots of questions) I take some exception to the characterization of their physical reaction to the concept of combat with the A6M2. So I'll re-ask the question as to the source of that particular tidbit, or expect, at the least some modification of the characterization or, better, a retraction.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)

This was a post by Mr. James Martin from another WW2 site I visit......

Father was attached to 2nd Observation Sqd. at Nichols Field, Dec. 1941
: My Father was stationed at Nichols Field in the Phillippines, as an radio operator, in the 2nd Observation Sqd. Dad was wounded in a bombing attack on Dec. 9th and later evacuated by ship to Australia. 
December 1941


Monday 8 December 1941

The first word of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is received on Luzon, Philip-pine Islands by commercial radio between 0300-0330 hours local. Within 30 minutes radar at Iba Field, Luzon plots a formation of airplanes 75-miles (120-km) offshore, heading for Corregidor Island. P-40's are sent out to intercept but make no contact. Shortly before 0930 hours, after Japanese aircraft are detected over Lingayen Gulf heading toward Manila, B-17's at Clark Field, Luzon are ordered airborne to prevent being caught on the ground. Fighters from Clark and Nichols Fields are sent to intercept the enemy but do not make contact. The Japanese airplanes swing East and bomb military installations at Baguio, Tarlac, Tuguegarao, and airfields at Cabantuan are also attacked. By 1130 hours, the B-17's and fighters sent into the air earlier have landed at Clark and Iba Fields for refueling, and radar has disclosed another flight of Japanese aircraft 70-miles (112-km) West of Lingayen Gulf, headed South. Fighters from Iba Field make a fruitless search over the South China Sea. Fighters from Nichols Field are dispatched to patrol over Bataan and Manila. Around 1145 hours a formation is reported headed South over Lingayen Gulf. Fighters are ordered from Del Carmen Field to cover Clark Field but fail to arrive before the Japanese hit Clark shortly after 1200 hours. B-17's and many fighters at Clark Field are caught on the ground, but a few P-4O's manage to get airborne. 2d Lieutenant Randall B. Keator of the 20th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 24th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), shoots down the first Japanese aircraft over the Philippines. The P-40's earlier sent on patrol of the South China Sea return to Iba Field with fuel running low at the beginning of a Japanese attack on that airfield. The P-40's fail to prevent bombing but manage to prevent low-level strafing of the sort which proved so destructive at Clark Field. At the end of the day's action it is apparent that the Japanese have won a major victory. The effective striking power of Far East Air Force has been destroyed, the fighter strength has been seriously reduced, most B-17 maintenance facilities have been demolished, and about 90 men have been killed. 


Tuesday 9 December 1941

Shortly after 0300 hours, Japanese aircraft attack Nichols Field. This attack, added to the previous day's raids on Clark and Iba Fields, leaves the Far East Air Force strength reduced by half. *Only 17 of 35 B-17's remain in commission; about 55 P-40's, 3 P-35's, and close to 30 other aircraft (B-10's, B-18's, and observation airplanes)* have been lost in aerial combat or destroyed on the ground. During the morning and afternoon, B-17's from Mindanao Island fly reconnaissance missions and land on Clark and San Marcelino Fields on Luzon. Several more B-17's are flown from Mindanao Island to these Luzon bases for resistance against a possible invasion attempt. The 3d Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 24th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), transfers from Iba Airfield to Nichols Field, Luzon with P-40's. The 17th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 24th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), based at Nichols Field begins operating from Clark Field, Luzon with P-40's.

Real whopping numbers of P-40s?!?  Through out early 1942 I doubt there were more than 100 P-40 available at any given time in the South Pacific.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2005)

Here's some more info about P-40s in the PTO early in the war....

02/27/42 

Fifth AF

Battle of Java Sea. Allied air and naval units try to stop convoy of some 80 ships approaching Java from NE. All available B-17's, A-24's, P-40's and LB-30's are put into the air but achieve only insignificant results. An Allied naval force, 5 cruisers and 11 destroyers, under Adm Doorman, Royal Netherlands Navy, meets the enemy near Surabaya and is decisively defeated, losing 5 ships. Most of Fifth AF ground echelon in Java is evacuated by sea. *The Sea Witch delivers 27 crated P-40's to Tjilatjap, Java, but these will be destroyed to prevent their falling into Japanese hands. 32 P-40's aboard the USS Langley, which sailed from Australia for India on 23 Feb, are lost when the Langley is sunk by aircraft 100 mi S of Tjilatjap.* The pilots are rescued by other vessels in the convoy, but the enemy sinks these ships with the exception of a destroyer, which delivers 2 of the pilots to Perth.

03/02/42 

Fifth AF

5 B-17's and 3 LB-30's (the last airplane taking off just before midnight) evacuate the last 260 men from Jogjakarta, the last A/F on Java in Allied hands. Ground forces are within 20 mi at this time. Bataan-based P-40's attack shipping in Subic Bay. The pilots claim considerable damage to the ships, but 4 of the few P-40's remaining on Bataan are lost.

03/12/42 

Tenth AF

10 P-40's arrive in Karachi by ship from Australia

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/chron/41dec.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2005)

That was a lot of aircraft for the time. Compare it to the realities of Dec 1941, not a couple of years later when that many planes a day were manufactured.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> That was a lot of aircraft for the time. Compare it to the realities of Dec 1941, not a couple of years later when that many planes a day were manufactured.



Sure they were, but you're making it sound like the Zero shot down hundreds of P-40s during this period and hundreds more fled to Australia

But read your own words..




syscom3 said:


> Are you saying that in the first 6 months of the war, *all of those P40's *sent to the PI, to Java, to New Guinie, just sort of all dissapeared on their own? They never saw battle, they just took off one day, never to return? And of course the Japanese couldnt shoot them down cause our planes were indestuctable, and the pilots were better! And of course the people on the ground were imagining things when they saw allied planes flying straight down into the ground. Engine failures no doubt.
> 
> Hmmmm. Maybe some UFO got in their way?
> 
> *Lots of allied planes (P40 included)* went up to fight the Japanese, decided to dogfight the Zero/Zeke/Oscar and plenty ended up shot down. Takes awhile for lessons of aerial combat to sink into a doctrine. Once those lessons were learned then loss rates went down in a hurry.




Bottom line, there weren't "lots" or "numerous" aircraft in the area at the start of the war and if the Japanese destroyed 100 aircraft (P-40s, P-39s, P-35s and P-36s) in air-to-air combat during this period, I would be surprised. What is being learned here is the losses we are made to think occurred during this period were not as numerous as one would think. Look at the numbers for the Battle of Coral Sea and Midway. Until Rich posted these numbers I would assume that we lost hundreds of F4Fs. The same hold true for the P-40 and even the P-39.....

Conclusion: overall AAF totals in the Pacific are 3960 air kills and 925 air losses. Break them down by aircraft and find out how many were lost to Zeros it's going to show, based on it's combat record, the Zero was highly over-rated!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ......
> Sure they were, but you're making it sound like the Zero shot down hundreds of P-40s during this period and hundreds more fled to Australia



Sorry if you misunderstood me. I was referring more to the kill ratio of the first 6 months of the war. I will even admit that the zero was at its apex beginning in May/June, and declined steadily.

I found this interesting story at the Pacific Wrecks webpage. If you read down to "15", theres an interesting account described by both pilots on how a wildcat was shotdown. The Zero pilot was Sakai, the Wildcat pilot was Southerland.

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/history/tainan-ku.html#_ftn13


----------



## evangilder (Sep 13, 2005)

Good info there Joe! If I didn't know better, I would think you have been hanging around with Rich.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



No problem! - but if one was would say the Zero kill ratio was 2 to 1 during this period, I think that might be considered high....

You had several pilots in the theater at the time who scored kills in P-39s and P-40s and as a whole operated very effectively against Japanese forces until the P-38 entered the theater in late 42. Jay Robbins, Thomas Lynch, and Danny Roberts were all top P-38 fighter pilots but all would do well when they first arrived in the area flying P-39s (Lynch got 2 Zeros in May 42' flying the P-400). As a matter of fact the 39th Pursit Group operating out of New Guinea did extremely well with the P-39 considering it's limitations.

Again, there were folks knocking down Zeros with 39s, 40s and 400s. They held the line until the P-38 arrived and their losses weren't reflective of what you would think the Zero could inflict....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Good info there Joe! If I didn't know better, I would think you have been hanging around with Rich.



Thanks Eric!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

Wow good info. I think history speaks for itself on how good the Zero really was.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 15, 2005)

Heres what the Chino "Raiden" looks like. It would be great if they could ever get it airworthy again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Nice looking plane though.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 19, 2005)

I have found in a book the US report of a captured Zero (model 21) in comparison with the US fighters of the time (P39, P40, P38F, Wildcat and one of the first Corsairs)
According to the report, this Zero (crashed and rebuilt with a non original prop, so likely not in her best shape) is superior or holding well in comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair. 

If allowed by the policy of the site, I can scan the pages and post some .JPG (sorry, no time to manually copy the text...)
let me know, I don't want to violate some law...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

I know of the same report. A propeller had to fabricated because the Zero's propeller (and engine) rotates opposite when compared to US fighters. When they did those test, some of the simulated combat was done under 300 MPH.....

Also compared was equipment and construction methods. Except for the lack or armor and self-sealing tanks the inital captured Zeros were designed and built as well or better when compared to their western counterparts...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

one other interesting fact about the design of the Zero........ the IJN wanted the design of the airframe to allow for the engine to be changed quickly. I think it took less than 30 minutes for a complete engine change as compared to hours with the F4F.


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 19, 2005)

If you are referring to “Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85 – Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter” (December 1942), you might want to carefully re-read the document. It clearly sets forth the instances were the A6M2 was found to be superior and where it was deficient. The report points to the previously identified (September 1942) rapid fall off of maneuvering ability as the A6M2 approaches 300 knots and the engine cut-out under conditions of negative Gs. 

The document is US government and no longer classified (de-classified in 1958) and as such is in the public domain. In fact, you can find a copy already posted on the internet at:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/diego.pdf

The propeller on the A6M2 #4593 was the original. One blade was slightly damaged in the crash and was repaired. The “replacement” of the propeller is one of the recurring myths surrounding the restoration of # 4593. It is usually trotted out to try to explain away any performance failings. Oddly enough, had the Navy replaced the original, they would have used a Hamilton constant speed type which was essentially identical to the original.

Here is a narrative from a USN fighter pilot, an F4F ace with 2 A6M2s to his credit, who flew this aircraft in September and October of 1944:

“I first saw the captured Zero as a pile of salvage shortly after it arrived from Alaska. Soon after I was sent to the Southwest Pacific and didn’t see the plane again until August 1944 while I was assigned as fighter training officer at ComFAirWest at San Diego.

“The Zero had gone to Tactical Air Intelligence Center and was based at Anacostia Naval Air Station, near Washington, D.C. After Sanders, Hoffman, and others tested, compared, and evaluated the airplane, the Army put it though similar paces.

“While fighter training officer at San Diego, I learned that Koga’s Zero was still at Anacostia, airworthy, but unused. I arranged for it to be flown to San Diego. The Zero 21 was a mighty sweet machine, even in its superannuated. The refined aerodynamic design was not compromised by mass production. Fit and finish of all plates, rivets, the close and accurate fit of fairings, engine cowl, access plates, canopy, and wheel doors were most faithfully executed.

“The propeller spinner faired into a cowling that smoothed the contours of the reduction gear housing of the engine. The interior aerodynamics of the engine cowling permitted the adequate cooling of the two-row 14-cylinder engine with a remarkably small intake. Contrast that with the inlet on the F4F-3 and -4 which originally came with a spinner but had to sacrifice it to cure engine overheat problems. The Sakae engine looked and sounded much like our R-1830. It ran smoothly and cool. Displacement was somewhat less that the Pratt and Whitney 1839, but its 1130 hp was smoother and adequate. It was not supercharged as extremely as the R-1830-76/86 and at very high altitude (over 30,000 feet) compared very poorly with the Pratt and Whitney. But we hardly ever encountered Zeros above 10,000 feet with our F4F-3s and -4s, so we were carrying supercharger hardware as extra baggage. The F4F, which became the FM-2, was re-engined with the Wright R-1820 with about the same power as the R-1830, but much less supercharger. This was a better machine to fight Zeros with, but we didn’t get in squadrons until 1944, and by that time the Zero was no the problem it had been in the beginning. 

“By the time I was flying the Zero 21 it may have had some of its automatic systems disabled. An example is the automatic altitude compensation of carburetor mixture. The first time I went for altitude the engine began to cut up disgracefully above 5000 feet. Worried that the engine was giving up, mixture came to mind. On this machine full rich is a rearward position of the mixture control. Manual leaning comes by easing this control forward. On doing this gingerly the engine smoothed up beautifully and the airplane jumped ahead with about 500 more horses - no less.

“The propeller was auto hydraulic cum Hamilton – no mysteries. We ran the engine as though it was an R-1830, but did not let the RPM go over 2600. 

“The case of the manifold pressure gauge had been cracked n the crash at Akutan and it leaked. It was left in the instrument panel, but we used a standard AN type attached to a bracket nearby.

“The throttle sat in a quadrant outboard of the mixture control. It was shaped like the handle of a knife – complete with wood side plates for contour. It was about five inches long and on the top had a switch to be operated by the left thumb. This switch was for cutting in or out the 20mm cannon.

“The Zero carried many rounds of 7.7mm for the two fuselage guns and only 80 to 100 for each of the 20mm wing guns. Ergo, sight in with the 7.7 then cut in the two 20s for telling shots. I dimly remember there was a trigger lever you could pull up and squeeze on the front edge of the throttle. If you were not in combat, this lever would drop down where inadvertent firing was precluded (we had sad events because the trigger on the stick of U.S. fighters was easily squeezed in excitement).

“Cockpit was not so tidy as the F4F, but easily as tidy as the F4U and earlier Vought birds. Instruments were much like ours, but metric for pressures, temperatures, [and] altitude. Airspeed was in knots. It had an inner and outer scale as the needle needed to go around about 1½ circles to get to the high end of the scale.

“In the Zero 52 there was an exhaust temperature gauge as well as the usual cylinder head temperature gauge. My guess is that it was a refinement to fine tune the mixture to get the remarkable endurance and range the Zero was famous for.

“Gyro horizon had a sky blue upper half like some of the German WWII instruments I have seen. To the envy of every F4F pilot, the landing gear was hydraulically actuated!

"Tail wheel was fully retracted behind tight doors. Tail hook was faired into a recess along the keel. The hook was hinged on the end of its strut, latched in the snatch position to catch the wire then dumped, so the Zero could taxi forward over other wired unimpeded. I understand we toyed with this idea but gave it up because of worries it might misbehave and cause an unarrested landing.

“Brakes were hydraulic – weak. The wide tread and relatively low landing speed favored weak brakes so you might say they were adequate. Rudder bar was center-pivoted with stirrups for each foot. Brakes were actuated by a hand lever; rudder angle determined which wheel received braking action.

“The canopy gave a beautiful view of the outside world, noticeably good to the rear in contrast to our VF’s. The enclosure was made up of many panes of plexi, some contoured. Wind noise was moderate. Some of the enclosure had been destroyed and was remade by A and R.

“The windscreen section was original, for it bore deep craters from the corrosion that took place during its dip into the marsh of Akutan. These cavities had a way of coming into focus when air speeds built up. I often wondered why they had not been replaced by A and R. In VF-42 we had some nasty experiences with the original F4F windscreens blowing out on use when flying at more that 300 knots. Grumman corrected it with a beef-up that robbed us of valuable forward vision, but it ended the problem. The Zero had no such heavy structure in the first place, so it was a source of uneasiness.

“The Zero 21 had no primer for engine starting. The carburetor has a large capacity acceleration pump you feel when you moved the throttle. To start, you had the mechanic wind up the inertia starter as you wobbled up fuel pressure and work the throttle two or three times to spray in the discharge of the accelerator pump. On contact the engine rolled over readily, caught, and picked up to run without complaint.

“The carburetor barrel has an oil jacket through which circulated lube oil to combat any tendency to form ice. I’m not sure whether it was always in action of selectable from the cockpit. We never touched it as I remember. Seems a tidy way to handle ice.

“In February-March 1945 I has a dandy low-time fresh-caught Zero 52 to fly. It was much like Koga’s Model 21, but heavier because of two more 20mm guns. It had a hundred or so more horses, and ejection type exhaust stakes, but flew essentially like the Model 21 – very sweet.”

I’d suggest a look at Jim Reardon’s “Koga Zero”. There’s a couple of other reports wandering around if you know where to look, such as Lt Cdr Eddie Sanders’ initial evaluation “Report for Flight Test Officer – 29 September 1942” (and duplicated within the “Enemy Material Report, No 71 – Headquarters, Allied Air Forces South West Pacific Area Directorate of Intelligence”) and “Technical Aviation Intelligence Brief No. 3” (4 November 1942). There is also another report from 4 September 1942, “Informational Intelligence Summary No. 59 – The Japanese Zero Fighter” that is a compilation of information based on examination of crashed aircraft from various locations and issued some 16 days before the A6M2 # 4593 was first flown by Sanders.

FWIW, the Sanders report fully describes the propeller: “The propeller is a hydraulically operated constant speed 3-blade design, 9’6” in diameter, much like ours with many parts interchangeable.” Intelligence Summary No. 59 also describes the propeller used on the A6M2 and corroborates the statements of Sanders and the gent who flew the plane in 1944: “The propeller is a 3-blade, constant speed Sumitomo of the hydraulic type, and apparently identical with the Hamilton model.”


Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> one other interesting fact about the design of the Zero........ the IJN wanted the design of the airframe to allow for the engine to be changed quickly. I think it took less than 30 minutes for a complete engine change as compared to hours with the F4F.



I've seen F4F and Zeros up front and having changed a few large radial recips, I would say they look about the same. Maybe the differance lies in adjusting the engine controls (prop, mixture, throttle) but basically the layout seems the same. 

Great information Rich!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

The engine mounts, electrical harness and the other engine accessories were all easily accessed. 

Some simple "human engineering" paid lots of dividends in field maintenence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

In looking at photos of both aircraft it seems the engine mount set up is similar. 4 engine mount points on the engine bolted on a steel tube engine mount, which in turn is bolted to the airframe, again in 4 points. it seems the zero cowl might come off easier (Eric could verify this). The F4F had a cooler intake and carburetor duct on the cowl so this would probably require removal once the cowl is off. Aside from that it's a matter of disconnecting electrical harnesses, rigging for the throttle, prop. control and mixture control and then un-bolting the engine. Some manufacturers mandate you remove the propeller first, others allow the engine and propeller to be removed together.

Once the engine is removed and the new one installed, the major consumer of time is rigging the engine. This involves setting up engine controls so they work through their designed travel and have the engine correlate those adjustments when the engine is run up after installation.

The Zero might be a bit simpler to do an engine change on but I don't think you're looking at major time difference between the two.


----------



## NAVAIR (Sep 19, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> one other interesting fact about the design of the Zero........ the IJN wanted the design of the airframe to allow for the engine to be changed quickly. I think it took less than 30 minutes for a complete engine change as compared to hours with the F4F.



Indeed, former Vought Engineers claim that the Zero's QEC package drew heavily from the Vought V-143 fighter prototype, sold to Japan in 1938. One Engineer stated that the entire accessory section layout was pure Vought. 

Japan did not copy western aircraft per se, but they were wise enough to borrow useful technology, as did everyone else. Even Kurt Tank admitted to having been greatly influenced by Palmer's design (aka, the Hughes H-1). No one designs in a vacuum, not Mitchell, not Kartvelli, not Willie or even Camm. Everyone draws from the work of everyone else.

My regards,

NAVAIR


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > one other interesting fact about the design of the Zero........ the IJN wanted the design of the airframe to allow for the engine to be changed quickly. I think it took less than 30 minutes for a complete engine change as compared to hours with the F4F.
> ...



Agree - I read somewhere the F8F had some inspiration from the FW-190 (landing gear)


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 19, 2005)

> the IJN wanted the design of the airframe to allow for the engine to be changed quickly. I think it took less than 30 minutes for a complete engine change as compared to hours with the F4F.



I don’t know from where “hours” to change out an F4F engine comes from. I spoke this evening with a wartime F4F maintenance type who reported that, presuming one had all one’s tools at hand, a couple of engine hoists, and a three or four of extra pairs of hands coupled with brains that knew what they were doing, you could change out, one for another, an F4F engine in under an hour, if you took your time; faster if you were in a hurry.

Frankly, incorporating ease of maintenance is not rocket science. I know of one USN F4F driver (same gent who was flying A6M2 #4593 in the fall of 1944) who had a barrier landing on the night of 7 May 1942 aboard USS Yorktown. His plane was struck below. He debriefed and then went to chow. He then went to the hangar deck to see how his plane was coming along and found the VF-42 maintenance guys were just starting to put on the cowl ring, having already replaced the engine. He hung around until the engine had been tested and then turned in. He flew that plane the next day.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

Great info Rich!!!! Even if an F4F engine change took "hours" say with two guys, you got the ole CPO's mentality - "Here's six guys, get it done in an hour."


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 19, 2005)

It didnt matter if the F4F took four, or five hours really, becaue theyre were more planes, engines, and better trained maintenance crews to do the job. the zeros werent produced in good enough numbers, and the same can be said about the pilots, maintenance crews, and powerplants. I repsect the IJNAF and the IJAAF because they accomplished alot with what they had, but the americans, could outpace them in technology, trainign, and numbers.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

The IJN did have concerns about the quality of the recruits for maint. of the aircraft, thus did incorporate such things into the design, where they could.

"Frankly, incorporating ease of maintenance is not rocket science. ".... well that might be true, but it isnt always implimented. Plenty of products then and now that the design groups decided it wasnt necessary.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

Speaking as a maintainer - with the tools and equipment readily available, it should take under an hour to change an engine on either airplane....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 19, 2005)

Yes, with the tools and equipment readily available, something the japanese lacked later on in the war. while the conditions and availability for the allies was growing...if you look at the service like of the sakae engine that powered the zeroes, or the engine of an F4F, later in the war, maintenance time, changing speed, and service life were probably all longer, due to quality of products and technicians.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 20, 2005)

Having turned a wrench on the Zero a couple of times, I can tell you that there were parts that were obviously not mass machine produced. The prop spinner only fits on in one position. If you are off one screw hole, you have to keep turning until you find the right alighment. The obvious thing to do is mark the alignment _before_ disassembly! Lesson learned. The cowling on the Zero is not a fun item to put back on. The turn buckle screws don't leave much room for turning a wrench on them.

That being said, aside from issues with hand sizes (Americans today have bigger hands than the Japanese of the 1940s, generally), it's not too bad. But our Zero has quite a few Dzus fasteners, not standard for the time on Japanese aircraft.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2005)

Rich,
thank you for your search and info.
Yes, the report in my book (the great book of WW II airplanes, Crescent books, AAVV - a wonderful book specially for the many detailed drawings from R.Watanabe) is the same you linked.

I re-read the report, and I still have the impression that the zero was holding very well or outperforming the other aircrafts.
- the lower performance above 500 kmh (300mph) fall in a limited envelope of use, most of the dogfight was below that speed. It only tells that zero should not try to escape by diving and could be escaped in a steep dive, assuming there is enough space below. 
- the zero SN 4593 was recovered after a forced landing due to engine trouble. The machine landed wheels down on a marsh, breaking landing gear, flipping over and breaking tail, propeller and canopy in the process: not a small damage, that had to be rebuilt without any supporting documentation. It seems fair to assume that a factory-fresh zero would have probably performed a bit better.
Consider that probably (unless the US manufacturer behaved against their natural attitude to competition  ) the US fighters sent for comparison were in mint conditions.
- the engine cut-off is reported only for this zero, at least I never heard/read of this as a general problem of the machine. Also because the US pilots (.. that were NOT slow in learning) would had used this as a standard escape tactic, like the 109 pilots did with the early spits.
- Although the pilots who flew the zero were surely great pilots they did not know very well the ship, and were probably not in condition to 'squeeze' the best out of it, while the pilots in the local planes of course knew them 'like their pockets' : put a Saburo Sakai in the cockpit and the zero would had performed better in climbs and turns!

All this, specially if you read the comparison with the F4F where no numbers are given but just a kind of concerned statements (..zero was superior in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 ft .. superior in ceiling... no comparison between the turning circles... in combat F4F is basically dependent in mutual support..) states that at the end of 1942 the zero model 21 was at least a terrible customer for the US planes, and that the new generation of US fighters (Corsair) was better than the Zero.

What was not highlighted is the fragility of the zero in sustaing battle damage.

The problem of the japanese fighter is that it was not substantially improved in the following 3 years, with an evolution path similar to her western counterparts (because of HQ policy? because the structure could not hold more power and weight? because no better engines were available?), making it completely obsolete by 1943.
.. put a 1700hp BMW 801, some armour and metal ailerons in that frame and, if it holds together  , you probably have an airplane that can match the opponents in 43-44


----------



## evangilder (Sep 20, 2005)

Metal ailerons wouldn't make a difference. Even as they were, beyond about 275 MPH, the ailerons are like concrete, according to the pilot that flies our zero. Armor would help, but it adds weight, as well as a bigger engine would. These could also effect the performance of the airplane.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2005)

The Zero seems to have been a dead end evolutionary wise. Excellent plane to start out the war, but was eventually neutralized by better allied designs.

At Chino 2000, I was talking with a 475th FG pilot and he mentioned that no matter how much training the Allied pilots had, there was always someone who didnt believe how deadly the Zero could be, and once in awhile they would pay the price.

Several years ago I worked frequently in Japan and had some interesting conversations with my Japanese colleagues, and one of them summed up the state of Japanese aircraft industry in 1942....."we could build lots of existing planes.....or.....design new planes, but we didnt have the resources to do both".


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Armor would help, but it adds weight, as well as a bigger engine would. These could also effect the performance of the airplane.



Exactly Evan, it would have moved the zero attitude from the 'turn-and-burn' to 'boom-and-zoom' side, like the evolution that Spitfire and 109 had. 
Less endurance and manouvrability traded for higher speed, payload and durability, that was the right recipe from 42 to 45!

I just mentioned the aileron per analogy, because I remember it cured the same issue on the spitfire, whose fabric surfaces were 'balooning' at high speed making the stick unmovable. I think it was fixed during MkV production with aluminium covered ailerons.
I read that the zero was improved in high speed handling by cutting the wingtips and fitting smaller ailerons, but I believe the old saying 'there is no plane better than her engine' and 1100hp were about half the power of the competition.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Armor would help, but it adds weight, as well as a bigger engine would. These could also effect the performance of the airplane.



Exactly Evan, it would have moved the zero attitude from the 'turn-and-burn' to 'boom-and-zoom' side, like the evolution that Spitfire and 109 had. 
Less endurance and manouvrability traded for higher speed, payload and durability, that was the right recipe from 42 to 45!

I just mentioned the aileron per analogy, because I remember it cured the same issue on the spitfire, whose fabric surfaces were 'balooning' at high speed making the stick unmovable. I think it was fixed during MkV production with aluminium covered ailerons.
I read that the zero was improved in high speed handling by cutting the wingtips and fitting smaller ailerons, but I believe the old saying 'there is no plane better than her engine' and 1100hp were about half the power of the competition.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 20, 2005)

Ballooning is not the problem with the ailerons in the Zero, it is the size. I would agree that smaler ailerons would have helped as the stick forces were the problem with the large ailerons. Obviously it would require quite a bit of engineering as added weight needs to be balanced right or the CG changes and thus the manueverability gets effected. Even then though, weight itself will also decrease manueverability somewhat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2005)

Ballooning on control surfaces will normally not occur when the fabric is new and in good condition. Early in the war I would guess "Irish Linen" was used which could easily weaken if put under continual strain and weather....


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 20, 2005)

> It didnt matter if the F4F took four, or five hours really, becaue theyre were more planes, engines, and
> better trained maintenance crews to do the job. the zeros werent produced in good enough numbers, . . .



Huh?

First we hear how it takes hours to change out an engine on an F4F, which wasn’t true. 

Now rises the specter of thousands of F4Fs outnumbering the A6M series production. Well, that, also, is untrue.

A6M series production:

A6M1: 2 prototypes
A6M2-11: 64 includes 21 that could be considered prototypes
A6M2-21: 1429 
A6M2-K: 517 includes 7 prototypes
A6M3: 3 prototypes
A6M3-22: 1541 
A6M3-32: 340 
A6M5: 2151 
A6M5a: 105 
A6M5b: 2330 
A6M5c: 93 
A6M6c: 1577 includes 1 prototype
A6M7: 490 
A6M8: 1 prototype
Total A6M series production: 10,643 

Of course, if you want to include the A6M2-N production of 327 including 4 prototypes, that gives a production 
result of 10,970.

Now, F4F production:

XF4F-2: 1
F4F-3: 285
F4F-3A: 95
XF4F-4: 1
F4F-4: 1169
XF4F-5: 1
XF4F-6: 1
F4F-7: 21
XF4F-8: 2
Total F4F production: 1576

And if you want to add in the FM series of 1060 FM-1 and 4777 FM-2 that makes a total of 7,413; still somewhat 
short of the non-float type A6M’s total of 10,643

And if we look at the primary contemporary antagonists, the F4F-3, F4F-3A, and the F4F-4 production versus 
the A6M2-21, A6M3-22, and A6M3-32, and don’t count prototypes, the production totals were 1549 for the 
F4F types and 3310 for the A6M types. Thus, we find the F4F production was less than half the contemporary 
A6M production. We should also keep in mind a couple of other factors, such as the F4F-3 and F4F-3A did 
not serve on carriers after May 1942 and not as a land-based front line fighter after June 1942. And that, 
while A6Ms were confined to the Pacific theaters, F4Fs also served in the Atlantic, and were, thus, not all 
committed to Pacific operations.

I guess that’s another theory out the window, F4Fs did not outnumber their A6M counterparts, in anyway 
you want to count it. 



> . . . and the same can be said about the pilots, maintenance crews, and powerplants. I repsect
> the IJNAF and the IJAAF because they accomplished alot with what they had, but the americans, could outpace
> them in technology, trainign, and numbers.



So, are you saying that the Japanese did well in spite of their almost ubiquitously abysmal long term 
strategic planning? I’d pose, rather. that their results were exactly the results of their planning. They went 
into a war that they could not have possibly won in the first place, basing their entire strategic concept on 
what they thought the US *would* do instead of thinking about what the US *could *do.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2005)

Great stuff Rich! Yep - the Japanese planned for a 6 month war - how many times did Yamamoto say that?!?!


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 20, 2005)

> I re-read the report, and I still have the impression that the zero was holding very well or outperforming
> the other aircrafts.



I guess I don’t read it the same way.



> - the lower performance above 500 kmh (300mph) fall in a limited envelope of use, most of the dogfight
> was below that speed. It only tells that zero should not try to escape by diving and could be escaped in a steep
> dive, assuming there is enough space below.



I believe the point was to remind USAAF pilots to avoid engaging in low speed turning contests and keep their 
speed above the A6M2s optimal performance envelope (or maybe I’ve just read too many of these reports 
or talked to too many pilots).



> - the zero SN 4593 was recovered after a forced landing due to engine trouble. The machine landed
> wheels down on a marsh, breaking landing gear, flipping over and breaking tail, propeller and canopy
> in the process: not a small damage, that had to be rebuilt without any supporting documentation. It seems
> fair to assume that a factory-fresh zero would have probably performed a bit better. Consider that probably
> ...



And how do the performance statistics the tests revealed compare to the Japanese reported performance. 
The Japanese rated the A6M2 variously at between 316 and 330 mph. What did the US tests find? How 
shocking . . . they only pushed it up to 326 mph! I wonder what a high-time, well and truly used, A6M2 
would turn up as opposed to a nice, clean, and tweaked, factory fresh, edition or even this rebuilt version. 
The reality is that the average aircraft in action on one side is going to run up against the average aircraft 
in action on the other; so what is important is not what the squeaky clean aircraft can do, but what the aircraft 
that just returned from it’s 100th sortie can do. This is a fairly obvious observation. I see nothing in the 
report to indicate that any of the US aircraft involved were factory fresh. Looks to me like old number 4593 
was pretty well pushed to it’s limit. 

One has to ask oneself, if you’re going to repair an enemy aircraft in order to test its capabilities, does it 
not make sense to repair it to the highest operational extent possible? And if you’re going to test it, are you 
not going to push to see exactly what it will do? Would any other courses provide the performance information 
in which you’re interested?

Let’s look at some of the damage to #4593

4593 engine (USN Photo from my collection)






4593 being shifted for shipment (USN Photo from my collection)





4593 ready for shipment. Note damage to vertical stabilizer (USN Photo from my collection)





4593 under repair by USN personnel at North Island NAS
(USN Photo from my collection)





4593 under repair by USN personnel at North Island NAS
(USN Photo from my collection)





And in its operational condition

4593 in 1944 (USN Photo from my collection)





4593 in 1944 (USN Photo from my collection)





4593 in 1944 (USN Photo from my collection)





4593 in 1944 (USN Photo from my collection)





4593 in 1944 (USN Photo from my collection)







> - the engine cut-off is reported only for this zero, at least I never heard/read of this as a general problem
> of the machine. Also because the US pilots (.. that were NOT slow in learning) would had used this as a
> standard escape tactic, like the 109 pilots did with the early spits.



On the other hand I’ve read that the problem was corrected in later (the 22, 32, and 52) models.



> - Although the pilots who flew the zero were surely great pilots they did not know very well the ship,
> and were probably not in condition to 'squeeze' the best out of it, while the pilots in the local planes of course
> knew them 'like their pockets' : put a Saburo Sakai in the cockpit and the zero would had performed better in
> climbs and turns!



I don’t suppose that Eddie Sanders being the Assistant Flight Test Officer at Anacostia NAS might imply that 
he knew a little bit about how to wrest the available performance out of an aircraft? Flight Test was where 
USN aircraft types were put through their paces prior acceptance. Sanders was in charge of testing 
fighter types. Further, when #4593 was tested against the F4F and the F4U, Sanders was flying the USN 
types. Flying the A6M2 was Cdr Fred Trapnell ("Mister Test Pilot") who was head of Flight Test, was USN 
jet pilot # 1, established the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent NAS, and started the test pilot school there. 
And our unidentified USAAF pilots from Eglin Field? What do you suppose was their unit mission? Having 
had some exposure to USN test pilots (plural) from that era, I would observe that these are not average 
pilots, but rather some folks who really knew what they were doing and were very serious about it.



> All this, specially if you read the comparison with the F4F where no numbers are given but just a kind
> of concerned statements (..zero was superior in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 ft .. superior
> in ceiling... no comparison between the turning circles... in combat F4F is basically dependent in mutual
> support..) states that at the end of 1942 the zero model 21 was at least a terrible customer for the US planes,
> and that the new generation of US fighters (Corsair) was better than the Zero.



When you re-read the Summary #85 report you should be able to ascertain that it is a USAAF document. 
It clearly states that it presents the information from the Eglin AAF Proving Ground Group (the USAAF 
equivalent of the USN Flight Test group at Anacostia NAS) addressing test conducted with the A6M2 against 
the P-38, P-39, and P-51 in detail. Small wonder that the information on the tests with those particular 
aircraft are in greater detail as the Summary was to be issued to USAAF squadrons. The information on 
tests against the F4F and F4U is merely summarized as those are not USAAF aircraft. The service politics 
are obvious. While there were USN squadrons that operated P-51s, and even Spitfires, I can’t think of any 
USAAF squadrons that operated F4Fs or F4Us.



> What was not highlighted is the fragility of the zero in sustaing battle damage.



This was something they already knew and appears in debrief reports. For example, I have debrief interviews 
from Lt Cdr John Thach and Lt Noel Gayler made at BuAer in the summer of 1942 that clearly note the interesting 
phenomena when one’s rounds strike home on Japanese aircraft, generally, and A6M2s, specifically.



> The problem of the japanese fighter is that it was not substantially improved in the following 3 years,
> with an evolution path similar to her western counterparts (because of HQ policy? because the structure could
> not hold more power and weight? because no better engines were available?), making it completely
> obsolete by 1943.



True. What most tend to forget is that the A6M was originally designed to face the enemy the Japanese were 
facing in China, both in terms of aircraft types and in the tactics and quality of the tactics employed by 
the Chinese. Once the initial conquering rush, against mostly ill-prepared and ill-supplied adversaries, was 
over and it became markedly difficult for the Japanese to marshal overwhelming numbers at any 
particular point, coupled with finally better supplied and better prepared adversaries who were not flying 
Russian cast offs or using, such as they were, Chinese tactics, it became a different ballgame. The A6M 
series design really did not lend itself to many improvements and was, as Syscom3 eruditely noted, a 
evolutionary dead end.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

Rich, you are truly amazing!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 21, 2005)

Another great post Rich. The pictures are outstanding!


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 21, 2005)

Rich, your posts are always great!

Our 'disagreement' seems to be the interpretation of the report, so here is what I understand by reading the document:

A - vs USAAF planes
1 - all tested planes, except the F4F, are faster than the zero in level flight
2 - Zero can outturn/outmanoeuvre all tested planes below 300 mph at any height, except P38F above 20.000 ft where zero is superior only in slow speed turns.
3 - Zero has better zoom acceleration/climb/dive than any other type
4 - Sustained climb relative performances depends on the opponent aircraft : 
- vs P38F the zero is better up to 18.000 ft, then the P38 is better
- vs P39 the Zero is less performing up to 12.500 ft and better above that height
- vs P51 (Allison engine) the zero walks away in climb up to 15.000 ft, no test above because of P51 engine problems. P51 is much faster than zero in level flight and in dive. (this is no surprise, the P51 and zero are almost at the opposite concept of fighter planes. Also it is clear that the P51 was basically a prototype, still far away from his real potential)

About relative acceleration, it is not clear if the tests are started at the optimal speed for the US fighters or for the zero (being the starting speed always different it may be that the test is run at optimal speed for the US fighters)

- P40 was not tested because of engine problems (question: this test was important, why they did not get another P40 or a replacement engine? Maybe because, knowing the performance of the P40 vs P38-P39, they could extrapolate the results? And so, why they did not even put a line of comment about that?) 

B - vs USNAVY planes
The chapters of Zero vs F4F and F4U are not detailed (and you explained the reason why), but the summary seems very clear : 
- vs F4F : the zero is always superior or equal to the Wildcat 
- vs F4U : the Corsair is almost always superior to the Zero
btw, is there any copy of the Navy pilots detailed report? In the first page they say 'Navy pilots handled the trials against F4F-4 and F4U-1', so it seems likely that this team had prepared a detailed report for the Navy.

In summary, I believe that my original impression " ... is superior or holding well in comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair " is correct.

This, as I had made clear, is valid as a 41-42 snapshot, we all know that the Jap plane was not significantly improved afterwards, while P38, P51 and F4U were strongly developed. 

This was my reading of the official document, where do you disagree?


To follow instead are the comments about my speculations:



R Leonard said:


> I believe the point was to remind USAAF pilots to avoid engaging in low speed turning contests and keep their
> speed above the A6M2s optimal performance envelope (or maybe I’ve just read too many of these reports
> or talked to too many pilots).



This makes a lot of sense, point is that 300 mph is quite a high speed for 1941-42, normally far above the normal cruise speed and flight envelope. 
It became 'normal' with the next generation of fighters, and we all agree that the Zero did not kept the improvement pace. 



R Leonard said:


> One has to ask oneself, if you’re going to repair an enemy aircraft in order to test its capabilities, does it
> not make sense to repair it to the highest operational extent possible? And if you’re going to test it, are you
> not going to push to see exactly what it will do? Would any other courses provide the performance information
> in which you’re interested?





R Leonard said:


> I don’t suppose that Eddie Sanders being the Assistant Flight Test Officer at Anacostia NAS might imply that
> he knew a little bit about how to wrest the available performance out of an aircraft? Flight Test was where
> USN aircraft types were put through their paces prior acceptance. Sanders was in charge of testing
> fighter types. Further, when #4593 was tested against the F4F and the F4U, Sanders was flying the USN
> ...



Look, I don't mean to say that US test pilots were not exceptional pilots or that the team did not take seriously the job.
Fact is that planes performances depends on many parameters, and assuming that a Mitsubishi test team (pilot+service engineers) with thousands of hours in the type knows how to manage a zero better than a USAAF or NAVY test team is not offensive and not irrealistic. Unless we assume that Jap test teams were inferior professionals.
For sure the US teams knew every tip and trick of P39, P40 etc. (best manifold pressure, mixture, prop pitch, trim settings etc. for every flight condition) and fly the planes at their best, PERHAPS they simply had no time to learn all the tips and tricks for the zero.

Look at this quote from another thread posted by wmaxt:
"Belive it or not I have a comparison (From Doc's page I think) that shows two Spit IX and P-38F. The Spits out turned it but the P-38 was right in the middle of the 2 Spits performance curves, who had different Prop reduction ratios."
If this 'small' difference in settings is enough to make the difference in performances, why should we absolutely exclude that the tested zero was not optimally tuned?

cheers
sandro


----------



## F4D (Sep 21, 2005)

I like Japanese planes...in truth I like all planes.

My favorite Japanese fighter was the Nakajima Ki-84 "Hayate" (allied code name "Frank"). What a shame it had so many manufacturing problems. 
One of those too little too late deals. A fine looking ship with the muscle to 
back it up.

It was designed to replace the Hayabusa and required the maneuverability
of the Hayabusa with the speed and climb of the Shoki.
Also it had to have heavy guns,amour protection and self-sealing tanks.
A maximum speed of 400 to 420 mph and able to operate 250 miles from base with a combat rating of one hour and thirty minutes and wing loading of no more than 34.8 lbs/sq ft.
It was to use the Army version of the NK9A Homare radial and have two 20mm and two .50cal guns.

But it never made the speed [email protected] ft, but could dive at 496mph in test flights.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

F4D said:


> I like Japanese planes...in truth I like all planes.
> 
> My favorite Japanese fighter was the Nakajima Ki-84 "Hayate" (allied code name "Frank"). What a shame it had so many manufacturing problems.
> One of those too little too late deals. A fine looking ship with the muscle to
> ...



The Frank was a great aircraft, I think it was probably the best fighter to come out of Japan during WW2, but it definetly didn't have the maneuvability of the Oscar.


----------



## F4D (Sep 21, 2005)

> The Frank was a great aircraft, I think it was probably the best fighter to come out of Japan during WW2, but it definetly didn't have the maneuvability of the Oscar.


It did fall short of many of the design specs I listed but was a great bird.
I would have liked to have seen the Ki-83 go beyond the test phase. It could have been something.
Oh well... jets did them all in anyway.


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 22, 2005)

> Our 'disagreement' seems to be the interpretation of the report, so here is what I
> understand by reading the document:
> 
> A - vs USAAF planes
> ...



I recall reading somewhere that this was, indeed, a straight P-51.



> About relative acceleration, it is not clear if the tests are started at the optimal speed for
> the US fighters or for the zero (being the starting speed always different it may be that
> the test is run at optimal speed for the US fighters)



Something I wondered about, too. There are references though to starting from a 
common speed.



> -P40 was not tested because of engine problems (question: this test was important, why
> they did not get another P40 or a replacement engine? Maybe because, knowing the
> performance of the P40 vs P38-P39, they could extrapolate the results? And so, why they
> did not even put a line of comment about that?)



Having some idea how these things work, the tests were conducted at North Island NAS, 
a place not particularly known for having spare P-40s lying around, The gents from Eglin
AAF undoubtedly brought their own planes with them from Florida and when the P-40
decided not to cooperate, then they were just out of luck. Even if they could locate a 
nearby P-40 unit, I seriously doubt the CO would be willing to loan one of his planes to 
some hot-shot test pilot from Florida to fly in some sort of flight test at a naval air station.



> B - vs USNAVY planes
> The chapters of Zero vs F4F and F4U are not detailed (and you explained the reason
> why), but the summary seems very clear :
> - vs F4F : the zero is always superior or equal to the Wildcat
> ...



I have been unable to find a report specifically giving the results of tests against USN 
types.



> In summary, I believe that my original impression " ... is superior or holding well in
> comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair " is correct.
> 
> This, as I had made clear, is valid as a 41-42 snapshot, we all know that the Jap plane
> ...



I don’t know if I would actually use the word “disagree.” Certainly, the results of the 
tests were clear. I suspect the difference is in the interpretation of the purpose of the 
report. I tend to put more of a 1942 era spin on it, having gone over this and other 
reports in detail with some who actually flew this plane and had more than a modicum of 
experience in the arena of flying against A6Ms. In short, while possessing detailed 
comparisons, mostly relating to climb performance, it is the intent of the report that is of 
significance.

The purpose of the report is to identify for the USAAF pilot who might find himself in 
those Pacific Theater areas where he will encounter some, to say the least, difficulties in 
dealing with the A6M problem. It also points the way to avoid those situations in which 
the A6M is in its optimal performance envelope and play to what strengths one’s own 
aircraft might enjoy. 

There are features in the report that are at odds with the reality of air combat in the 
Pacific. For example, and especially in the 1941-1942 period (at least in the USN end 
of the business with which I, admittedly, am most familiar) most air-to-air fighter 
engagements were fought at 10,000 feet or less. This is primarily due to the nature of 
air-to-ship strikes. The attacker must get down to where the ships are, therefore the 
defending CAP or the strike escorts must meet in that area where the attack group is 
moving towards its final attack position. You see this over and over again at Coral Sea, 
Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz (although there is the rare exception such 
as the Japanese strike escort breaking off from their charges and attacking the Enterprise 
strike group as they passed each other during the Santa Cruz action). So for the most
part, in actual action, these fighters are finding themselves at, when compared to air-to-air
action in Europe, relatively low altitudes. Performance at 20,000 feet is interesting, but it 
was not the, then, norm in the Pacific. The purpose of achieving these higher altitude in 
the Pacific was to get above ones adversaries so as to accumulate the speed advantage of 
an overhead approach.

Thus the opening sections of the report (Conclusions, Recommendations, Offensive and 
Defensive Tactics, and, then, later, the Flying Characteristics section) are what are 
important, the effective rules of the game for fighter pilots to remember in order to, at the 
least, survive encounters with the A6M. All that follows is the background from which 
these conclusions were drawn; providing specific information on where one’s aircraft 
might be at some particular advantage or disadvantage. For example, one might note the 
surprising performance in climb of the P-39 versus the A6M at altitudes below 15000 
feet, hardly what one would expect from an aircraft with a reputation as a clunker. Too 
bad there’s no discussion of relative maneuverability between the two types. 




> > R Leonard wrote:
> >
> > I believe the point was to remind USAAF pilots to avoid engaging in low speed
> > turning contests and keep their speed above the A6M2s optimal performance
> ...



But was 300 plus miles per hour unusual for combat situations in the fighters of the day?
Well, bearing in mind that max speed test are generally run at each aircraft starts the 
timed run at its optimal performance altitude and configuration, off hand, I’d say no, 300 
mph was not unusual. 

Let’s see, rated top speeds for 1942 types . . .

A6M2 – 335 mph 
Ki-27 – 295 mph
Ki-43 – 310 mph
F4F-4 – 320 mph
F4U-1 – 425 mph
P-38F – 405 mph
P-39D – 370 mph
P-40F – 360 mph
P-51 – 382 mph

(quick and dirty source:
http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft/edito/1969.html#204549 
with kph converted to mph at
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/conversions.html
and rounded to nearest 5.)

What the report does not come out and say, but the inference that should be drawn, is that 
the A6M pilot will probably not try to exceed 300 mph, knowing the limitations of his 
own aircraft. So, he would try to keep the fight at somewhat less that that in order to 
maintain his maneuver advantage. The report repeats the over 300 mph maneuver 
problem in several places and advises pilots to keep their speed at or above 300. When 
the report says not to dog fight with an A6M, this speed vs maneuverability issue is 
exactly what it is talking about, not getting down in a lower speed, turn and burn contest 
from which, in most cases, only the A6M would emerge.



> Look, I don't mean to say that US test pilots were not exceptional pilots or that the team did not take seriously the job. Fact is that planes performances depends on many
> parameters, and assuming that a Mitsubishi test team (pilot+service engineers) with
> thousands of hours in the type knows how to manage a zero better than a USAAF or
> NAVY test team is not offensive and not irrealistic. Unless we assume that Jap test teams
> ...



While it is certainly possible for an experienced Japanese aviator to squeeze a bit more 
out of this airplane than did the Americans, I’d point out that they were able to wrest a 
top speed of 326 mph out of it (see above for rated speed). They were able to, however 
vaguely referenced in the report, demonstrate the low speed maneuverability 
superiority of the A6M. They were able to demonstrate the relative climb advantages or 
disadvantages. They were able to demonstrate it’s weak point of poor high speed 
handling. And importantly, all of these held true historically. I guess I fail to see the 
significance of whether so and so pilot knew 100% of the tricks of trade of the A6M or 
the significance of whether the airframe was at 98% as opposed to 100%. Even if the 
pilot’s performance was less than an IJN pilot with “thousands of hours in type” or if the 
aircraft is only 99% restored, they certainly proved the A6Ms efficacy, or lack thereof, in 
these tests; which was the entire point of the exercise. 

What they did not prove, of course, and certainly NOT what I perceive you to be 
presenting, was that the Zero was some super plane, for it certainly was not. There is 
always the bottom line . . . if the A6M was in your words, “I believe that my original impression
‘ ... is superior or holding well in comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair’ is correct” 
how come it did not, historically, in action, turn in a better performance than it did? If a nice 
pristine Japanese maintained A6M2, that hadn’t been dragged out of a bog and rebuilt by 
apparently unskilled USN wrench twisters, was so great and the typical Japanese pilot so good 
and so experienced as to wring out 100% of the aircraft’s performance, why was it that against 
the F4F, the one plane in this report that it clearly cited as out performed by the A6M2 (the one 
that was not 100% mechanically and flown by pilots who couldn’t have been able to figure 
out its finer points), up through the Battle of Midway, before US numbers and tactics started 
to really make a difference, the F4F pilots out scored the A6M pilots 1.167 to 1? If the Japanese 
maintenance was so good and its pilots so talented why could they not achieve better that 
what was essentially a 1 for 1 tradeoff; a trade off the US could stand a lot longer than the 
Japanese? Was there some other factor or factors at work? In light of the report, what do 
you suppose is the explanation?


Regards,

Rich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Hmmm also good info there. I agree with your ideas that it must be different factors involvoved. I believe a major factor was the way the Japanese fought. If I recall in the beginning of the war they would only launch if there were bombers in the air. The US fighters could travel around and not even see a Japanese fighter. Correct me if I am wrong though. 

Also Japanese tactics may have been involved in this.

My last thought on this is the Japanese aircraft such as the Zero were just not as good as some people like to think. If they were then why did they not shoot down more US aircraft? Simple they were not as good.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2005)

The lack of kills by the Zero is more due to the lack of targets. After wiping out allied airpower in the region in the opening weeks of the war, there wasnt much left to shoot down. The Zero's were on the carriers, and after Pearl Harbor, up to Coral Sea, they only had two operations where they encountered significant (if you can call it that) opposition. They had operations in the Indian Ocean and against Darwin. Neither involved much air-to-air combat. By European standards, it could hardly qualify as a skirmish. It wasnt untill April/May 1942 that the AAF finally had enough fighters in Australia to actually put a squadron in the air at the same time.

A better measure of the Zero would be its kill ratio. For the first 6 months of the war, Over the PI and Java, they did well.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

The Ki-84 is also my favorite of the Japanese aircraft. It may not of had the maneuverability of the Oscar, but it was still a match for any Allied fighter in a dogfight. And the Oscar lacked its speed, firepower, durability, etc. etc. In fact, I think the Ki-84 might have been my favorite of all single-engined fighters.


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 23, 2005)

> A better measure of the Zero would be its kill ratio. For the first 6 months of the war, Over the PI and Java, they did well.



And just how well was that, against what opposition?

Rich


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2005)

They had success against the P40's, and some Hurricanes that ended up in Sumatra.


----------



## R Leonard (Sep 23, 2005)

Numbers?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2005)

Im at work now. I dont have access to the book that has the numbers.

"Bloody Shambles" a two volume set. Ever see it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> They had success against the P40's, and some Hurricanes that ended up in Sumatra.





R Leonard said:


> Numbers?



Right.....

Here we go again  

Here is an amazing wesite.....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html

I found in there a table for 1942 Kills/ Losses

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s)....

FEAF 
LOSSES 
Jan - 0
Feb - 44
Mar - 12
Apr - 0
May - 32
Jun - 28
Jul - 11
Aug - 11
Sep - 10
Oct - 0
Nov - 32
Dec - 8

FEAF
KILLS
Jan 0
Feb 20
Mar 14
Apr 14
May 14
Jun 20
Jul 4
Aug 41
Sep 0
Oct 6
Nov 25
Dec 54

For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations.

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943).

You were saying?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2005)

Thanks Flyboy. Great find.

If you look at the figures for Jan 42-May 42 (first 6 months of the war), the numbers were 88 losses and 62 kills.

Im looking for more info on actual Japanese loss's. Ive got some good leads im checking into.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> If you look at the figures for Jan 42-May 42 (first 6 months of the war), the numbers were 88 losses and 62 kills.



And that was probably the worse of times, retreating out of the PI, developing tactics, ect. Not bad for P-39s and P-40s and "green" pilots!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2005)

Heres an ultra rare color photo of a Wildcat about to be shot down. I dont think anyone has seen this before. The Zero was observed to easily maneuver to the tail of the F4F and get into shooting position. The F4F didnt have enough altitude to dive away, so its fate is sealed.

Actually, this was taken at Chino 2004. A demonstration of the Zero vs P40 and F4F. No matter how good the Wildcat and Warhawk were, if they were caught on the deck without a good head of speed, they were in serious trouble. The Zero also demonstrated its maneuverablity by easily getting out of the way of a P40 or F4F on its tail. 

The Thatch weave was also demonstrated. If the F4F pilots were diciplined, they could stay out of trouble. 

Note - they had both Chino Zero's take off at the same time as the P40's. The Zero's were up at 1000 ft with a full 360 turn before the P40's were in gear up condition!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2005)

Saw a similar demonstration at Chino in 1982. One of the first Zeros restored back to flying condition did a demonstration with an F6F. When the F6F slowed down and turned with the Zero, the Zero easily turned inside of him. This went on for about 5 minutes, then suddenly the F6F went vertical and started using a Yo-Yo to get inside the Zero. When the Zero attempted to go vertical, you could see the F6F just overpowered the Zero. A similar demostration was done with a Corsair, but the F4U stayed right with the Zero. I don't remember who the pilots were, but one of them might of been Steve Hinton.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 23, 2005)

Interesting.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2005)

I think I was at that airshow. I vaguely remember being at Chino right when the Zero was unveiled to the public. 1982 or 1983.

I need to go through the photo albums and see if I have anything.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 24, 2005)

I would venture to guess that Steve Hinton was one of them. I have a 45 minute video of mock combat with Steve Hinton flying the Corsair and Steve Barber flying our Zero. It was footage for a movie called "The Intrepid Story".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I would venture to guess that Steve Hinton was one of them. I have a 45 minute video of mock combat with Steve Hinton flying the Corsair and Steve Barber flying our Zero. It was footage for a movie called "The Intrepid Story".



And I think I seen this in April of 83'.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 24, 2005)

Actually, they just shot it earlier this year. The one they just shot is a documentary. It could be a remake of a previous one. I got to see part of the editted product. They mixed the Steves in with actual footage. It was pretty cool.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Sorry, I meant the dogfight between the F6F


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Found some interesting reading concerning early PTO conflict. I know it's long but this sheds some more light into the fact that the Japanese were dealt with as early as spring 1942. I bolded some points pertanant to our earlier dicussions.

"From: [email protected] (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: continuing saga of the Thach Weave
Date: 11 Aug 1997
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

While I am reading a lot of defense of the Thach Weave and explanations of
what it was, I note that there seems to be a complete lack of awareness of
the fact that there were two different American air forces fighting the
Japanese, one navy, one army. They flew different types of aircraft with
very different performance characteristics--and they developed different
tactics to handle their common foe.

The USAAF in the SWPA did not use the Thach Weave. One reason for this
was the aircraft they flew, in particular the P-40 and later the P-38 (and
to a limted extent the P-47). Let's stick to the P-40 because it was
contemporary with the F4F and was used by the army in the SWPA until Sept.
1944, and because the army pilots wrought havoc among the Japanese with
it. But keep in mind that all army fighters were very fast-diving ships
with good roll rates (even the P-38, which could overcome initial inertial
resistance to rolling by throttling back the inside engine briefly). [The
F4U had a good rate of roll, but the F6F did not.] {Army pilots who got a
chance to fly the Navy fighers liked the F4U but did not think much of
either the F4F or F6F.}

The P-40 was faster in level flight both on the deck and at the altitudes
most fighter combat took place at in the Pacific than either the F4F or
the Zero. It could accelerate faster than the F4F in level flight. It
could outroll it by a margin of at least two to one. The F4F was only
marginally able to outdive the Zero, if at all. It's acceleration in the
dive was poor. The P-40 could easily outdive the F4F and the Zero. Its
acceleration in the dive was phenomenal. The rate of climb of the F4F-4
was on par with that of the P-40E or P-40K. The P-40N could easily
outclimb it. In a fast, shallow climb, the P-40 could outclimb the Zero.
The F4F-4 could not do that. The P-40 had light controls and handled
beautifully. The F4F-4 had heavy controls and had to be manhandled
through aerobatics. Both the P-40 and F4F had good low-speed stall
characteristics, but the P-40 had a tighter turning circle. It could also
"ride the stall" better than the F4F, which tended to drop a wing.
Because its controls were so stiff, when that happened the pilot had to
devote his attention to controlling his aircraft, not what was going on
outside his cockpit. The P-40 driver, on the other hand, was in charge of
an airplane so responsive that he could always keep his head outside the
cockpit.

Army pilots in New Guinea and environs encountered not only the Zero and
the Oscar, but the Tony, the Tojo and the Nick. Their missions included
everything from escorting A-24 dive bombers (the SBD in olive drab) to
A-20 low level straffers to C-47s dropping parachute troops to B-24s on
high-level attacks, not to mention their own fighter sweeps and
anti-surface and anti-shipping attacks.

They developed a specific suite of tactics to handle their job. The two
men who were most instrumental in developing tactics used by the 49th
Fighter Group (which scored the highest number of air-to-air kills by a
USAAF fighter group in the Pacific and the third highest total in the war)
and by extension to other groups were Col. Paul "Squeeze" Wurtsmith,
group CO and Maj. Boyd "Buzz" Wagner, Ops Exec in the early days. Wagner
was the first USAAF ace of WWII.
The key points were:
*Point-blank shooting.
*The four-ship flight divided into two-ship elements, each aircraft flying
well apart from the others.

SHOOTING
The rule was get close. Then get closer. When you are so close you are
afraid of a collision, get in closer. Only then open fire.

A later Ops Exec, Gerry Johnson (22 kill), normally an affable guy, would
become furious with pilots who damaged enemy aircraft or got only
"probables." He would ream a pilot's butt out in public in no uncertain
terms. "You outflew the bastard," he would shout. "You got close enough
to hit him, but you let him get away. The next time, ram your guns up his
ass!"

Deflection shooting was known and understood. A number of kills were made
using it. The method of carrying it out was to track from behind the e/a
and bring the sight through the aircraft, just the same as if you were
shooting skeet.

But to ensure a kill, the preferred method was to goose the enemy pilot
with your prop spinner.

On the P-40, guns were boresighted to converge into a 12-inch box at 200
yards.

TACTICS
Four ships in a loose flight of two elements was the cornerstone. The two
ships in the element flew very loosely--definitely not a leader-wingman
formation. The leader was the shooter, the trailer designated to keep e/a
off his ass. Roles could be reversed, with the wingman becoming the
leader and shooter while the erstwhile leader became the eyeball man. The
two planes in the element could reverse roles many time during a fight.
If a flight was bounced, the two elements would split-S away in opposite
directions, then come back fast. It definitely did not mean the pilot
was fleeing, or abandoning his escort duties. It did mean he was
escaping the attentions of an e/a. It did mean he was picking up speed,
which he would transform into altitude very, very quickly. The P-40 was
particularly good at Split-S-ing because its roll rate was so quick. A
P-40 could simply disappear from the gunsight of an attacking Japanese
plane, showing up next not thousands of feet below--but thousands of feet
above, the pilot having zoom climbed in a chandelle above his foe.

If circumstances were such that you found it expedient to turn into a
Japanese fighter, normally he would break upward. While it would be
tempting to follow him upward, the sensible thing to do was to break down
and away. So whether attacked from ahead or behind, the P-40 pilot
dove--this was not running away; it was using your airplane to its best
advantage. In air combat, speed is life, and diving gave you speed.

No one carried out "lone wolf" maneuvers, but it was not uncommon to
become separated from wingmen. I'm sure this happened to Navy pilots, as
well. Lone wolves usually became dead wolves, so when separated the
highest priority was to link up with somebody--anybody--else.

Very often, because of the USAAF pilots' loose formation, attacking
Japanese pilots would not spot the wingman of an element or the second
element of a flight, placing themselves in immediate peril.

ATTUTUDE
Buzz Wagner told his boys that they must always keep three words uppermost
in their mind when encountering the enemy: Attack, Attack, Attack.
Gen. George Kenney told his fighter pilots that he wanted them to be "Jap
Killers."
Col. Wurthsmith told his pilots that the best way to protect bombers they
were escorting was to attack enemy aircraft so vigorously that they would
have time to think only of saving themselves.
Army pilots, in short, were taught to be aggressive and never to think
defensively.

RESULTS
Japanese pilots had a saying: "No one every returns alive from New
Guinea." Curtis LeMay said that the battle for air superiority over
Tokyo was won in the skies of New Guinea.
*Entire air regiments were wiped out by U.S. Army pilots. Fully 95 percent
of all Japanese army pilot with over 300 hours flight time died in New
Guinea. Japanese Navy pilots who encountered U.S. Army pilots were
savaged, as well. (I believe Dick Bong's first kill was a Navy Zero.)*
*The 49FG scored 668 confirmed air-to-air kills. P-40 drivers accounted
for 313 of these.*

[Regarding the efficacy of the Thach Weave in high performance aircraft
facing Zero type planes, the 475FG, an all P-38 unit, did not use the navy
maneuver, but nonetheless were credited with shooting down in air combat
547 Japanese planes while losing only 27 of their own to enemy aircraft.]

When U.S. Navy carrier planes raided the Philippines in Aug. and Sept.,
1944, opposition was so light that Adm. William Halsey's chief of staff,
Rear Admiral Robert Carey, wrote to Gen. Richard Sutherland that Gen.
George Kenney's army pilots had "just about spoiled the war for our
carriers."

That says it all."

And More!

"From: [email protected] (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-40B Warhawk
Date: 29 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

> Does anyone know which variant of the p-40 the Australians
>flew against the Japanese over Papua New Guinea in 1942.
>
>

In the spring--er, fall--of 1942 (March, April), RAAF 75 Squadron based at Port
Moresby was equipped with a version of the Curtiss H87-A, the Kittyhawk I
(probably comparable to the US Army's P-40D--but maybe not; don't even want to
get into that). Later they go P-40Es. *When the Americans arrived at Port
Moresby at the beginning of April, '42, equipped with P-39s, 75 Squadron was
down to about half a dozen flyable P-40s.*
Towards the end of April, after a lull, the Japanese intensified their air
raids on Moresby. On April 28, the 75S was able to hurl 7 P-40s at a force of
8 bombers and 9 fighters the Japanese sent over. Results no Japanese lost, two
P-40s lost (one chute sighted but pilot MIA within sight of the field, if you
can believe it--that's how rugged the terrain was in N.G. The other pilot
killed was Flight Officer Jack Jackson, a veteran of North Africa and months
fighting the Japanese. He had spent much time briefing the newly arriving
Americans about flying conditions in N.G. and the nature of the Japanese
opposition. He was well liked and his loss was keenly felt.)
At that time, the Japanese had established air supremacy over New Guinea. The
US was beginning to feed airplanes and crews into Moresby, but as fast as they
arrived the Japs wrecked them. On the April 27 raid, the squints (as they were
dubbed) destroyed 12 A-24s, a B-26 and a B-17 on the ground (75 Squadron was
unable to make contact before the raiders skeedaddled).
At this point, 75 Squadron was basically finished as a fighting force, as was
much of the RAAF in Australia--remember most of the Aussies were in the Med
saving Britain. They were too few, had fought too long alone against too many,
and could only do so much.
The brilliant Col. Buzz Wagner led a flight of some two dozen P-39s into Port
Moresby on the 30th, took a look at the situation and said to his troops, "Boys
the best defense is a good offense, so lets go offend some squints." He had a
dozen of the Bell ships refueled and they took off heading slightly west of
north to pay a visit to Lae. The 'Cobras wheezed over the Owen Stanleys (one
aborted) and came howling down on the Lae airstrip at tree top level, catching
about 10 bombers and 10 fighters readying for a raid on The Port. In one
screaming pass Wagner and his boys torched five of the bombers, then banked out
over the harbor and turned three moored floatplanes into flaming scrap. Wagner
then led his mob over to Salamaua where they shot the shit out of everything in
sight, including an ammo dump which blew with a terrific bang.
This raid marks the true end of the Japanese offensive in the SWPA. *From that
day forward, the Japanese would be pushed increasingly onto the defensive. The
RAAF played a significant role in the events that followed, especially with
their Beaufighters. They were extremely capable pilots. They transferred much
needed knowledge to the Americans without which USAAF successes would have been
fewer,especially in the early days, and casualties far higher.*"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 24, 2005)

Great post FJ.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Great post, very good info.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Thanks Guys - I'm also looking for some Japanese records as well, I think though this sums it all up....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Yeap I agree.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 24, 2005)

Good info, Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Today got an accurate count on USAAF strength in the South Pacific during the early months of WW2.

18 Mar 1942
USAAF units in Australia: 3 FGs:
8th (P-39s), 35th (P-400), 49th FG (P-40s)
337 P-40s (125 lost on Java, 75 to RAAF, 74 in repair, 100 in assembly, ~
40 in commission),
52/100+ P-400s,
33/90 P-39Ds. Pilots of "Limited" quality.

I found this page and compared it to some of the air-to-air claims/ losses posted for 1942, it matches pretty good. There's a few hyper links to other sites including more information on Japanese Squadrons...

Great Source!

http://uncleted.jinak.cz/pdf/AeroNotes4.pdf

I think with this "recent round of research" my conclusion is.....

1. The Zero, although formidable and comparable to any western fighter of the period, did not perform to it's reputation (or stories many of us heard as kids). In fact it seems by late summer 42' the P-39s, P-400s and P-40s were holding their own and even taking the sky away from the Japanese. 

2. The P-39 and P-40 did perform well when operated within the scope of their limitations. It seems the P-40 were the better of the two and remained deadly to Japanese forces until they started to be withdrawn in late 1944. Many P-38 aces got their first combat experiences in the P-39.

3. Although the Philippines and other territories were lost in the initial Japanese onslaught of December 1941, fighter losses were relatively moderate considering the momentum of the Japanese.

4. The numbers shown in previously posted links show that when the P-38 entered the theater, the Japanese began to suffer "catastrophic losses."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Great info there and I agree with your conclusions.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 24, 2005)

Wow great stuff guys. The P-40 is and always will be one of my favorites...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2005)

don't get me wrong i know she's a great bird but she's not one of my favourite...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2005)

I like the P-40. I see it as America's Hurricane.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2005)

Hats off to Flyboyj......... good job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

I like the P-40 for historical reasons but it is not one of my favorite aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Thanks Guys! And CC got it right, the P-40 was to the US as the Hurricane was to the UK!

One thing I noticed in this research. The Early P-38 aces who did well flying the P-39 must of mastered the fact that she was unstable as hell. Chuck Yeager said it was his favorite WW2 aircraft, probably because in the hands of a good pilot it could tumble and roll almost uncontrollably. I wonder if because of this is why it held it's ground against the Japanese?!?

We posted in an earlier thread the P-39 actually had 2 CGs!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

That would make for an interesting thread:

P-40 vs Hurricane


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

Yep!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 25, 2005)

Heres some results of what I've managed to find, for the time period of Dec 1941 through April 30 1942.

Using the book "A Bloody Shambles Vol 2" as a reference, I have not been able to find any evidence the Zero fighter fought in Burma. Only exception was for a single instance when the IJN raided the Indian Ocean. 

On Saturday, I dropped into a local bookstore and I found an interesting book (and I need to convince my wife it is a needed book for my library..... its expensive) about the IJN fighter pilots. In one of the appendix's, they listed by date the names of the fighter pilots who were KIA. Now remember that in the early part of the war, most if not all of the pilots of the IJN did not wear parachutes, so getting shot down was as good as a KIA. I looked at the dates from Dec 8th 1941 (I excluded Pearl Harbor) through April 30 1942. I noticed two things:

1) Aside from a single date, there were no KIA over Burma.
2) IJN fighter pilot loss's were only about 40
3) There was not a single occurance of more than three Zero pilots being KIA on the same date.

Now I have heard that the IJAAF and IJN fighter planes were misidentified frequently in the early part of the air war. The Zero fighter (a naval airplane) does look like the IJAAF Ki-27, Ki-43 or Ki-44. Those three fighter are admitidly inferior fighters. So when some people argue that the Allied fighters in the CBI had no problem fighting the Zero, we should be aware, the Zero never flew in that theater.

I also have some info on the P39's in New Guinie. The first American group to fly the P39 in that part of the world was the 8th FG. Their first P39's didnt arrive into Port Moresby untill April 28th 1942. Their first mission didnt occur untill April 30th. And that only involved 11 planes.

As I find more info, I will be happy to share. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let me know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

If the 39th FS was in the 8FG, youll find they did well until they replaced thier -39s with -38s. Read the earlier post about Buzz Wagner and the sweep he led over Port Morsby, I'm thinking this was the sweep you're talking about...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

I've been doing some thinking and I don't believe it would be possible to have 2 CGs. 

Let's assume for a second that it is hypothetically possible for an aircraft to have two CGs. If that were the case, then there would be a point in the aircraft exactly half-way between the two CGs around which the aircraft would be perfectly balanced. What do you suppose we would call that point? The center of gravity. 

An aircraft's center of gravity might change due to weapon of fuel load (the P-51 had some stability problems due to a changing CG as the fuel in the fuselage tank was burned off) but I don't see how a plane could have two CGs at the same time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I've been doing some thinking and I don't believe it would be possible to have 2 CGs.
> 
> Let's assume for a second that it is hypothetically possible for an aircraft to have two CGs. If that were the case, then there would be a point in the aircraft exactly half-way between the two CGs around which the aircraft would be perfectly balanced. What do you suppose we would call that point? The center of gravity.
> 
> An aircraft's center of gravity might change due to weapon of fuel load (the P-51 had some stability problems due to a changing CG as the fuel in the fuselage tank was burned off) but I don't see how a plane could have two CGs at the same time.



The -39 could be really unstable and it was because of the position of the engine and the discharge of armament. Bell engineers established two CG points because of this, data about this was posted in an earlier thread, I suggest you look in the archives and this is explained in detail. One CG established a lateral CG, the other established a vertical CG. Just because you have the two CG points together, it didn't mean things were going to remain that way and that was definitely the case with the -39. As a matter of fact the two were rarely together when the aircraft was loaded. The GC "envelope" for both CGs was very narrow. Pilots had a song about the P-39 (also posted on an earlier thread).

"Don't give a P-39, the one with the engine behind

She'll tumble and roll, and make make a big hole

God, don't give me a P-39!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2005)

Funny song.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2005)

Well, here's another verse...

"Don't give me a P-38, the props they counter-rotate.
She's scattered and sittin from Burma to Britain
Don't give me a P-38."

The most memorable quote I recall about the P-39 was one pilot who said he'd rather have a truck: it was faster and had a higher ceiling.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2005)

Perhaps! But the Russians and 39th FS did well with them, maybe not out of choice, but they learned how to make the aircraft work for them..


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 26, 2005)

LG.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2005)

The only US fighter I would take over the P-38 would be the Corsair or the P-47.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

I could understand the Corsair. But I consider the P-47 inferior. P-38 would out-turn, out-range, out-climb, dive with, and out run every P-47 except the M.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

I just happen to really like the P-47 that is the only reason why.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 28, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I could understand the Corsair. But I consider the P-47 inferior. P-38 would out-turn, out-range, out-climb, dive with, and out run every P-47 except the M.



I concur more or less.

The Corsair -4 was almost equal with a P-38L. The P-38 could still out accelerate, out range and fly higher. The corsair had an extra hard point (they had the same 4,000lb rating but the F4U was easier to cheat with) and could land on a carrier, in every other catagory they were essentialy equal. Had more performance been needed in WWII the P-38K was available for production.

I would trade a P-38 for a Corsair only if I were going Navy.

wmaxt


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2005)

P-38 would also out-gun, out-dive, and out-turn the Corsair. Top speed and climb between the F4U-4 and the P-38L were practically a dead heat.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 4, 2005)

Also witht the P-38, you get the reliability of two engines. id feel much more secure flying with two, even though they were inline, and the radial of the corsair could take more punishment from battle damage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Ill agree with you but of the 3 aircraft I just happen to like the P-47 better. I like the way it looks so stubby and mean. Mostly though I like the fact that it was just a great all around aircraft. So were the P-38 and the Corsair. All three obviously had there areas where they would out do the other and all three are top notch aircraft.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 4, 2005)

Agreed. Though the P-47 has alot going for it. Rugged as can be, eight 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, and with the bubble canopy it really came into its own. The P-38 had four 12.7mm machine guns, but they were clustered around a 20mm cannon, and were centralized in the nose, and with that firepower, could saw through and enemy aircraft. The corsaid had six 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, giving adequate firepower, and the P-38 and corsair could aslo take punishment. But the P-38 requires you to be a good shot, and isnt as manouverable, and the corair has only six, compared to eight wing guns.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

The P38 simplified gunnery as you didnt have convergence issues.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 4, 2005)

Yeah, simplified for the ground crew, but what about the pilots? you needed to be a much better shot. Same arguement for the 109s, when the armament was concentrated in the nose, made it hardy for rookies to hit what they wanted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Yeah, simplified for the ground crew, but what about the pilots? you needed to be a much better shot. Same arguement for the 109s, when the armament was concentrated in the nose, made it hardy for rookies to hit what they wanted.



Nope, like anything else it was a matter of training and natural ability. You had P-38 pilots like Tom Lynch, Gerald Johnson, Jack Jones, Bob Westbrook and Robert DeHaven who flew P-39s and P-40s with success and then continued with the P-38. If anything their gunnery skills got better when they started flying the P-38. I had a neighbor, Col. Mike Alba, who flew P-38s and P-51s in Europe and he said the -38 was a way better gun platform.....

In 1944 when Dick Bong returned stateside he underwent gunnery training. By that time tactics were refined and in Bong's own words "my scored would of been double had I had this training in 1943." When he returned to the Pacific in late 1944 he was knocking down several planes at a time and retuning to base with ammunition left over.....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

Having zero convergence meant that they had a concentrated stream of bullets going out several hundred yards. There was no issue of only a few hitting the target due to dispersal.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 4, 2005)

Maybe so, but Richard Bong himself claimed that he had poor gunnery skills. His way to solve that? He got as close as possible before firing. He admits he was a poor shot, but he still managed to down 40 enemy airplanes, almost all of them with the P-38. Having the guns directly in front was proven to make it _better_ for gunners. Wing guns make it more difficult as you have to worry about convergence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Having zero convergence meant that they had a concentrated stream of bullets going out several hundred yards. There was no issue of only a few hitting the target due to dispersal.



And the guys noted, flying both aircraft with a convergence and zero convergence easily adapted, mainly by getting as close as possible to the target and blasting away. In the 38 some aces actually used the .50s as a "feeler" and when they started getting hits they let go with the 20mm....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 4, 2005)

Yep. It's funny how three of us responded at darn near the same time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)




----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

Two things, 

1, I have only heard of P-38s in relation to Bong in fact its mentioned in many of the excerpts about him.

2, I've seen interviews of MaGuires an Linchs wing men telling about kills being made at ~1mile with that focused firepower.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

I've read that Lynch, if not killed, might of been the US ace of aces....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I've seen interviews of MaGuires an Linchs wing men telling about kills being made at ~1mile with that focused firepower.
> 
> wmaxt



I find that impossible to believe. At one mile those bullets and cannon shells are spent and have deviated far from their trajectories. The dispersion at that range, even firing with a year 2005 computer assisted gunsite you would still miss.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 5, 2005)

Convergence doesn't only work on the horizontal plane, it works in the vertical too. So you CAN have convergence issues with planes like a P-38, Bf-110 or a Bf-109.

Bullets dont just go straight out and then drop away in a curve. The fly in a defined ballistic arc, intially passing above the sightline then curving fallling through and below the sightline. Even a heavy, high velocity round like a 12.7x99 is going to travel in a curve, even if the trajectory is described as 'flat'. Flat is a relative term. 

So if you have your guns on your P-38 or 109 set to converge at 150 meters targets beyond this are going to take some adjustment nose up, and targets closer than this may take some adjustments nose down.

A Mk 108 round, having worse intial velocity and aerodynamics than a 12.7 or 20mm round is obviously going to have a much more pronounnced arc.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 5, 2005)

Its just my preference to have the firepower somehwat proportionate between the inner wings and the nose. Im sure im gonna catch alot of crap for it, but thats me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen interviews of MaGuires an Linchs wing men telling about kills being made at ~1mile with that focused firepower.
> ...



Its deffinatly hard to believe but I would not be surprised if it did happen. You aim your shots right and fire ahead of a traget you could walk them into your target. Well thats not the way I mean to put it though.... Basically it is possible is what I am tryign to say.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 6, 2005)

It is possible, but highly improbable. The velocities of the bullets would have dropped off to the point where they wouldnt have much energy IF they hit something. Plus the normal dispersion of the bullet stream would mean only a few would hit anything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

Not if it was a good concentration of rounds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

And it was also impossible for a P-38 to turn inside a zero under 300 knots and yet the likes of McGuire, Bong and Lynch accomplished this on numerous occasions with dozens of witnesses - these guys weren't the "Averave Joe."

Could it be done? - possibly. Was it done? Ask their wingmen!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

Exactly I dont think it would be somethign that was doen all the time but on rare occasions I can believe it.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

"Average Joe" FB? Oh, an average you! Oh...that was bad...I haven't had alcohol in two weeks!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> "Average Joe" FB? Oh, an average you! Oh...that was bad...I haven't had alcohol in two weeks!



 ! Well what's wrong lad, on the wagon?!?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

No, two weeks ago I injured myself while very drunk and the wounds have only just healed up. To put it simply, I had a fight with the road and the road won. That...and I'm all out of money so I've been working 12 hours a day to get some. Friday night here I come...!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No, two weeks ago I injured myself while very drunk and the wounds have only just healed up. To put it simply, I had a fight with the road and the road won. That...and I'm all out of money so I've been working 12 hours a day to get some. Friday night here I come...!



Well sorry to hear that, hope you're felling better - have a pint for me Friday night and remember, the road is always going to win!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

I know. It was an obvious case of street crime. Oh no...I did it again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 6, 2005)

A bad case of road rage, eh? 
Get it? Because he hit the road, and the road...Oh never mind.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

It was quite the shocker for everyone who saw me the next day. As I had been out since 7pm and been drinking 'til 5am, I trekked back into town from a friends house to get a bus home and I'd only noticed what had happened (the extent of injury) like a hour before. Being drunk I obviously didn't feel anything ...but when I was walking I started to sober up, luckily it was quite cold and I was only wearing what I had on the night before and I was cold, very-very cold which equals numb. ...and as I didn't realise, I was bleeding everywhere ...completely covered in blood. The townsfolk weren't too impressed, I'll tell you that much. 

Oh yeah and I got into town at 6am, forgot it was now sunday when the first bus home didn't run until 10am.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

GOD - I hate when that happens!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

Luckily McDonalds opened at 6:30am so I sat in there spending what remained of my money from the night before feeding myself and getting about six cups of coffee. ...and bleeding on the floor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

I have an old Ontario driver's License with my photo taken after a night like that - I feel the pain in my face even as I think about it!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

It was an extremely wild night out, a friend's birthday. There were fifteen of us and only one made it without being injured or ill. One of them broke his wrist falling off a seven foot wall but didn't realise until the next day!

Personally, the combat with the road bruised my jaw and all the left side of my body. Cut my left shoulder open, grazed both elbows and arms as well as both knees and did serious damage to my hand in the way of several cuts and one opening that went right down to the bone. They're almost healed now. I've become quite the old hand at healing my drunken injuries. Bandaged all up, changed the dressing everyday and washed with anti-septic ...it works wonders.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

No drinking for me tonight. I have an appointment to get my next tattoo and I dont want have alcohol in my system for that.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 7, 2005)

d, do we need to send you a helmet for the walk home from those nights?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

A William Holden crash helmet?!?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 7, 2005)

Man when I drank that much, I usually woke up on a roof somewhere. I woke up in a supermarket loading bay one time. I think the instinct was just to find a secure place to sleep it off, and hope I didn't piss myself through the night.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

how'd you get on the roof?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 7, 2005)

You know, the usual ways: Fire escapes, drainage pipes, levitation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

I woke up face down in a gutter at the Rose Parade, New Years Day 1980. Someone covered me with a blanket and there was these 2 little kids using me as a hill for their hot wheels track! I was hung over for 3 days!


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 7, 2005)

HAHA


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

LOL


----------



## evangilder (Oct 7, 2005)

hehe Joe. I had a friend that lived just off the parade route. We partied the night before and then crashed at his house so we could be warm.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 7, 2005)




----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

I have this amazing instinct to get home no matter how drunk I am. I might take a few miles of a detour but I always manage to get home. It's quite impressive. 

And I'm going out tonight ...watch out road, I'm going to kick your ass!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I have this amazing instinct to get home no matter how drunk I am. I might take a few miles of a detour but I always manage to get home. It's quite impressive.
> 
> And I'm going out tonight ...watch out road, I'm going to kick your ass!


I find the same thing pD I almost always get home (just can't remember how! )


----------



## evangilder (Oct 8, 2005)

I had one time where I didn't make it home. I was coming back from the airmen's club at Lakenheath and a buddy shoved me into the bushes. I was so drunk I couldn't get out of the bushes. I woke up at dawn still in the bushes!  I didn't even go to the barracks at that point, I headed straight to the chow hall for some coffee.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

Well at least you were smart enough to go for the coffee!!!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 8, 2005)

Well, not sure it was smart enough. I had a punding headache and a need for coffee. I think I was pretty much on auto-pilot to the chow hall!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

Oh ...I went out last night. I'm always up early after a long night out, it's a miracle. But I went out and didn't fight the road ...but I helped a girl who did! I was stood there waiting for my friend to get some money out and just across the road a girl falls face first into the road. It took my like half a hour to sort her out and I offloaded her on to the police. They were unhappy and wouldn't take her at first until I told 'em I only 'know' her 'cos she collapsed in the street.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

I'm assuming they carted her off to the drunk tank? That's something I've always managed to avoid. I'd sooner sleep on a roof somewhere than spend the night in that hole!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

Nah, they took her home 'cos it was only like two minutes away by car. She was telling me she was going to walk home while she was still face first on the ground ...which by the way was soaking wet 'cos it'd just finished raining like fifteen minutes before. And she thought someone had stolen her shoes until I picked her up and found them underneath her. The thing is she's very lucky I was there most people would either just leave her ("It's not my problem") or they'd steal her stuff ...or worse case scenario they'd escort her somewhere and rape her. What a silly moo she is...


----------



## evangilder (Oct 9, 2005)

Scary. I have to admit I don't miss those days. I did have some fun, but I don't miss the hangovers or the odd cuts, scrapes and bruises.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

I enjoy 'em. The cuts and bruises don't bother me, they're all stories. But she's very lucky there are still people with some decency around. The bad thing is I might have helped her but how many other women got themselves in the same state and something bad did happen to them. If you can't handle alcohol ...don't drink it!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 9, 2005)

Or at least don't go out alone like that. SHe could have ended up in far worse shape.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

Yes...getting some friends would be helpful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

For the beer conversation there is now a Thread on Beer continue that there.


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Jan 5, 2007)

People are free to bring up various faults of the Zero but this is not relevant to the abilities of the best Japanese aircraft because the Japanese had planes that were superior to the Zero. The F2A Buffalo is not regarded as one of World War II's best fightes but analysis of this plane says nothing about the abilities of the best American aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2007)

Cojimar 1945 said:


> People are free to bring up various faults of the Zero but this is not relevant to the abilities of the best Japanese aircraft because the Japanese had planes that were superior to the Zero.


The aircraft that were better than the Zero were not produced in the numbers to really make the difference or were not deployed properly...

BTW the Oscar was the 2nd most "significant" Japanese fighter of WW2.


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Jan 8, 2007)

That is correct but the US outproduced Japan by a big margin during the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

The US out-produced everyone  but the japaneese weren't geared up for a big war like that, they'ed placed their production so fully into a few types such as the Zero and Betty that when newer fighters came along it was almost impossible to change production over to the newer, better types..........


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 9, 2007)

The long war in China had already hurt Japan, and by the time they attacked
the US, they were already rationing. The hope was that Americans didn't
have any fight in them, and would pursue a quick peace. The Japanese
really misunderstood our psyche, although Yamamoto, who had studied in the 
US, always knew what was coming...


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 9, 2007)

> but the US outproduced Japan by a big margin during the war


Probably something the Japanese should have thought of before leaping over the precipice.
Discussion usually focuses on the A6M series because most of the really juicy evaluation reports are on the A6M2, 3, and 5. 
Probably doesn't hurt either that A6M series (and not counting the A6M2-N), with a production of 10449 made up 32% of total Japanese fighter production. Add in the A6M2-N (327) and you get 33%. Nearest competitor was the Ki-43, with a production run of 5919; 18.1% of overall fighter production and 56% of the A6M production. And it just goes down hill from there:
Ki-84 3510 or 10.8% of fighter production
Ki-27 3399 or 10.4% of fighter production
Ki-61 2803 or 8.6% of fighter production
Ki-45 1701 or 5.2% of fighter production
N1K1,2 1435 or 4.4% of fighter production
Ki-44 1225 or 3.8% of fighter production
J1N 479 or 1.5% of fighter production
J2M 476 or 1.5% of fighter production
Ki-100 396 or 1.2% of fighter production
and
A6M2-N 1.0% of fighter production
and everything else are each less than 1% of production.
So, with the A6M by far exceeding all other fighter production, and the relatively availability of reports, it is not hard to see why there is a tendency to focus on it as opposed to others.

Rich


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 17, 2007)

I really do think though that the A6M was being built long after it was no-longer effective as a front-line fighter. That is where the switch comes in around the time of the Battle of the Coral Sea in that you have novice pilots flying machines which have fallen behind the start of the art. True you can make up for this kind of defect if you have a pilot who knows his plane and has studied his enemy well as a veteran pilot, but these were starting to thin out around the Battle of the Coral Sea...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I really do think though that the A6M was being built long after it was no-longer effective as a front-line fighter. That is where the switch comes in around the time of the Battle of the Coral Sea in that you have novice pilots flying machines which have fallen behind the start of the art. True you can make up for this kind of defect if you have a pilot who knows his plane and has studied his enemy well as a veteran pilot, but these were starting to thin out around the Battle of the Coral Sea...



Novice pilots? Hardly. It wasnt untill the Guadalcanal campaign that the IJN started to lose the cream of its pilots.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Okay, I had always had the impression that the Battle Of The Coral Sea was when Novice Pilots started filling in the IJN gaps in the line... But still the comment about the A6M Zero still stands that it was less than effective as a frontline naval fighter at that time...


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 21, 2007)

As most long time readers here could no doubt affirm, I can say some pretty unkind things about the A6M2, but, one thing I would not say is that in 1942 it was less than effective as a front line naval fighter. The A6M2 was, within its optimal performance envelope, superior to its primary adversary, the F4F. Outside that envelope the superiority went away and they were relatively equal, each with their own strong points, each with their own deficiencies. If you want to talk about mid to late 1943, when the F6Fs and the F4Us were appearing on the scene, certainly the A6M2 was by that time clearly outclassed. If you were to speak to the USN fighter pilots active in 1942 (and, unfortunately, there are but a handful of them left) I seriously doubt if you could find a one who would say the A6M2 was less than effective as a front line fighter.

Rich


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

Okay, just the impression I have always got. Okay, its wrong but that is what seems to be behind the lines in most documentaries.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Sakae 21 radial engine?


----------

