# Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190



## Chiron (Apr 18, 2005)

How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?

Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

the spit's got the zero beat.........


----------



## Chiron (Apr 18, 2005)

"the spit's got the zero beat........."

I believed Zero actually outclassed Spitfire in early Pacific war, due to its superior dog fight and its unbelieved long range capability.

"The British fared no better than the Americans did. The RAF squadrons stationed in Malaya were flying the American Brewster Buffalo; a short barrel shaped fighter that was outmoded before it reached the front. Aware of its lack of performance the British had banished the fighter to Burma, away from combat with the superior German Bf-109. The general impression was that the Japanese had nothing but outdated biplanes that would not be a match for the Brewster fighter. When the British Buffaloes came in contact with the A6M they were sliced to ribbons.

To reduce their losses the RAF decided to replace the outmatched Buffalo with the more formidable Hawker Hurricane, famed for its decisive role in the Battle of Britain. Unfortunately, its pilots also found that fighting a Zeke on its terms was practically hara-kiri. Finally, the British threw their best at the Japanese, the fabled Supermarine Spitfire. To the Allies dismay, this fighter also could not compare with the incredibly nimble Zero. In only two engagements, Zeros downed 17 of 27 while losing 2 of their own.

It seemed the A6M was an unstoppable juggernaut. It soon gained the reputation of being invincible. Everywhere it was encountered, the Zero vanquished its enemies."

-http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2005)

The Fw-190 would B&Z a Zero to death, and so would faster Spit's such as the IX. However going into a Dogfight with the Zero was stupid, especially below 300 mph where it could be called suicide.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2005)

I have to agree. See your adversary first, zoom the Zeke pilot and he won't have a chance. Not a competition with equal piloting skills.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 18, 2005)

Off course, the heavy armament of the FW can make a flyng torh of ANY cero version. 

And eve if it took some hits from the jap craf, his superior armour woud protect it very well.


----------



## Chiron (Apr 18, 2005)

"However going into a Dogfight with the Zero was stupid,"

Ya, I have to agree on that, Zero was a superior dogfighter, probably the best dogfither. I also want to point out that Zero was a very capable plane which was designed as long range and carrier based plane. It unsurpassed range gave it upperhand in the conflict of Spitfire in Pacific.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Chiron (Apr 18, 2005)

"Off course, the heavy armament of the FW can make a flyng torh of ANY cero version."

Not too sure about that, as I post evidence earlier, Spitfires proven itself inferior to Zero in Pacific war. So, if a Zero can deal easier with Spitfire, it probably had good chance against with FW.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2005)

Chiron said:


> "the spit's got the zero beat........."
> 
> I believed Zero actually outclassed Spitfire in early Pacific war, due to its superior dog fight and its unbelieved long range capability.
> 
> ...



Tactics had alot to do with the dismal performance of the Spit against the zero. The Brits were still flying tight finger 3 formations (most figured out not to do that after the battle of britian) and attempted to dogfight the zero in the horizontal. Until the zero was taken on in pairs And the fight was done in the "vertical," the zero couldn't be beat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 19, 2005)

Sorry my awful spell, I mean "Flying torch"

Seems that yesterday I forgot to take my medication.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

and the spit did fine against the zero...........


----------



## Wawny (Apr 20, 2007)

Check this link - Supermarine Spitfire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The top article is by my Dad who flew the Spitfire in the Australian test against a Zero. The tail of the Spitfire was bent 9 degrees in the manouvering. Both machines are pretty awesome in their own right. I still like the Spitty though. 
Cheers
Clive Wawn (jr)


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

Chiron said:


> "Off course, the heavy armament of the FW can make a flyng torh of ANY cero version."
> 
> Not too sure about that, as I post evidence earlier, Spitfires proven itself inferior to Zero in Pacific war. So, if a Zero can deal easier with Spitfire, it probably had good chance against with FW.



There is no doubt that in the early combats between the Spit and the Zero the Spit was hammered, but its wrong to assume that this was the natural situation. 
They went against the Zero and tried dogfighting and we know the result was. It was a natural mistake seeing how the Spits excelled at dogfighting everywhere else.
However once the lesson was learnt the Spits were able to gain the upper hand.

Of the three assuming that we are talking about the Spit V then its 
1) FW190
2) Spit V
3) Zero

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Apr 20, 2007)

I think you nailed it Glider. In a turning angles fight below 275 mph the Zero had no peers. The Spitfire pilots could not use the the same tactics used against the BF109. However a Zero with an expert pilot flying it could be tough to handle unless you surprised him.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Is it true that all Japanese planes did not carry a radio? I think I recall reading this, and anyone who has done military flying can attest that that is a SERIOUS handicap. Aerial combat is based upon tactics - not the sexy spreadsheet figures that we try to break a plane down into. Granted, superior performance gives advantages, but different A/C had strengths and weaknesses. It's the tactics and training that set apart the pathetic force that Japanese aviation degenerated into vice the juggernauts they butt up against.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I recall Zeros having their radios uninstalled to save weight for long range missions. So that would have meant that they did have them.
I know that the Japanese radios in general were very bad. 

Just a thought but perhaps only the commander had a speaker while the others had only receivers, like with Russian tanks?

Kris


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I recall Zeros having their radios uninstalled to save weight for long range missions. So that would have meant that they did have them.
> I know that the Japanese radios in general were very bad.
> 
> Just a thought but perhaps only the commander had a speaker while the others had only receivers, like with Russian tanks?
> ...



I seem to have found that Japanese zeros had a acute shortage of radios about midway through '42...

Anybody with anything else on this? Sorry, I know this is slightly off topic. But, not having radio tranceivers in the A/C is a major deficiency. SA starts to diminish very rapidly. At that point, so much for coordinated actions. Sure, you can use hand signals from the cockpit, but that really only works well in a parade or modified parade position... which you don't use in combat.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 21, 2007)

Chiron said:


> "the spit's got the zero beat........."
> 
> I believed Zero actually outclassed Spitfire in early Pacific war, due to its superior dog fight and its unbelieved long range capability.
> 
> "...Hawker Hurricane, famed for its decisive role in the Battle of Britain. Unfortunately, its pilots also found that fighting a Zeke on its terms was practically hara-kiri. Finally, the British threw their best at the Japanese, the fabled Supermarine Spitfire. To the Allies dismay, this fighter also could not compare with the incredibly nimble Zero. In only two engagements, Zeros downed 17 of 27 while losing 2 of their own.


The general idea that page gives is somewhat correct, though the summary is a little misleading IMO:

-Landbased Spitfires met A6M2's in only one period, during 1943 in defence of Darwin, Australia. The results per each side's loss records were very heavily in favor of the Zeroes. They downed around 28 Spitfire V's v. 3 A6M's and 1 Japanese Army Oscar (they flew one of the raids). It was over a number of escorted bombing raids and fighter sweeps by the Japanese, not just two. The Spit losses *do not* include heavy operational (fuel and engine failure) losses they suffered, *in addition*. See Price "Spitfire V Aces" for one account of this. The Allied claims at the time made the situation appear less unfavorable (and naturally, the Japanese claims made it look even more favorable to them). Many accounts using only Allied claims say the Spits adjusted their tactics and turned the situation around: the records of Japanese losses don't support that.

-Hurricane/Buffalo's in 1942 were mainly facing Japanese Army fighters, Oscars and the earlier Nates (Type 97 Ki-27). They did poorly. Hurricanes did meet Japanese Navy fighters (Zeroes) on a couple of occasions in Malaya/DEI, and over Ceylon; they were completely routed.

-Spits including later models operated in Burma with eventual reasonable success, but again that was the Japanese Army, never met A6M's there.

-FAA Seafires had one documented real fighter combat where they claimed 'Zeroes', in August 1945. They claimed several for IIRC zero or one loss, but the Japanese side of the combat, and even the actual Japanese types involved, is not known. Seafires shot down kamikazes and bombers too, but that was the only real fighter combat AFAIK.

In the one prolonged contest between Spit V's and Zeroes in 1943, the Spits did not do well. In other circumstances they may have done better (the Spit seemed more sensitive to rough tropical operating conditions than other types). But that campaign of quite a few combats, not one or two flukes, should give pause IMO to statements the Spit was 'far superior' to the Zero. As far as A6M2 v Spit V; late mark Spit could be a different story.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

I often hear about the heavy losses sufferred by the Spitfires against the Zero's but cannot find anything to back it up one way or the other. Ones that I can find on the web are unclear.

Can I ask where these stats come from. I have an appointment at the Imperial War Museaum reading room and will be able to look into it if you can tell me where to look.

Any help would be appreciated.

David


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

This is the best that I can come up with but doesn't cover types. If you could comment I would appreciate it

A rough check shows that 1 Spitfire Wing was credited with 74 confirmed, 22 probables and 52 damaged in 1943, broken down as:

457 Squadron 28-9-20
54 Squadron 22 plus one shared, 6-20
452 Squadron 15-7-11
Wg Cdr Caldwell 7 plus one shared
Grp Capt Walters 1


----------



## Hop (Apr 21, 2007)

> The results per each side's loss records were very heavily in favor of the Zeroes. They downed around 28 Spitfire V's v. 3 A6M's and 1 Japanese Army Oscar (they flew one of the raids).



To be fair the Japanese were usually escorting bombers, which the Spitfires attacked, so the enemy bomber losses should be included too.

They amounted to 

6 Ki 46
1 Ki 49
5 G4M



> The Spit losses *do not* include heavy operational (fuel and engine failure) losses they suffered, *in addition*. See Price "Spitfire V Aces" for one account of this.



Again to be fair they do not include those losses that are specifically attributed to accidents etc. In many cases the text does not make clear the cause of the loss (and in many cases it probably wasn't known)


----------



## JoeB (Apr 21, 2007)

Hop said:


> 1. To be fair the Japanese were usually escorting bombers, which the Spitfires attacked, so the enemy bomber losses should be included too.
> 
> They amounted to
> 
> ...


1. The Ki-46's were lone recon planes. It accomplished a military purpose to down them of course but didn't reflect on the Spit's capability v the Japanese fighters. When it comes to escorted bombers, one can say the escorting fighter is at a disadvantage (we had to protect the bombers, not worry about fighter-fighter exchange ratio!); or the attacking fighter is (we had to shoot down bombers, not worry about fighter-figher exchange ratio!), and both somewhat contradicting arguments have been used. But clearly it also benefits either fighter force in a prolonged escorting bombing campaign to attrite the other fighter force, and in contrast you are unlikely to actually accomplish the primary mission of attacking/defending the bombers if the other fighter force has the heavy upper hand in exchange ratio. As in this case, it adds info to list the bombers losses too, thanks; it also shows the Japanese bombers suffered pretty light losses, which must be viewed as a byproduct of their fighter superiorty. We know from other cases (eg. Guadalcanal) that those same J-bomber types suffered heavy losses when their fighters could not maintain the upper hand as they did at Darwin 1943.

2. True, cause is not always clear for losses during combat missions in that book, and it might not be knowable from any surviving source. But just to be clear it does not include the known operational losses, which over the whole deployment of those Spit units, including non combat missions, was pretty staggering.

The basic picture is clear: the Spits were pretty ineffective destroying Japanese fighters in that campaign, and not very effective against the escorted bombers either. They were however a serious threat to the Ki-46 Dinah type recon planes. And the presence of any significant Allied fighter force meant unescorted day raids were not practical. So when the fighters (the 202nd Air Group) were urgently needed elsewhere (New Guinea fall 1943) the day raids on Darwin had to stop.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WEMM (Dec 3, 2007)

as I understand it, the spitfire MK VII was designed specifically to fight the Zero both the mark VII and Mark IX were superior in speed and kept high air speed making use of dive and climb tactics that the zero could not match, also the zero and zeke tended to become sluggish at very high air speed alolowing the spit to follow them.


----------



## HellToupee (Dec 4, 2007)

From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.

Escort fighters get the tactical advantage over the interceptors.



WEMM said:


> as I understand it, the spitfire MK VII was designed specifically to fight the Zero both the mark VII and Mark IX were superior in speed and kept high air speed making use of dive and climb tactics that the zero could not match, also the zero and zeke tended to become sluggish at very high air speed alolowing the spit to follow them.



Mk VII was a very high alt interceptor, designed to fight things like the ju86 not the zero, and the IX was a recon variant.

Your probly thinking of the VIII, which was pretty much a normal fighter version of the VII deployed to the far east due to its improved range, or the Seafire XV first griffon seafire.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2007)

Suspect that you are getting your IX's a fighter mixed up with your XI's a PR version.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Dec 5, 2007)

I have to give credit to the Japanese for creating such a great aircraft but I have no idea how would it be against a FW but FW was very good at intercepting bombers while the Zero was a fighter from its "birth"...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 5, 2007)

The FW 190A would probably have torn the Zero to shreds. They had more powerful guns than the P-47 or P-38, and were as manuverable. The Zero would still have been able to outmanuver it in a close dogfight, if it could avoid the guns.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 5, 2007)

HellToupee said:


> From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.


I don't think you've read accurate accounts then. The Spitfires did terribly in fighter-fighter exchange, and didn't actually shoot down many escorted Japanese bombers either, see the specific losses on each side listed in posts above on this thread. Many Spit losses were mechanical but known operational losses are excluded from the losses given above. Some unknown cause losses on missions v Zeroes could have been operational, some of the handful of Zeroes and single Type 1 (Ki-43, Oscar) lost in the whole campaign might have been operational too. But no plausible unbiased accounting of loss causes would make the fighter exchange ratio less than several to one against the Spitfires (if it 'on principle' rejects one side's loss accounts while accepting the other's it's non unbiased  ). 

Each side's claims far exceeded the others recorded losses, which might be why you have the misimpression you do. Perhaps your un-named source assumed Spit claims =Japanese losses without knowledge of the Japanese accounts, that results in a very inaccurate picture in this case. Both side's victory credits exceeded the other side's account of their losses by factor of 3+ , but the factor was higher wrt to Spit credits against Japanese fighters specifically.

The major escorted raids which resulted in fighter combats were mainly against the Darwin region, and one main Japanese base at Timor was launching all those raids. The Spits had radar warning, as USAAF P-40's defending Darwin the previous year had also had, from March 1942. 
The numbers of escorts and Spit's which scrambled for each escorted raid combat are as follows (from Price "Spitfire V Aces"):
March 2 1943: 21 Zeroes, 24 Spits
March 15: 26 Zeroes, 27 Spits
May 2: 26 Zeroes, 33 Spits
May 9: 9 Zeroes, 5 Spits (Spits intercept strafing Zeroes)
May 28: 7 Zeroes, 6 Spits
June 20: 22 Type 1 (Oscar), 46 Spits
June 28: 27 Zeroes, 42 Spits
June 30: 27 Zeroes, 38 Spits
July 6: 25 Zeroes, 36 Spits

Besides the invalid explanations covered above, sure, later model Spitfires would probably have done better, perhaps much better depending on model, but the Spit V model was the closest contempoary of the A6M2, which was the type that particular Japanese unit, 202nd Air Group, was still using in those raids; and apparently mostly the same planes they'd used in the previous year's campaign (as 3rd Air Group). The 202nd was based in a remote place (Timor) at the end of a long supply line, and obviously flying in the same climate, so those factors can't simply be treated as 'errors' or as if they only affected one side. If one side was affected more, an unbiased analysis must consider that at least partly a demerit to that side's aircraft.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WEMM (Dec 5, 2007)

HellToupee said:


> From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.
> 
> Escort fighters get the tactical advantage over the interceptors.
> 
> ...




yes you're right, rushed posting, I was thinking of the mk V and MKVIII, after a bit of reading up, it was the MK VC used by the RAAF and the 1 RAF Sqn in the defence of Darwin, when the dive and climb method was used in 1943, and then the MK VIII was introduced in late 1943 with the retractable tail wheel and the stomburg carburetta that allowed negative G without the engine cutting, and that was superior to the Zero exept in the turn (although still inferior in all manouvers at low speed), these were used in the defence of Burma in 1944 mainly against the Oscar and the occasional Zero. In both cases once the tactics had been worked out the Japanese ultimatley failed in gaining air superiority despite very heavy losses on the allied side.

It seems that many of the spitfire victories were due to catching the enemy pilot unawares either diving out of the sun or due to fatigue, also some US pilots were of the opinion that the Zero pilots were a bit too predictable.

Apart from the dive and climb method I don't know if the Thatch weave was ever used by the spitfire.

ps would it be possible to get a scottish flag instead of the union jack?


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 5, 2007)

JoeB, I'm interested in your sources for Japanese losses over Darwin could you please enlighten me on this document as I would be most interested in reading it. Also do you know of the Japanese losses and claims on the 10th of May 43? 457 sqn claimed 2 Zero's destroyed and 1 probable. This was a strafing attack against Millingimbi Is. I would be most interested.


----------



## lastwarrior (Dec 6, 2007)

I guess the zero's have beaten the spitfires.


----------



## WEMM (Dec 6, 2007)

if you're on your own and you meet 1 zero you're outnumbered


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2007)

WEMM said:


> if you're on your own and you meet 1 zero you're outnumbered




How is that? Please explain why you think so. After that I am sure someone will explain why that is not true.

Besides the obvious fact that one on one is not outnumbered....


----------



## JoeB (Dec 6, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> JoeB, I'm interested in your sources for Japanese losses over Darwin could you please enlighten me on this document as I would be most interested in reading it. Also do you know of the Japanese losses and claims on the 10th of May 43? 457 sqn claimed 2 Zero's destroyed and 1 probable. This was a strafing attack against Millingimbi Is. I would be most interested.


As I mentioned (I think) the direct source was Albert Price's book "Spitfire V Aces", but AFAIK those numbers originally come from the relevant volume of the Japanese official history, 'Senshi Sosho'. There used to be an Aussie website listing them by mission, same source, same numbers, but it was taken down. 

It's obviously still a senstive topic. There's clearly a strong desire among some to believe the Spits did better than the Japanese accounts indicate they did, or as I referred a tendency to question Japanese loss acounts but not Allied ones, which seems biased. We don't absolutely know that that J official history account is true and complete, but we don't absolutely know the Spit units didn't massage some of their combat losses to add to the large tally of their operational losses. I'm not saying they did, but who can prove they didn't?, IOW why set the standard or proof any differently in one case v the other. I think it's most likely that loss results reported by each side are approximately correct and mainly complete, not necessarily exactly correct and 100% complete on either side, but the Spit v Zero outcome wasn't anywhere close to even, a few more Zero losses isn't going to basically change it.

Anyway according to same source, Price, 1 Zero failed to return from the May 10 '43 mission, one of only perhaps 3 or 4 downed by the Spits in the whole campaign. And according to that book one Spit was a writeoff from combat damage on landing, so according to respective side's accounts that was the best outing landbased Spits ever had against actual Zeroes.

There were btw AFAIK no other encounters between landbased Spits and Zeroes except the Darwin raids. Somebody above mentioned 'occasional Zeroes' v later Spits in Burma but I know of no such case. There was one Zero unit in the Burma theater after initial Japanese conquest, 331st Air Group but in Shores "Air War for Burma" it's only mentioned in one action v RAF fighters, Dec 5 1943, when it downed 3 Hurricanes (claimed 6) without loss, (which was typical of the several Zero v Hurricane combats in 1942); otherwise it's just mentioned intercepting long range unescorted B-24 missions. So the Spit's Burma career is comparing a later plane than the Zero (later mark Spits) to a different plane than the Zero, the Type 1 (or Oscar); it doesn't seem too relevant to a comparison of contemporary models of Spit and Zero.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 6, 2007)

Joe, many thanks for the reply.


JoeB said:


> It's obviously still a senstive topic. There's clearly a strong desire among some to believe the Spits did better than the Japanese accounts indicate they did, or as I referred a tendency to question Japanese loss acounts but not Allied ones, which seems biased. We don't absolutely know that that J official history account is true and complete,


I'll be the first to admit my suspicion about the Japanese account of the Darwin raids, however saying that, I'm not out to prove the spitfires to be the superior machine. All I want is an accurate list of Japanese losses, both bombers and fighters.



JoeB said:


> but we don't absolutely know the Spit units didn't massage some of their combat losses to add to the large tally of their operational losses. I'm not saying they did, but who can prove they didn't?, IOW why set the standard or proof any differently in one case v the other. I think it's most likely that loss results reported by each side are approximately correct and mainly complete, not necessarily exactly correct and 100% complete on either side, but the Spit v Zero outcome wasn't anywhere close to even, a few more Zero losses isn't going to basically change it.


If you read the ORB's of the spitfire squadrons it is obvious that they give an honest record of their losses and the causes for those losses sustained whilst on operations. I personally don't doubt the validity of their reports, I just wish we had similarly accessable documents from the Japanese side.




JoeB said:


> Anyway according to same source, Price, 1 Zero failed to return from the May 10 '43 mission, one of only perhaps 3 or 4 downed by the Spits in the whole campaign. And according to that book one Spit was a writeoff from combat damage on landing, so according to respective side's accounts that was the best outing landbased Spits ever had against actual Zeroes.


Thanks for that info, however Price is wrong regarding the Spitfire, it never actually landed instead P/O Little smashed into the ground whilst dogfighting a Zero, amazingly he walk away with only scratches and some bruises!


----------



## JoeB (Dec 6, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> I'll be the first to admit my suspicion about the Japanese account of the Darwin raids, however saying that, I'm not out to prove the spitfires to be the superior machine. All I want is an accurate list of Japanese losses, both bombers and fighters.
> 
> If you read the ORB's of the spitfire squadrons it is obvious that they give an honest record of their losses and the causes for those losses sustained whilst on operations.


You and I in particular aren't worlds apart on this, but I have encountered what I view as obtuseness about this episode on the part of some. I'm no partisan for the JNAF particularly, I lived in Japan for a bit, read the language a little, but latter is mainly from studying Korean, and the Korean War is my real focus of air war research, I've mainly just read books about WWII. 

My experience is that when you read the records of most air arms you get a feel that the loss accounting is probably pretty accurate, especially pilot losses. True in my experience of USAF, Soviet AF, a few precious captured North Korean air unit records I've found, etc. I've heard many insinuations that many countries supposedly extensively fudged loss records but no case where anybody has documented it. This was my point in suggesting the possibility the Allied records weren't accurate, what's sauce for the goose... what actual reason is there to think the Japanese account in Senshi Sosho isn't accurate? That the Spit claims exceeded those losses several to one?, that happened all the time in WWII, and is not IMO a valid reason by itself for skepticism about the Japanese accounts. The 202 AG claimed 101 Allied planes over Darwin (shot down high 20's Spits apparently), but it's not a valid basis on which to seriously doubt the Allied accounts IMO.

I see your point a bit, as researcher focusing on this campaing I'd consider it completely researched only after reviewing the original documents of both sides. But, as somebody just reading about it, I wouldn't actually doubt the basic correctness of the Spit losses in Allied official history type summaries, and I don't see a strong reason to doubt the raid by raid formation OOB and loss stats given in the Senshi Sosho either. And again back to the researcher point of view, I'm not sure it's valid at this point to say one is 'suspicious' of 'lack of accessible Japanese accounts', rather than just go track down the accounts used by the Senshi Sosho writers. But again as reader I just don't see why we'd assume the Japanese loss acount is 'not accurate'.

Another at least semi independent source is Hata and Izawa. Their "Japaneses Naval Aces and Fighter Units of WWII" has a named list of fighter pilot KIA's which gives only 2 over Darwin. The chapter on 202nd AG says three pilots altogether. The other guy would be whoever was lost in the incident we just covered, that's May 9 actually in the Price book, and another Zero crashlanded on return that day I notice. The other two losses were PO2C Seiji Tajiri March 15 and PO1C Yoshio Terai Sept 7. This agrees with the Price account as to losses, except he says the latter combat was Sep 13 not previously mentioned: 3 Type 100 Hq Recon planes ('Dinah') escorted by 36 Zeroes, intercepted by 48 Spits, 3 Spits and 1 Zero lost. The JAAF also lost a Type 1 ('Oscar')in combat June 20 (1Lt Shigeto Kawata per H/I's JAAF book, and another operationally June 22).

Another dilemma to actually saying it's likely those Japanese losses were significantly higher is this issue of pilots. It's a pretty big deal in Japan to honor war dead, sometimes controversially so. Who were the other guys lost? There's pretty limited scope for planes lost without pilots on ~500mile radius missions with no SAR function to speak of.

As to the details of the Japanese formations and their losses by date for all types, as opposed to proving their correctness, again the Price book in the Osprey series "Spitfire Mark V Aces" has that data.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HellToupee (Dec 6, 2007)

WEMM said:


> yes you're right, rushed posting, I was thinking of the mk V and MKVIII, after a bit of reading up, it was the MK VC used by the RAAF and the 1 RAF Sqn in the defence of Darwin, when the dive and climb method was used in 1943, and then the MK VIII was introduced in late 1943 with the retractable tail wheel and the stomburg carburetta that allowed negative G without the engine cutting, and that was superior to the Zero exept in the turn (although still inferior in all manouvers at low speed), these were used in the defence of Burma in 1944 mainly against the Oscar and the occasional Zero. In both cases once the tactics had been worked out the Japanese ultimatley failed in gaining air superiority despite very heavy losses on the allied side.




The mkVIII was also used by the Australians replacing their mkvs. 

Japanese were defending burma in 1944 allies were the aggressors, they employed such superior planes tho, p47s spit VIIIs even spit 14s etc oscars never had much hope of competing. 



> It seems that many of the spitfire victories were due to catching the enemy pilot unawares either diving out of the sun or due to fatigue, also some US pilots were of the opinion that the Zero pilots were a bit too predictable.



this was how the vast majority of all victories were scored, a spitfire when in trouble could escape in a dive easy enough as could zero using its manoverability.


----------



## WEMM (Dec 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How is that? Please explain why you think so. After that I am sure someone will explain why that is not true.
> 
> Besides the obvious fact that one on one is not outnumbered....



I quote 
"If your alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell. Your outnumbered" 
Capt Joe Foss


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2007)

WEMM said:


> I quote
> "If your alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell. Your outnumbered"
> Capt Joe Foss


Yea - and he shot down 26 of them!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2007)

Ill let Joe explain it. He allways seems to explain the Zero myth the best....


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 7, 2007)

Not looking for trouble here as a "junior member" but I think some of Foss's 26 kills were bettys/other ducks (I know you guys are aware of this already).

The fact that he did have at least "many" zero kills while flying a wildcat does tell you something though. I imagine there were tough times when he would have traded in his wildcat for a spit. If the venerable wildcat was able to hold its own against the zeke (grant it the thatch/weave innovation was essential) how can almost any spit model be thought to be inferior to the zeke? Looks to me that the handful of scrapes between the two provide an insufficient amount of data for decent comparison.

Guess if I need to land on carrier I'd take the zero though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2007)

The fact remains that while the Zero was a formidable enemy, if you fought it above 300 mph it's maneuverability myth went out the window. As discussed in early threads it was felt by many that the Zeros and the P-51 were probably 2 of the most over rated fighters of WW2.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 7, 2007)

Pflueger said:


> Not looking for trouble here as a "junior member" but I think some of Foss's 26 kills were bettys/other ducks (I know you guys are aware of this already).
> 
> The fact that he did have at least "many" zero kills while flying a wildcat does tell you something though. I imagine there were tough times when he would have traded in his wildcat for a spit. ...


Yes some of his victory credits were bombers and other (eg. floatplanes, Foss himself was once shot down by the rear gunner of a Type 0 Observation Seaplane, aka 'Pete'). Moreover at that time of war Japanese losses were typically around 25-33% of what Allied pilots were credited with, not as accurate as in some theaters and periods in WWII (eg., it's not fair to compare that score *numerically* to ones credited to later Allied pilots under stricter rules ca. 1944-5). But relatively speaking Foss was an outstanding pilot, and at least as importantly, an outstanding leader. The overall accomplishments of F4F units in 1942 against Zeroes were better than anybody else's in that period of the war and Foss was a major leader at a critical time.

On the second statement this is the whole point of the Spit/Darwin discussion, when compared to the tactically similar F4F/Guadalcanal situation. The F4F's did a *lot* better, not a little better, both as measured by Japanese accounts. Seems hard to argue that the Japanese somehow decided to 'understate losses' more v Spitfires than F4F's (though there's no evidence they did so in either case, no more evidence than that the Allies did, ie. no evidence  ). 

F4F's in 1942 had an exchange ratio of just about 1:1 in fighter combat v Zeroes (on a scale of 100+ each), a little better considering just the G'canal actions. Spits had a ratio of something like 1:5 against Zeroes (and Oscars) over Darwin in 1943, combat losses only. Since it's a high ratio, of course it would mathematically change relatively a lot with one or two more Japanese losses (besides the 4 Zeroes and 1 Oscar apparently lost in all those raids), and it's a smaller sample (5 known Japanese fighters ~25+ Spits combat only) but no way close to 1:1.

Would Foss have eagerly traded his F4F for a Spit V? Would a modern observor who focuses on theoretical paper performance have done, probably; would Foss have?, I don't think that's so obvious actually.

Re: 'myth' it's always relative to what the conventional wisdom is. I think there's also a myth among some that there was a simple easy answer to combating Japanese Navy fighter units, and once the magical formula (boom and zoom, or other oversimplified description) was adopted the Zero turned into a pumpkin. I think the Darwin example shows the fallacy of that. Certain defeats of US fighter units in the Solomons in 1943 also show it. The Japanese Navy fighter units gradually declined from just about unbeatable (first 1/2 1942) to parity (from mid '42 w/ the best Allied fighter units, more generally by mid 43 with exceptions like the Spits at Darwin); to definite Allied advantage (from mid 43) to sometimes completely overmatched Japanese Navy units (which didn't happen often until 1944). There was no sudden bursting of a bubble.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Would Foss have eagerly traded his F4F for a Spit V? Would a modern observor who focuses on theoretical paper performance have done, probably; would Foss have?, I don't think that's so obvious actually.



Yes I think he would have jumped at the extra 50mph, firepower and climb and then done more damage than he could do with the Wildcat.

What matters more than anything is the pilot at the controls. The fact that the Spits at Darwin used the wrong tactics doesn't mean that the plane is worse than the Zero A6M2.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 7, 2007)

Glider said:


> Yes I think he would have jumped at the extra 50mph, firepower and climb and then done more damage than he could do with the Wildcat.
> 
> What matters more than anything is the pilot at the controls. The fact that the Spits at Darwin used the wrong tactics doesn't mean that the plane is worse than the Zero A6M2.


Just like I said, the modern observer focused on a few paper stats would, I'm not sure Foss would have or should have, or to what degree.

On Spits and F4F's in actual combat with Zeroes discussions often struggle to agree on the basic fact the F4F's did a lot better, although we do have enough facts for that to be quite obvious.

But we don't necessarily have the full facts to quantitatively analyze (encounter by encounter, move by move) in what exact way tactics differed between Spit units at Darwin and USN/USMC ones at G'canal, leaving alone the assumption that the Zero tactics were exactly the same in each case. 

If you read detailed accounts of 1942 Zero v F4F combats, the F4F's did not in general use specialized anti-Zero tactics at that time that was mostly later on based on lessons learned in 1942, and tests of captured Zero near end of '42. And Zeroes often used hit and run tactics; afterall the F4F was not like later Allied planes faster but less maneurable than the Zero, rather, the two had generally similar aerodynamic performance except in climb where the F4F was pretty inferior, and high speed roll where superior. 

Or are you just assuming again the 'invariant fact' that the Spit V was in a higher class than the Zero or F4F so it if showed up poorly against and relative to them in real combats it had to be completely something else, so it's just a matter of coming up with a plausible something else. Maybe the Spit V as practical combat plane was also not as good as it looked on paper against that type of opponent (I believe similar suggestion I made to you about the Hurricane and its failure v the Zero), and or in general not as good, the Spit V particularly, as the general legend of 'Spitfire' implies. How is that possiblity ruled out as a partial explanation too?

Because I didn't say in either case the consistent early to mid war failures of Hurricanes and Spits v the Zero *proved* either was worse in some inherent way than the Zero, but what proves they weren't, just a paper analysis? I don't see the logic in that.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2007)

The question being asked was would Foss prefer the Spit V to the Wildcat. As stated in my previous posting I believe he would go for the higher performance, do you have any evidence that he wouldn't?
Do you know many pilots that turned down the Hellcat (a plane closer to the Spit V) for the Wildcat?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2007)

Well said Glider, I think any pilot of the day would of taken a Spit! - I also think the bottom line here is we could discuss combat loss/ claims all day as its quite obvious the Zero was driven from the air. The larger picture here was the fact that the Zero had many liabilities and its performance was severely limited above 300 mph. Tactics enabled P-40s and F4Fs to be able to deal with it, but like any fighter it could be deadly if flown by a skilled pilot on his terms. Again I remain, it was one of the most over-rated fighters of WW2.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2007)

Hi Joe,

>But we don't necessarily have the full facts to quantitatively analyze (encounter by encounter, move by move) in what exact way tactics differed between Spit units at Darwin and USN/USMC ones at G'canal, leaving alone the assumption that the Zero tactics were exactly the same in each case. 

With regard to the Spitfire tactics, I read a couple of comments on these by USAAF pilot Clay Tice, who flew P-40s with 9th FS (I believe) from Darwin. Clay typed these on Avsig forum while reading a book by the title "Spitfires over Darwin". (Unfortunately, I don't have his original posts anymore as the program that stored them ate the database.)

The comment I best remember is something like: "I'm glad we did not have any combat experience like the British and just scrambled at the first sign of danger, attacking the Japanese flat-out with no regard for formation tactics."

Apparently, the Spitfire outfit thought it could apply the lessons learned in the Battle of Britain, and they were not ready to listen to the pilots who already had experience fighting the Zero. They seem to have favoured radar over coast watcher reports though radar was unreliable and did not have the range of the coast watcher network, and along with the delay caused by assembling their formations, this usually left them in a poor position for an intercept.

At least, that's what I remember from that Avsig thread some ten years back - I'm sorry I can't offer anything more specific, but as the database is gone, I have to rely on my imperfect memory.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## WEMM (Dec 9, 2007)

these comtemporary articles may be of interest. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Spit_vs_Zero_Wawn.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/Spitfire_versus_Zero.jpg


----------



## JoeB (Dec 9, 2007)

Glider said:


> The question being asked was would Foss prefer the Spit V to the Wildcat. As stated in my previous posting I believe he would go for the higher performance, do you have any evidence that he wouldn't?
> Do you know many pilots that turned down the Hellcat (a plane closer to the Spit V) for the Wildcat?


Do you have any evidence that he would, or should? I don't see how the F6F was similar to the Spit V in combat results against the Zero. So you're just repeating your thesis there, the F6F was 'closer' to the Spit V because similar speed, I guess? In actual combat v Zeroes the results of those two types were not comparable at all, F6F even more effective than F4F, Spit V very ineffective, against that particular opponent. So it just circles back to the same issue, you are basically saying simple paper performance comparison determines combat effectiveness (of the plane itself), I'm saying I doubt that. Not that simple paper stats have no influence, but their influence might be overstated. We should be a little more curious and look for possibly less tangible plane factors that also may partly explain a disparity like F4F/Zero parity in 1942, v Zero dominance over Spit V in 1943. (eg. against a new poorly understood opponent who turns very well, the best turning fighter may have an advantage, or the fact that F4F turned much better than eg. Spit or Hurricane or P-40 and did better might be a total coincidence; or the F4F's suitability for high deflection shooting [low nose], etc).

Re: Ho Hun, I agree there is some rough information on differences in tactics, but it's not very detailed, not always entirely consistent*. Usually it's simply assumed, plane A had better results, simple paper performance doesn't say it should, therefore the difference in tactics (or pilots or situation, etc) must explain *all* that difference.

*I wasn't saying there wasn't any info on F4F tactics, I've read a lot of it but don't want to drone on too long relating it. Main point is, there was no consistent universal set of F4F tactics v Zeroes in 1942. And the accounts of F4F/Spit disparity even at the time were on the basis of what was known from the Allied side only, the position from which some people still argue today  , though with much less of an excuse.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-17engineer (Dec 9, 2007)

I am not sure myself,
I mean depends on variant, armament and speed.
A zero vs a spitfire I would like to see that to make a prediction I believe a Zero has got the SPit.
But a Fw-190 spitfire's fight. If the Fw-190 get behind your in trouble. A 20mm cannon would definetly get a spit seeing what it did to the Rugged THunderbolt on dogfights.


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2007)

A spit V is about 50mph faster than the Wildcat, has twice the firepower and climbs better.

Are you saying that a fighter pilot would go for the wildcat? I don't know anyone that would. 

Tell me why they would?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 9, 2007)

The only reason I could find is that the F4F is a little tougher and is a little more CV-savvy.

Other than that, it's all Spitfire. The RAAF spit V's were pretty bad though... not because they were Mk.V's but b.c they had many tech problems; corroded pipelines, bad oil distribution (and in a Spitfire and other planes of hydrodynamic prop design this is a BAD thing. You probably won't even have a chance to land), and the Volkes filter, designed for sand not tropical climate didn't help either. It just alowed down the plane, thus affecting its climb rate and range as well.


----------



## WEMM (Dec 10, 2007)

in practice what was the top speed of the Darwin spitfires with their mechanical problems and vokes filters?


----------



## Elvis (Dec 10, 2007)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


Interesting question.
The Zero was basically built along the lines of an aerobatic stunt plane, then fitted with guns.
Certain design aspects gave it an advantage in dogfighting, but the Spit and the 190 were both quite manueverable as well...plus certain versions of the 190 and the Spit were way faster than the Zero.

I think this might be more of a case of who's the better pilot.



Elvis


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 10, 2007)

Great discussion fellas, 

True, pilot skills are critical, but an *"experienced" Spit or Fw 190 pilot would know that they don't have to tangle with the zero if they choose not to, if they choose to fight it can be on their terms (boom/zoom). The experienced zero pilot would not have the same luxury, if he could not lure the opponent into slow/turns he would know to start looking for a nearby cloudbank. 

*How can we expect the Spit pilots defending Darwin to learn the same lessons regarding the zero in a matter of weeks which took the Wildcat pilots a year to figure out? They would have experienced the same losses flying Fw 190s (or practically any other ww2 fighter) if they chose to go into slow/turning fight with the zero. 

Also: just noted that I capitalize "Spit" and "Wildcat" but not "zero." This may be a sign of bias on my part, I must make amends = the Zero certainly earned its caps.


----------



## WEMM (Dec 10, 2007)

how do these battles compare to the Russian Japanese AF encounters at Nomonhan?


----------



## Elvis (Dec 11, 2007)

Pflueger said:


> How can we expect the Spit pilots defending Darwin to learn the same lessons regarding the zero in a matter of weeks which took the Wildcat pilots a year to figure out?


By "Darwin", I assume you're referring to Australia?
I don't think the Spits were available down under until '42 (if that's incorrect, please let me know).
Until then, the Aussie's mainly had the CAC Boomerang.
While a great plane in itself, it was about a step behind the Zero in just about all aspects, the least of which being respective climb rates.
I think general intel, by '42, would show that getting the Zero into a diving competition was the best way to beat it and I'm sure the Aussie's would've followed suit.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Dec 11, 2007)

...also, why does no one mention the Zero's replacement...The dreaded _Tony_?

I remember hearing about that plane when I was a kid and it seemed to be portrayed as being a tougher and more "muscular" Zero.
A much more formidable opponent.



Elvis


----------



## WEMM (Dec 11, 2007)

I agree, the The Ki-61 was just that, stronger and with better dive and climd but it also had a number of problems, the mauser cannon had unreliable amunition the engine was also unreliable, probably due to its complex construction, and its production line was slow but when an alternative power plant was fitted the the Ha-112 radial engine, inspired by the fw 190 the result was probably one of the best fighters they ever had the Ki-100, an early battle resulted in the destruction of 14 Hellcats over Okinawa without loss, although it was slower than US fighters it would probably have been able to dive with the americans (I'm sure someone will have figures to prove or disprove this)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Dec 11, 2007)

The 100 must've been the one I heard about.
Thanks for the info.

Elvis


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2007)

Small point but the Ki61 being an Army aircraft, wasn't the Zero's replacement. The Zero's replacements would I think have been the Shinden and the Raiden


----------



## JoeB (Dec 11, 2007)

WEMM said:


> The Ki-61... when an alternative power plant was fitted the the Ha-112 radial engine, inspired by the fw 190 the result was probably one of the best fighters they ever had the Ki-100, an early battle resulted in the destruction of 14 Hellcats over Okinawa without loss


But here we're doing the 'Spit did OK over Darwin' type thing in the other direction. That claim actually occurred right near the end of the war over Japan itself, July 25 1945. It was the 244th Sentai, they claimed 12 F6F's for two losses of their own. Their actual opponents VF-31 only lost 2 F6F's. The Japanese claim is frequently reported as if an actual result, and then it seems like the Japanese loss and claim get added together in less reliable accounts, that's not your mistake I've seen it elsewhere, but that's not what happened. Not to say the Ki-100 was a bad airplane necessarily, but it never had actual success like that, no Japanese fighter ever downed as many 12 F6F's in any action between single formations (not counting, say, all F6F's lost in combat in the whole battle of Mariana's or something, in one single air combat I mean), or F4F's.

Back to Spit v F4F, *on paper* I'd rather have the 50mph, twice the firepower is debateable but let's not get bogged down. But if I could review the results, and see F4F's fought Zeroes evenly in 1942, but Spit V were consistently beaten by them in 1943, wouldn't this logically cause me some pause in taking the paper comparison as predictive of combat results? And as a pilot actually succeeding from my perspective in an F4F (the F4F's were claiming a lot more Zeroes than F4F's lost; just as the Spit results didn't look as bad considering their similarly or more overstated claims, rather than actual Japanese losses), I might just stick with it.

That argument is always going to be opinion, but if we could once and for all establish, that Spit v Zero wasn't a 'what if', it happened across a series of combats over several months and the Spits did consistently poorly...if that fact just gets firmly established, and minus completely baseless excuses (no radar, not true; outnumbered, not true; caught taking off not true etc) at least that's something  

Joe

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Dec 11, 2007)

WEMM said:


> The Ki-61... when an alternative power plant was fitted the the Ha-112 radial engine, inspired by the fw 190 the result was probably one of the best fighters they ever had the Ki-100, an early battle resulted in the destruction of 14 Hellcats over Okinawa without loss


But here we're doing the 'Spit did OK over Darwin' type thing in the other direction. That claim actually occurred right near the end of the war over Japan itself, July 25 1945. It was the 244th Sentai, they claimed 12 F6F's for two losses of their own. Their actual opponents VF-31 only lost 2 F6F's. The Japanese claim is frequently reported as if an actual result, and then it seems like the Japanese loss and claim get added together in less reliable accounts, that's not your mistake I've seen it elsewhere, but that's not what happened. Not to say the Ki-100 was a bad airplane necessarily, but it never had actual success like that, no Japanese fighter ever downed as many 12 F6F's in a single combat ever, or F4F's.

Back to Spit v F4F, *on paper* I'd rather have the 50mph, twice the firepower is debateable but let's not get bogged down. But if I could review the results, and see F4F's fought Zeroes evenly in 1942, but Spit V were consistently beaten by them in 1943, wouldn't this logically cause me some pause in taking the paper comparison as predictive of combat results? And as a pilot actually succeeding from my perspective in an F4F (the F4F's were claiming a lot more Zeroes than F4F's lost; just as the Spit results didn't look as bad considering their similarly or more overstated claims, rather than actual Japanese losses), I might just stick with it.

That argument is always going to be opinion, but if we could once and for all establish, that Spit v Zero wasn't a 'what if', it happened across a series of combats over several months and the Spits did consistently poorly...if that fact just gets firmly established, and minus completely baseless excuses (no radar, not true; outnumbered, not true; caught taking off not true etc) at least that's something  

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WEMM (Dec 12, 2007)

Elvis said:


> The 100 must've been the one I heard about.
> Thanks for the info.
> 
> Elvis




no problems


----------



## WEMM (Dec 22, 2007)

JoeB said:


> But here we're doing the 'Spit did OK over Darwin' type thing in the other direction. That claim actually occurred right near the end of the war over Japan itself, July 25 1945. It was the 244th Sentai, they claimed 12 F6F's for two losses of their own. Their actual opponents VF-31 only lost 2 F6F's. The Japanese claim is frequently reported as if an actual result, and then it seems like the Japanese loss and claim get added together in less reliable accounts, that's not your mistake I've seen it elsewhere, but that's not what happened. Not to say the Ki-100 was a bad airplane necessarily, but it never had actual success like that, no Japanese fighter ever downed as many 12 F6F's in a single combat ever, or F4F's.
> 
> Back to Spit v F4F, *on paper* I'd rather have the 50mph, twice the firepower is debateable but let's not get bogged down. But if I could review the results, and see F4F's fought Zeroes evenly in 1942, but Spit V were consistently beaten by them in 1943, wouldn't this logically cause me some pause in taking the paper comparison as predictive of combat results? And as a pilot actually succeeding from my perspective in an F4F (the F4F's were claiming a lot more Zeroes than F4F's lost; just as the Spit results didn't look as bad considering their similarly or more overstated claims, rather than actual Japanese losses), I might just stick with it.
> 
> ...



I still think equipment failure was a big factor, there are reports of many mechanical problems, guns jamming and lack of fuel and don't forget many of the Australian pilots were not experienced, at least not at first.

a full report can be seen by Clive Caldwell here 
The day the planes "all fell into the sea": Darwin Raid 54-2 May 1943. Industry Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations


----------



## HoHun (Dec 22, 2007)

Hi Wemm,

>a full report can be seen by Clive Caldwell here 

Sounds quite interesting - how did it end? (I try to avoid registering to keep my e-mail spam level low ... still a fascinating article though 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 22, 2007)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?



Any modern plane has a chance to beat another type if the circumstances are favorable and the pilot or pilots in question can utilize them and/or fight the type of battle that best suits his plane. 

Yeah, i know thats hardly a revelation, but given the propensity to argue over stats it bears reminding now and then. Its also relevent when considering another type of matchup. Spitfire VIII vs Ki-43II. The stats would favor the Spit, yet in the mid-late war battles over India and Burma, the Oscar managed for a time to hold it's own against this plane as well as P-51A's and P-38's....until the ever increasing crush of modern Allied airframes coupled with losses on the Japanese side turned the tide completely.

So myself, keeping that campaign in mind, I certainly think the A6M can beat a Spit or a 190....and it did in the former's case. Not every time but leafing through my copy of Fire in the Sky, I dug up this commentary:

_The RAAF also commanded three squadrons of Spitfire V's at Darwin. Eventually nearly 100 Spitfires were brought in and kept up to strength, on paper at least, for some months. Several of the pilots had seen extensive combat in the European theater and were among the best prepared airmen in the South Pacific. Although the Spitfire squadrons landed some stinging blows to Japanese raiders from Timor, their overall preformance was a disapointment. In theory the Spitfire V should have matched up well with the Zero. Carrying a mixed armament of 20mm cannons and rifle caliber machine guns the Spit had more than enough firepower to deal with any Japanese aircraft. Although no aircraft was as maneuverable as the Zero under 15,000 feet, the Spitfire was considerablely more nimble than any U.S. fighter. _

The section goes on to describe the maintenance issues the Spit squadrons had at Darwin, leading to a greater % of grounded planes vs. a typical P-40 squadron. Radar and issues with vector are mentioned. Finally it is mentioned that the ceasing of the raids in mid 43 was not due to defeat over Darwin but developments elsewhere. I have also read that a problem the Spit pilots had (at least initially) was getting rid of the tendancy to accept turning fights. In the ETO from day 1 they were used to having the better turning fighters vs their German adversaries but in the PTO it was reversed. Sometimes you can be told something (of which they were warned....."never turn with a Zero!"), and yet still have to learn it for yourself.

So I think it was the whole range of variables that lead to results seen, just as the unique set of variables at Lunga led to the results witnessed there.


----------



## Derfman (Dec 22, 2007)

The zero was not a great aircraft.

Not bad, but not nearly as great as some would suggest.

The zero sacrificed a lot to be nimble. As long as "nimble" was a major factor in a fight, the Zero did well. When fast and rugged Allied aircraft decided to not play the "nimble" game, the Zero quickly became a victim waiting to happen.

When comparing the Zero to the early Allied aircraft it faced, I often say "The Japanese mediocre fighter was better than our mediocre fighters". The Zero, the P-40 and P-39 were not "bad", but they sure as heck were not in the same league as the Fw-190 or Spitfire (unless the Spitfire or Fw-190 decided to play the "nimble" game with the Zero.....)

When a fast and rugged opponent played on the weaknesses of the Zero, it was ugly. I describe it as "they basicly poured avaition fuel on themselves due to not having self sealing fuel tanks, and we lit on fire with incendiary ammo". With faster higher flying aircraft, the Allied aircraft could pretty much dictate combat most of the time.

Having said all that, the Japanese did make some truely 1st rate aircraft. The Ki-84 Hayate (Frank) being the best, and the N1K2-J Shiden (George) and Ki-100 Hien (Tony) also doing well.

The Japanese made the same mistake that Italy did (Fiat C.R.42 Falco), although not to the same degree. Both Japan and Italy made a "less than first rate" aircraft due to a belief in the importance of being nimble, but the Japanese at least had the sense not to build a bi-plane.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 23, 2007)

If you play to any plane's weaknesses, it's going to come off as "mediocre" (possibly even , "inferior").
I'll give you, that it wasn't as ruggedly built as some other planes of the WWII era, but its an older design, too.
In the time it was designed, "nimbleness" was still considered paramont.
Why? Because the only example we had to look at was the performance of WWI fighters. where tactics were all about twisting and turning, in order to get on the enemy's tail.
I think that the fact that the design made as good a showing of itself, as it did, for the duration of the war, is a testament to how well that plane actually worked.

Would you consider an ME-109 or a Brewster Buffalo "mediocre", as well?
I think both the German's and the Finn's would beg to differ.



Elvis


----------



## JoeB (Dec 23, 2007)

Derfman said:


> The zero was not a great aircraft.
> 
> The Zero, the P-40 and P-39 were not "bad", but they sure as heck were not in the same league as the Fw-190 or Spitfire (unless the Spitfire or Fw-190 decided to play the "nimble" game with the Zero.....)


Thread goes back to the usual recitation of vague conventional wisdom based on Allied-only accounts, big surprise. Read the thread from the beginning. Spit V's faced Zeroes in quite a number of combats over a number of months in 1943. They were consistently beaten, despite claiming to have changed their tactics to 'hit and run' and claiming to have done much better once they did. The Japanese accounts of losses don't bear that out, and in fact 'the other side's' accounts seldom fully bear out claims of success by *any* air arm in WWII. You simply can't evaluate WWII air combat based on one side's accounts, let alone vague generic summaries of them.

So the Zero was 'mediocre and sure as heck not in the same league as the Spit V', but Zeroes in the campaign downed around 25 Spit V's for the loss of 4 Zeroes. That's just a funny definition of 'not in the same league' IMO, even considering the tactical issues. If one fighter is really 'in another league' from another, it should be able to do reasonably even without optimum tactics. By my way of thinking, an outcome like the actual Spit V v Zero in 1943 pretty much rules out saying the Spit V was in another league, I just don't see a rational basis for that statement given the actual result. Once again it *does not* mean the Zero was the better plane, just that it was probably pretty close in capability, at least, to the Spit V if it could score that kind of result in a pretty long series of combats.

Again more than 'myth' on either side, this topic suffers from IMHO a lack of curiosity about actual outcomes.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Derfman (Dec 23, 2007)

As I stated above, pretty much any aircraft that engaged a Zero in a fight where "nimble" was a key factor was probably going to lose, be it a F4U, an Fw 190, a Spitfire, a Ta152, etc.

But once the F4Fs, P40s and P39s ceased to be the main opponents of the Zero, and F6Fs, F4Us, P38s, P47s and P51s became the main opponents, the zero was at a hard core disadvantage.

When an opponent has it entirely in his power to avoid combat and force combat, and is more rugged and has better firepower and is faster and higher flying, the aircraft only has "nimble" to oppose all that is NOT in the same league, "conventional wisdom" or not.

And if the Zeros still scored some successes, it was due to factors such as "pilot quality", "foolish enemies", "surprise", etc. ANYTHING can score some victories with those advantages.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

Derfman said:


> As I stated above, pretty much any aircraft that engaged a Zero in a fight where "nimble" was a key factor was probably going to lose, be it a F4U, an Fw 190, a Spitfire, a Ta152, etc.


The Zero was only "nimble" below 300 MPH. Above that speed it was a brick in the air and tactics defined its demise.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 23, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Thread goes back to the usual recitation of vague conventional wisdom based on Allied-only accounts, big surprise.
> Joe



For myself, I consider the A6M to be one of the great aircraft designs of WWII. That it had a shorter shelf life than other notable examples and was superseeded by 2nd generation aircraft to me doesn't change that opinion. It was a brilliant design that allowed a nation suffering a serious technological bottleneck to end around that problem for a time and produce a design (two designs actually) that constituted a pinnicle reason why they were able to acomplish the early feats that they did. (the other plane was the Ki-43) Some sources state that without the A6M, Japan could not have launched her SRA and subsequent operations. That, and what it was able to do, does not speak to me of a mediocre design.

Yes it did have weaknesses that could be exploited. I'm not aware of any WWII aircraft that didn't. It can be argued that it's weaknesses were more exploitable over time. That has merit as any aircraft that is going to fight a sustained attrition war needs armor and self sealing fuel tanks, thus the design was doomed to be obsolecent within 2 years. Regrettably, the Japanese design could not retro-fit it due to the technological limitations (engine HP!) which in turn forced Jiro Horikoshi to cut weight as far as possible. (it bears reminding that at the time of the Zero's design (1940)...most other aircraft, most notably the F4F, also did not sport either defensive upgrade - armor and ss tanks) For this reason, lack of upgradability of the airframe, the A6M (and Ki-43) always get ranked under planes like the Spit, 109 and 190...airframes that allowed upgrading producing more powerful designs that could fight on even terms more or less in later war years. Nevertheless...with a pilot who knew what he was doing, the Zero never stopped being a potentially dangerous opponent. That leads to another factor....pilots. Japan had the smallest cadre of well trained pilots and her program to replace was jump started too late to have any hopes of meeting the demands of an attrition war in time. Thus the Zero and other planes were made "mediocre" all the faster due to who was at the controls. (Same thing eventually happened to Germany only it took longer.....in the end it doesn't matter what the stats of the plane are if you have a newbie in the cockpit)

That the P-40 could fight a Zero doesn't make the Zero medicore. It means that the P-40 design itself was not nearly as bad as older histories tended to make it. The P-40 was not a spectacular design, but it was a solid one built on proven technology and like the F4F, it could take a hell ofa lot of punishment...a valuable asset in a WWII combat environment. P-40 airframes fighting under the UK banner (Tomahawk and Kittyhawk) were able at times to fight high flying 109's in the desert and didn't always come off the worse. At low altitudes they were dangerous to dogfight.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Zero was only "nimble" below 300 MPH. Above that speed it was a brick in the air and tactics defined its demise.



Actually a little lower than that. The 2 Steves, who fly the A6M3 at Camarillo and the A6M5 at Chino both say it's a little over 250. At that point, the stick "feels like it's stuck in concrete". The reason is because of the barn-door sized ailerons that are humanly impossible to move at those speeds.

The Zero's distinct advantage in it's early days was it's range. In the late 1930s, what production fighter had a 1200 mile range on internal fuel?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Derfman (Dec 23, 2007)

The Zero was indeed superior to its initial opposition.

but was out right inferior to its later main opposition.

I base this conclusion on the following:

The Zero could NOT force fights on terms that were advantagous to it unless the enemy pilots were surprised or willingly engaged in such fights.

Aircraft like the F4U, P-38, etc COULD force combat with the Zero on terms that were good for them and bad for the Zero.

At the end of the day, the Zero was a rationally designed C.R. 42 Falco.

(and the Italians also learned from their flawed assumptions, eventually producing the G55 Centauro and other series 5 aircraft, just as the Japanese produced the Ki-84 and other 1st rate aircraft)

The Zero may have won some early victories over the Spitfire, but I'll stand by my statement that it was not in the same league (which reflects rather well on the Japanese pilots when you think about it....)


----------



## HoHun (Dec 23, 2007)

Hi Derfman,

>The Zero was indeed superior to its initial opposition.

Hm, I'd actually say that the Zeros apparent initial superiority was based on the lack of information the Allies had on the type.

Here is a diagram listing top speeds of the A6M2 compared to various fighter types available to the Allies at the time.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Dec 24, 2007)

evangilder said:


> The Zero's distinct advantage in it's early days was it's range. In the late 1930s, what production fighter had a 1200 mile range on internal fuel?


According to this source, the F2A-3 version of the Brewster Buffalo had a max. range of 1680 miles, with no provision for external fuel storage.


Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Elvis said:


> According to this source, the F2A-3 version of the Brewster Buffalo had a max. range of 1680 miles, with no provision for external fuel storage.
> 
> 
> Elvis



"985 miles typical, 1680 max." To get the higher range out of an aircraft like this you have to climb to a cruise altitude, lean, and then probably fly at 45% power. That would be needed to achieve about 48 GPH fuel consumption. In a combat environment that would be tough to pull off.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 24, 2007)

...and you're saying that the Zero actually had 1200 miles range, in a "combat environment"?
Probably closer to 900, like the Buff.



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Elvis said:


> ...and you're saying that the Zero actually had 1200 miles range, in a "combat environment"?
> Probably closer to 900, like the Buff.
> 
> 
> ...



No I'm saying the Zero had a cruise range of more like 1,900 miles!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Dec 24, 2007)

Elvis said:


> ...and you're saying that the Zero actually had 1200 miles range, in a "combat environment"?
> Probably closer to 900, like the Buff.


As FBJ said, way more than 1200 miles. A6M2 Zeroes routinely flew missions from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, 565 air miles *one way*. Look up for the long range US fighter of late war what kind of theoretical still air cruising range was necessary to fly that long an air combat missions: way more than 1200 miles. P-51's, and long range models of P-47' and P-38 *eventually* did fly missions that long or nearly as long, but in 1941-42 the Zero was in a class by itself in range for any fighter competitive in air combat with other single engine fighters.

The missions we've been discussing, at least supposedly discussing when not just reciting rehashed Allied account only conventional wisdom, Zeroes from Kupang, Timor to Darwin were 'only' just over 500 mile one way. Yet that aspect seems completely ignored, too. IOW the 'outclassed' Zeroes flew 500miles, scored a 25:4 fighter-fighter result against the 'in another league' Spit V's, in many combats, Spits not surprised, not outnumbered, (*read* the earlier posts and their underlying references) and supposedly did adjust their tactics over that period of several months but it doesn't seem to have helped much. Then the Zeroes flew 500 miles back to Timor, while many *additional* Spits were lost from fuel exhaustion just from fighting near their own airfields; the ~25 doesn't include known fuel and other operational losses of Spits. Whereas 4 was the total Zero loss, if any were actually fuel related on those 500+mile returns, that tips the combat exchange ratio even more in their favor. And this was JNAF pilots of *1943*, not 41-42. But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious?  ,  

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

The model 32 Zero had shorter wings and its range was limited - this presented some problems operationally but overall the Zero enjoyed an extremely long range. 540 liters was carried by the A6M5 -


----------



## renrich (Dec 24, 2007)

Joe B, good post. Unfortunately there are too many of us armchair pilots out here who read all this technical information(and disinformation) about performance numbers and jump to the conclusion that just because one AC goes faster or climbs higher or whatever, it is better than another, perhaps completely ignoring the historical record. And of course there is the bias toward the ETO which leads to the conclusion that most of the AC and pilots in the Pacific were second rate and would not do well in the environment over Europe. The fact is that because of variables like pilot quality, maintenance issues, mission requirements, variations in performance in individual examples of the same AC and many other issues, drawing conclusions based on performance numbers (which are all over the ballpark anyway) isn't very productive or instructive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 24, 2007)

Derfman said:


> At the end of the day, the Zero was a rationally designed C.R. 42 Falco.



Well....i'd hardly rank the A6M and CR-42 together in terms of utility and usefulness.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Dec 24, 2007)

Hi JoeB,

>But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious?  ,  

So in which specific way do you suggest the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2 that lead to the RAAF defeat at Darwin?

The capabilities of both aircraft are well-known, so it should possible to find a specific answer here ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 25, 2007)

Boys,

My apologies. I stand corrected.

  




Elvis


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 25, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi JoeB,
> 
> So in which specific way do you suggest the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2 that lead to the RAAF defeat at Darwin?
> 
> ...



lower speed manueverability. As mentioned the Spit and Hurr pilots were used to having the edge here when fighting the Luftwaffe. Its one factor among others.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MH434 (Dec 25, 2007)

Those Spit V's that were used against zeros where the poorest performing spits, The tropical Spit V where just barly faster than the zero, and less manoverable. so its understandable that they had high loses.

Against a LF MK Va, Vb the Zero is nothing, only advantage is low speed manoverability.

The late LF V's 1944- where monsters down low. Same power as the LF IX, but less draggier and way lighter. But at higher altitudes they where useless due to the cropped supercharger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 25, 2007)

MH434 said:


> Those Spit V's that were used against zeros where the poorest performing spits, The tropical Spit V where just barly faster than the zero, and less manoverable. so its understandable that they had high loses.



I had not heard that these Vc's were tropicalized.



> Against a LF MK Va, Vb the Zero is nothing, only advantage is low speed manoverability.
> 
> The late LF V's 1944- where monsters down low. Same power as the LF IX, but less draggier and way lighter. But at higher altitudes they where useless due to the cropped supercharger.



That was supposed to have been the case in India too where Spitfire VIII's met Ki-43II's, yet it didn't happen that way. My research into daily air combats tends to show that there's no such thing as "nothing" when modern aircraft engage in combat.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 25, 2007)

Hi Nikademus,

>lower speed manueverability. As mentioned the Spit and Hurr pilots were used to having the edge here when fighting the Luftwaffe. Its one factor among others.

Since the Zero held the advantage of superior low speed menoeuvrability over almost every Allied fighter it encountered, including those types that were highly successful against it, I'd say this would be an indication for shortcomings of the RAAF tactics.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 25, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Nikademus,
> Since the Zero held the advantage of superior low speed menoeuvrability over almost every Allied fighter it encountered, including those types that were highly successful against it, I'd say this would be an indication for shortcomings of the RAAF tactics.
> 
> Regards,
> ...



Hi,

Yes, I think that was part of it. As mentioned, the ETO pilots were used to having the edge in turning fights in general and despite being warned....well sometimes you have to learn the hard way. There was a similar inquiry in the CBI theater around May of 43 by the RAF. Wg Cdr Paul Richey wrote a rather scathing report that sent more than a few higher command hackles rising in regards to the tactics and strategies being used vis-a-vis the Hurricane vs the Japanese 01. (Oscar) One such person acidly suggesting that Richey should borrow a Hurricane and show them all how to fight the Japanese.  

I've also seen though, that planes like the Zero tend to be treated like one-trick ponies that can't do anything else. Reading the battle accounts from books like Lundstrom or Shores, I've found that to not be the case nor are the conditions defined by black and white demarcation lines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Dec 25, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi JoeB,
> 
> >But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious?  ,
> 
> So in which specific way do you suggest the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2 that lead to the RAAF defeat at Darwin?


But there's a basic logical flaw in your post. Saying the Spit V didn't outclass the Zero doesn't mean one is saying the Zero outclassed the Spit V. Those aren't the only two possibilities. 

I'm simply saying that such a lopsided result in favor of the Zero in that situation (typically slightly to somewhat superior numbers for the Spits, radar warning, ambiguous tactical advantage in general for escorts or interceptors IMO, but a very long return flight facing the Zeroes in this case, tropical environment and long supply lines *both* sides had to cope with, several months to adjust tactics which the Spits claimed at the time to have done) pretty much rules out the statement: "the Spit V outclassed the Zero" with any reasonable definition of 'outclassed'. I've actually already said twice, this is the third time, that it doesn't necessarily prove the converse statement.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Dec 26, 2007)

Hi Nikademus,

>Wg Cdr Paul Richey wrote a rather scathing report that sent more than a few higher command hackles rising in regards to the tactics and strategies being used vis-a-vis the Hurricane vs the Japanese 01. (Oscar) One such person acidly suggesting that Richey should borrow a Hurricane and show them all how to fight the Japanese.  

Highly interesting ... I'd really like to learn more about this!  Paul Richey flew with No 1 Squadron in the Battle of France, and it's my impression that they did rather well and even introduced some tactical innovations ... here is a link on a new post with some details (assembled from several recent posts I made on other fora):

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...y-other-books-early-war-air-combat-10996.html

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Dec 26, 2007)

Hi Joe,

>But there's a basic logical flaw in your post. Saying the Spit V didn't outclass the Zero doesn't mean one is saying the Zero outclassed the Spit V. Those aren't the only two possibilities. 

If you read my post more closely, you'll notice that I asked for a "specific way in which the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2". 

In the specific characteristic of top speed, it was certainly the A6M2 that was outclassed by the Spitfire V, so the A6M2 would have to be superior in another specific way even so that it could merely be considered equal.

In fact, if you are implying that the RAAF made no tactical mistakes over Darwin - and it certainly looks like it to me -, you actually implying that the A6M2 must have been the superior aircraft.

I did not get the impression that you were considering the third possiblity - that the Spitfire V was equal to the A6M2 - at all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> >But there's a basic logical flaw in your post. Saying the Spit V didn't outclass the Zero doesn't mean one is saying the Zero outclassed the Spit V. Those aren't the only two possibilities.
> 
> ...


I agree I believe he used the same stance on the aerial battle over Ceylon


----------



## JoeB (Dec 26, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> If you read my post more closely, you'll notice that I asked for a "specific way in which the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2".
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but again I find that post to defy logic. I didn't say the Darwin result proves the Zero outclassed the Spit V, in fact as I just said I pointed out twice, before your response, that I wasn't saying that. So why would I need to provide ways in which in the Zero as a plane outclassed the Spit V if I've said all along that I wasn't saying it did? I was again simply pointing out the implausibility of saying the Spit V outclassed the Zero when the Spit did that badly, across a number of combats with not exclusively unfavorable circumstances otherwise.

Nor did I say tactics had no effect. I simply again stated some facts, the one sided outcomes throughout, and the Allied claim that they *did* modify their tactics as the campaign went on, and their victory claims show evidence of that, but I pointed out the actual Japanese losses show less if any evidence of that improvement. So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.

And your comment on speed just circles around to the same problem as throughout. Your are *assuming* a paper speed difference of a few 10's mph has a very large effect of fight combat outcomes which must be explained by some other large countervailing factor. Maybe speed differences of that relatively small magnitude didn't have large effects on combat outcomes. This is really what I'm pointing to overall, simple paper comparison says the Spit V was a better plane, actual combat outcomes don't support it. Maybe it's a reason to re-evaluate the accuracy and predictive power of simple paper comparisons. And not the only case.

Re; Hurricane, we discussed on that other thread a number of combats in 1942, the minority of which were over Ceylon. The outcomes of all Hurricane v Japanese fighter combats up to April 1942 (with both sides known) were given. All went against the Hurricane v the Zero, and its record in a larger number of combats v the less well regarded Type 1 was actually even worse. So yes I'm taking the same position: look at the actual facts of outcomes! and don't try to just explain them away to fit preconceptions based on simple paper stats. The actual outcomes absolutely don't support the idea that the Hurricane was a better fighter combat machine than the Zero or Type 1, nor, and I agree it's somewhat more suprising given paper stats, do they support the statement that the Spit V was either. And the statement definitely *was* made on this thread a few times that the Spit V was not only 'better' but 'outclassed' the Zero, whereas my supposed statement of the converse never occurred.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Re; Hurricane, we discussed on that other thread a number of combats in 1942, the minority of which were over Ceylon. The outcomes of all Hurricane v Japanese fighter combats up to April 1942 (with both sides known) were given. All went against the Hurricane v the Zero, and its record in a larger number of combats v the less well regarded Type 1 was actually even worse. So yes I'm taking the same position: look at the actual facts of outcomes! and don't try to just explain them away to fit preconceptions based on simple paper stats. The actual outcomes absolutely don't support the idea that the Hurricane was a better fighter combat machine than the Zero or Type 1, nor, and I agree it's somewhat more suprising given paper stats, do they support the statement that the Spit V was either. And the statement definitely *was* made on this thread a few times that the Spit V was not only 'better' but 'outclassed' the Zero, whereas my supposed statement of the converse never occurred.
> 
> Joe


I found this article in the Canadian Defence Journal dated 2006/7 and here is a following excerpt and numbers although handy I'm not a cruncher


Despite Birchall’s warning almost 16 hours before, most of the defending fighters were still on the ground, with some pilots stood down for breakfast, when the Japanese arrived shortly before 0800 hours. The 30 Squadron on-line history claims that the local fighter controllers, under-estimating the range of the Zero, did not expect an attack that morning, but the First Air Fleet was only 360 miles off the island when sighted by Birchall. Even if the Zeros were as short-legged as the British supposed, Nagumo could easily have moved to a position from which they could reach Colombo early on 5 April. The on-line history also claims that the Colombo radar was unmanned and/or down for routine maintenance at the time. In fact, it had not even been set up yet. At about the same time that 413 Squadron had been ordered to move to Ceylon, the Royal Air Force rushed eight air surveillance radar sets to the island. One was operational at Trincomalee before the Japanese arrived, but the one deployed to Colombo was not.31

Instead of the tactical advantage of having the defending fighters awaiting the Japanese from above, it was now the Japanese who held the advantage of height. And the defenders suffered accordingly. Almost half the defending force – four Fulmars and 15 Hurricanes – was shot down, as were six Fairey Swordfish torpedo aircraft of 788 Squadron, which arrived on the scene from Trincomalee. In fact, the Swordfish, certain that any fighters over Colombo must be friendly, flashed recognition signals to identify themselves as British as the Zeros approached. The attackers also sank an old destroyer and an armed merchant cruiser, damaged a few other ships, and battered various shore installations. Only seven Japanese aircraft were lost, but another 15 were damaged. Ten Bristol Blenheim light bombers of 11 Squadron took off from Ratmalana at 0830 hours to attack the Japanese fleet, but failed to locate it.32

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Dec 26, 2007)

Hi Joe,

>So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.

What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Dec 26, 2007)

Hi Pbfoot,

>At about the same time that 413 Squadron had been ordered to move to Ceylon, the Royal Air Force rushed eight air surveillance radar sets to the island. 

Interesting - there seems to be no shortage of information on German radar sets, but I've never found a good site on British radars (ignoring the well-documented Chain Home stations for the moment).

>Instead of the tactical advantage of having the defending fighters awaiting the Japanese from above, it was now the Japanese who held the advantage of height. 

Sounds like a battle decided by tactics ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 26, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Pbfoot,
> Sounds like a battle decided by tactics ...



Most air battles are. All pilots attempt to gain a tactical advantage whenever they meet the enemy. Does that somehow make the A6M2 less of a plane or it's pilot's training less relevent?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 26, 2007)

Nikademus said:


> Most air battles are. All pilots attempt to gain a tactical advantage whenever they meet the enemy. Does that somehow make the less of a plane or it's pilot's training less relevent?


The A6M2 was a great bird not denying that and the tandem of it and its crew made them the most dangerous foe for a short period


----------



## Juha (Dec 26, 2007)

Hello HoHun
there are some basics on British radars at The Radar Pages Home page

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 26, 2007)

Nikademus said:


> Most air battles are. All pilots attempt to gain a tactical advantage whenever they meet the enemy. Does that somehow make the A6M2 less of a plane or it's pilot's training less relevent?



Tactics and teamwork....

As the war progressed it seemed the Japanese was lacking both.


----------



## renrich (Dec 26, 2007)

I am enjoying this discussion a great deal. There have been some excellent posts with much relevant information. I believe there are some basic truths being exposed among which are: paper performance isn't always triumphant and if fact some of it is tactically insignificant and some of the planes and pilots in the Pacific were not second class and could have coped nicely in the ETO. Hope youall keep up the good work.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 29, 2007)

You know, this is great and all, this debate between Spit's and Zero's and tactics and what-not, but....


...what happened to the FW-190?


Did we decided, somewhere along the line, that it was altogether inferior to the Spit and Zero?

I feel like I missed a memo, or something.  





Elvis


----------



## HoHun (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi Elvis,

>...what happened to the FW-190?

Excellent question 

Here is a speed diagram comparing A6M2, Spitfire V and Fw 190A-5.

It's not entirely fair as the Fw 190A-5 would lose some speed too when tropicalized, and it would be more adequate to use a 1942 Fw 190A-3 which had slightly lower engine ratings than the Fw 190A-5, but I have used the 2400 rpm "Steig- und Kampfleistung" 30 min power setting here that is about equivalent to what the A-3 would achieve.

As you can see, the Fw 190A-5 is quite a bit superior speed-wise than the Spitfire V, and if you look at the RAF history, there can be no doubt that this both resulted in a bad exchange ratio between RAF and Luftwaffe as well as an awareness on part of the RAF that they were flying an inferior aircraft. The Spitfire of course still was far superior in low-speed manoeuvrability, but as Spitfire ace "Johnnie" Johnson commeted, "Turning doesn't win battles".

The interesting aspect about the Spitfire versus Zero comparison is that the Spitfire enjoys all the advantages of superior performance, high-speed manoeuvrability and firepower over the Zero that the Focke-Wulf enjoyed over the Spitfire, and the Zero enjoys the the low-speed manoeuvrability superiority over the Spitfire just as the Spitfire enjoyed it over the Focke-Wulf.

Clearly, the Spitfire pilots had all the advantages on their side that had been against them in 1942 when they were facing the Luftwaffe ...

With regard to the comparison Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 versus A6M2: It would have been a turkey shoot, just like for example F4U-1 versus A6M5 later in the war.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 29, 2007)

Interesting comparison.
Thanks for posting that.

You mentioned that the Spit has an advantage of firepower over the Zero (among other things).
How are you interpreting "advantage".
Concentration or sheer force?
Spit had more guns, but the Zero had cannons.

Also, reading your post, a scenario flashed in my mind.
You say the Spit was more manuverable in the "high-speed", but the Zero was more manuverable in the "low-speed".
Doesn't that mean, all the Spit pilot has to do is to retain a certain speed and play the "circle" game with the Zero and it should catch up with the Zero's _derriere_ ...or is it that simple?
Something tells me its not.


Lastly, it seems the FW has an advantage over both of the other planes, in that it hits harder (I believe it too had cannons), is faster and tougher.

Thus it seems, it would most likely be the winner of that contest.






Elvis


----------



## HoHun (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi Elvis,

>You mentioned that the Spit has an advantage of firepower over the Zero (among other things).

The Spitfire V actually had two cannon, too - I believe some of the RAAF Spitfires even had four cannon, but that was not a successful setup due to its weight, and due to a lack of gun heating provisions for the outer pair of cannon. The Hispano cannon in the Spitfire were superior to the Type 99 cannon in the A6M2 - the Hispano II managed to achieve a total energy output (kinetic energy of the projectiles plus chemical energy of the explosives in the shells) of 1.06 MW per barrel, while the 20 mm Type 99-1 only had 0.52 MW per barrel (and fired at a lower velocity).

>Doesn't that mean, all the Spit pilot has to do is to retain a certain speed and play the "circle" game with the Zero and it should catch up with the Zero's _derriere_ ...or is it that simple?
>Something tells me its not.

You're right, it's more complicated. If the Spitfire simpy kept circling (which it might lack the power to do), the Zero could decelerate and slice through the middle of the circle to catch the Spitfire there.

High-speed manoeuvrability is something that's useful for short periods - for example when diving at an enemy, or when diving away from an enemy. 

A Spitfire diving at a Zero has still full control of the elevator and some useful amount of aileron in order to line up on its target. The Zero was infamous for losing aileron control almost completely at high speeds - if it dived at its target, it could not dive very fast, or it would be unable to point its guns at all. The dive speed determines how quickly you can close with the enemy (and he will be more likely to notice you and have more time to manoeuvre against you if you dive slower), and as it also determines how easy it will be for you to get away from the enemy to avoid a counter attack, and how readily you will get into a position for another attack. Obviously, the greater the speed of your attack, the higher you will be able to zoom afterwards - and from up there, you can attack again.

If you are trying to evade an enemy, staying controllable in a high-speed dive while you enemy loses control is very useful - you dive away, and if he gives chase, you let speed build up to the point where he loses controllability, and then you can simply fly any kind of manoeuvre to shake him off - he won't be able to follow that. If he doesn't follow but keeps his altitude, that's almost as good - you have shaken him off as well, though it might be more difficult to get back into an attack position then.

Circling is not that important in air combat at all - usually, it's the last resort of someone who is defending against an attack of an enemy flying an aircraft with higher performance. That's what Johnnie Johnson meant when he said "Turning doesn't win battles" - the Spitfires were out-turning Focke-Wulfs every day, but they were still losing more of their number than they were shooting down in return.

Part of the explanation for that is that air combat is not a duel between two aircraft whose pilots are aware of each other and who start the fight from a position of equality. It's an encounter of formations of aircraft flying at different altitudes in different directions, with the initiative resting with the side that spots the enemy first. The aircraft in each formation try to cover each other, so it's often not necessary to out-turn an enemy because he will be scared off (or shot down) by friendly aircraft anyway, and if a pilot loses the support of his formation, the first thing he usually does is to get out of the fight (if possible) and try to find friendly support again. Four aircraft were an effective fighting team, two were the minimum fighting team, and one alone was considered to be in serious danger.

Four-ship formation tactics were developed by the Luftwaffe in Spain, with the RAF adopting them only towards the end of the Battle of Britain. The Flying Tigers apparently used them quite early, and part of the success of the Navy Wildcats was due to Jimmy Thatch taking the gossip about a Japanese super-fighter serious and developing formation tactics to defend against it - resulting in the famous Thatch Weave. The Japanese on the other hand were slow to adopt four-ship tactics. Apparently, the Army had contact to the Luftwaffe and learned it directly from them, even borrowing the terminology, but it took the Navy long to give up the obsolete three-ship formations that were a relic from the biplane era when radio was not available.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 29, 2007)

HoHun,

Great post!
I get it now.
Thanks.



Elvis


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 29, 2007)

Elvis said:


> You know, this is great and all, this debate between Spit's and Zero's and tactics and what-not, but....
> 
> 
> ...what happened to the FW-190?
> ...



Given the fact that progressive marks/blocks of FW-190 were able to compete well with 2nd generation Allied aircraft like the P-51, P-47, P-38 and Spitfires of mid and later marks, I'd give the nod of paper superiority to the 190 over the A6M2. 190A's proved to be very troublesome for the Spit Vc's as well.

That said.....based on real life day to day occurances, I don't agree that it would be a "turkey shoot" replacing Spit V's with 190's anymore than it turned out to be a "turkey shoot" for the Spit which also had all the "stats" to beat the Zero on paper yet it didn't play out that way. (nor did it work out that way initially with VIII's taking on Ki-43II's)

A turkey shoot would require additional factors to be present such as inexperienced pilots in the Zeros. Without a real life comparison however.....i'd predict a ratio of less than 3:1 in favor of the 190 initially. 

Progressive upgrades however increase the theoretical superiority of the Spit and 190 over the A6M because it simply wasn't a airframe suitible for further development and the A6M2 was essentially a 1940 design while the FW in particular was younger and had far far more potential for upgrade. The A6M's designer said himself that the usual period of useful life for a fighter plane design was around 2 years after which you needed a sucessor. Problem for Japan was there was no sucessor available for the A6M. It was both a victim of it's initial success as well as a symptom of the problems prevalient in Japanese industry. It wasn't like they weren't aware of the Zero's growing obsolecence from 1943 onward....it was simply a choice between having fighter planes to fight and not having them. They couldn't devote enough capacity to new fighter research and maintain current production of existing airframes at the same time. The Ki-61 was a great leap forward but technical issues prevented it from superseeding the Ki-43 which also continued production despite increasing obsolence and the Ki-44 never seemed to shake it's bad luck.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 30, 2007)

Hi Nikademus,

>I'd give the nod of paper superiority to the 190 over the A6M2.

Oh, well - you are probably using this word for the first time here, but it has been running through this thread and a similar older one as sort of a leitmotif, so it's time for me to do something about it:

I'm fed up by the re-occurence of this "paper superiority" term in this discussion. Utter nonsense - flight performance is achieved in the sky, and every air force has gone to great length to determine the performance of its own and of all enemy aircraft as accurately as possible because no-one actually fighting in the war had any doubt that performance was the key to survival. (The British actually planned a commando raid to capture a Fw 190 in order to get that data, and they'd have pulled it off if a German pilot hadn't accidentally landed in England with a perfect example before they were ready to raid.)

Trying to disqualify what the pilots of the era considered vital data as "paper statistics" is a clear sign of armchair quarterbacking.

>That said.....based on real life day to day occurances, I don't agree that it would be a "turkey shoot" replacing Spit V's with 190's anymore than it turned out to be a "turkey shoot" for the Spit which also had all the "stats" to beat the Zero on paper yet it didn't play out that way. (nor did it work out that way initially with VIII's taking on Ki-43II's)

The Focke-Wulf pilots proved that they were able to take on an inferior performing opponent of superior manoeuvrability with great success when they fought the Spitfire V over the channel. It is true that the Spitfire pilots in the Pacific did not achieve the same result, but the question remains: Why didn't they? They enjoyed all the same advantages as the Focke-Wulfs enjoyed over the channel. With that question unanswered, it's not possible to draw an analogy.

>A turkey shoot would require additional factors to be present such as inexperienced pilots in the Zeros. Without a real life comparison however.....i'd predict a ratio of less than 3:1 in favor of the 190 initially.

There is a limit to what experience can do. The Polish air force had long-serving, well-trained career officers as pilots, many of whom achieved impressive success later when serving with the RAF, but flying obsolete PZL parasols, they just weren't able to put up effective resistance when Germany invaded Poland. The performance superiority of the Fw 190A-3 over the A6M2 is probably greater than the superiority the Me 109 and Me 110 had over the PZL fighter ... just for perspective.

Butler/Caldwell seem to quote a claims to loss ratio of 6.5:1 for JG 26 in 1942, and while that might include the usual overclaiming, it probably means that they were doing better than 3:1 against the Spitfires over the channel.

Now replace that Spitfire with a fighter that is significantly slower, loses controllability at high speed, has only half the firepower and no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks at all - I wouldn't expect the kill ratio to drop under these circumstances.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 30, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Nikademus,
> 
> I'm fed up by the re-occurence of this "paper superiority" term in this discussion. Utter nonsense - flight performance is achieved in the sky [snip]
> Trying to disqualify what the pilots of the era considered vital data as "paper statistics" is a clear sign of armchair quarterbacking.



I'm not trying to disqualify anything. You will recall I have given both the Spitfire and the 190 the nod in overall superiority in pretty much every mention of the three aircraft in a general comparison. On the contrary.....my comment's are not "armchair quarterbacking" but observations based on analysis of real world data on a day to day basis. My research continues of course. As for "paper superiority.", there is a definitive difference between stats and RL preformance. With few exceptions i've rarely found any particular matchup of aircraft within a certain competetive range to exceed close ratios of losses due to the simple fact that air combat involves variables and dimensions outside of simple plane stat and pilot stat comparisons. Thats why for the most part WWII air combat was a matter of attritional warfare. It ended up coming down to he who had the greatest capacity to absorb losses. Turkey shoots tend to only occur in situations of great disperity or unbalance to use another word. Those situations involved factors in addition to simple preformance estimates of an aircraft in question. So its not that i'm discounting paper stats, rather, i'm acknowledging real world factors that also influenced air combat and thus, trying to put them in a more realistic perspective. 



> The Focke-Wulf pilots proved that they were able to take on an inferior performing opponent of superior manoeuvrability with great success when they fought the Spitfire V over the channel.



And the A6M and Ki-43 pilots proved that they were able to take on a statistically superior preforming opponent with success as well. Having seen this repeatedly with different aircraft matchups....I can certainly draw an analogy. I'd say the FW pilots proved they were able to exploit the strengths of their aircraft while fighting defensively over France over an opponent that was slow to come to terms with the different tactical and operational sitaution facing them. I'd also say that the results were influenced by Fighter Command's expansion coupled with the retiring of veteran pilots to help train the new crop. The Germans tended to maintain their experienced pilots in the field giving them an exp edge. You can't IMHO, simply attribute it to one factor (plane preformance)



> There is a limit to what experience can do.



I wasn't simply referring to experience. There are numerous variables at play. I've also read that the Polish airforce didn't preform that badly against the Luftwaffe in 39 considering the odds. Some of those same Poles later demonstrated their innovative tactics to a skeptical Fighter Command during the Battle of Britian and changed some minds and impressed still more. Turns out the French also preformed credibly during the initial fighting.



> Butler/Caldwell seem to quote a claims to loss ratio of 6.5:1 for JG 26 in 1942, and while that might include the usual overclaiming, it probably means that they were doing better than 3:1 against the Spitfires over the channel.



I doubt it based on what i've seen though it's certainly possible. Fighter Command seemed slow to respond to the situation. JG 26 appears to have scored a possible 3.1:1 ratio during BoB. They were also considered the Luftwaffe's top guns. 



> Now replace that Spitfire with a fighter that is significantly slower, loses controllability at high speed, has only half the firepower and no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks at all - I wouldn't expect the kill ratio to drop under these circumstances.



The British felt similar several times in the course of the Pacific. It didn't happen as predicted. Thats the danger of transposing a situation that occured in one theater and situation directly onto another. I remain conservative in my prediction. Against pilots of equivilent skill....the 190's might sustain a 2:1 to 3:1 ratio. Maybe not. 6:1 I don't find credible at all as a prediction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Dec 30, 2007)

Hi Nikademus,

>I'm not trying to disqualify anything. 

"Paper superiority" is a propaganda term I'm not going to put up with. I concede you may have used it accidentally, but that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

>As for "paper superiority.", there is a definitive difference between stats and RL preformance. 

Now you should be aware that "performance" has a well-defined meaning in an aviation context, describing technical aspects such as speed and climb. I believe you are using it in its more general meaning here, which is roughly equivalent with "success".

Now undoubtly success is not guaranteed if you have a significant performance (and firepower, and protection) superiority ... it's merely highly probable. The lack of success of the Spitfire V against the A6M2 is an anomaly, and you can't generalize from anomalies.

>Turkey shoots tend to only occur in situations of great disperity or unbalance to use another word. 

What kill-to-loss ratio do you require for applying the term "Turkey shoot"? Wouldn't make much sense to argue about something linguistically vague ...

>So its not that i'm discounting paper stats, rather, i'm acknowledging real world factors that also influenced air combat and thus, trying to put them in a more realistic perspective. 

That's where you have to be specific and present a hypothesis explaining how the out-classed A6M2 (flown by experienced IJN pilots) could prevail against the vastly superior Fw 190A-3 (flown by experienced Luftwaffe pilots). Truisms won't take us anywhere.

>And the A6M and Ki-43 pilots proved that they were able to take on a statistically superior preforming opponent with success as well. 

Not consistently ... the Ki-43 pilots fighting against the Flying Tiger's P-40 were losing on a regular basis, and the reason is that Claire Chennault drilled high-speed hit-and-run tactics into his men that worked very well against the slower, poorly protected Japanese aircraft. This reinforces my point that the poor success of the Spitfire is an anomaly since the superiority of the Spitfire V as a fighter over the P-40 is well established.

The Flying Tiger tactics coincidentally were the same tactics that were used so successfully by the Fw 190 pilots on the channel front.

>I'd say the FW pilots proved they were able to exploit the strengths of their aircraft while fighting defensively over France over an opponent that was slow to come to terms with the different tactical and operational sitaution facing them. 

Fighting defensively over Australia instead of France would not have lessened their ability to exploit the strenths of their aircraft (and the weaknesses of the enemies'). I would not downplay Fighter Command's tactical flexibility or the experience of their fighter leaders and pilots - they had learned from their 1941 mistakes and had much improved by 1942. In 1942, JG 26 still claimed better than 6:1.

>I doubt it based on what i've seen though it's certainly possible. Fighter Command seemed slow to respond to the situation. JG 26 appears to have scored a possible 3.1:1 ratio during BoB. They were also considered the Luftwaffe's top guns. 

They were about the only fighter group on the channel front, and they were having serious losses too, and using rookies to fill up their ranks. Fighter Command's worst hour was 1941, they had learned a lot by 1942.

The Butler/Caldwell figures I have seen indicate that they claimed just above 5:1 in the 1940 and just above 6:1 in 1942. If you accept 3:1 in 1940 you should have no problems with the same figure in 1942 when the possiblities of verifying the claims were better due to much of the fighting taking place over friendly territory.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 30, 2007)

HoHun said:


> I'm fed up by the re-occurence of this "paper superiority" term in this discussion.


Really?
Because from what I've read so far, I feel Nickademus seems to hold a slight "paper superiority" over HoHun, based on his skillfull execution of the litterary material, balanced with what seems to be some real world knowledge, of the subject at hand, and how he can keep the discussion progressing to an ultimate conclusion, rather than seeming to "stall" slightly in prior conversations, as they lift ever higher and higher.
Although I do have to admit that HoHun seems to hold stronger arguments at the discussions "initial climb" towards its ultimate conclusion, and his ability to reference an ever increasing number of factual comparisons, seems to give his reference _cache_ the nod of "superiority" ("on paper", that is) over just about anyone who's posted in this thread, so far.

Boy, I don't know. It's pretty close on this one.








D just kidding.  )






Elvis

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 30, 2007)

Hun said:


> The performance superiority of the Fw 190A-3 over the A6M2 is probably greater than the superiority the Me 109 and Me 110 had over the Polish PZL fighter ... just for perspective.


That really sums this whole discussion up....


----------



## HoHun (Dec 30, 2007)

Hi again,

This quote might be interesting in the context of our thread:

Jimmy Thach, quoted in Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific: 

"In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ... 
The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet."

(From Grumman F4F Wildcat )


Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## WEMM (Dec 30, 2007)

as far as cannon cannon comparison the Type 99 cannon had a rate of fire of 490rpm with a muzzle velocity around 600m/sec and the hispano fired at 700 rounds/min and Muzzle velocity of about 800 m/s


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 30, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi again,
> 
> This quote might be interesting in the context of our thread:
> 
> ...



Yes, it is interesting. It's also in Lundstrom. However, such comment's must be taken in context as anything else. In the PacWar in particular, the respective pilots of each side commonly didn't hold very charitable views of each other. There were exceptions of course....Saburo Sakai being one of them. Such commentary can be found in Lundstrom's pages after the first clash between the First Team and Japanese A5M fighters.

Another relevent common came from Jack Fletcher;

"Nobody mentions the matter, for fear of bringing down the wrath of the aviators upon them, the Japanese Zeros all wore Seven League Boots and our aviators gave them alot of G.D. respect."

Another good comment;

"Pilots are anxiously awaiting faster and better fighters. Repeat are anxiously awaiting faster and better fighters."

So you can see.....comments can be pulled in both directions. In terms of Thach's comments. I can understand "why" he'd say such a thing apart from the natural tendancy of the pilots to downgrade each other. Chris Shores at the end of Bloody Shambles Vol. II commented on the "myth" of the Zero's invincibility as an Allied invention....and that the reason why it was done so was because it was easier in Allied minds to accept that they were beaten by a machine and not by well trained opponents. This was due in part to the standing pregidice that was standard during that time period in Asia. Getting back directly to Thach....he encountered the Zero CAP after a period of intensive and chaotic combat and they were disorganized, fatigued and had their blood up. I also suspect that they had little to no cannon ammo left....all of which contributed to the initial brilliant success of the Thach weave....resulting in the loss of 6 Zeros for 1 Wildcat. A brilliant debut preformance that would not be repeated again.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 30, 2007)

Hi Nikademus,

>So you can see.....comments can be pulled in both directions.

Actually, your comments seem to be working in the same direction as the one I provided: The F4F was not considered a match for the A6M2.

The Thatch comment still stands out as it's the only one that actually gives reasons for the success against a superior performing enemy.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 30, 2007)

Hello!



HoHun said:


> Hi Nikademus,
> 
> "Paper superiority" is a propaganda term I'm not going to put up with. I concede you may have used it accidentally, but that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.



I disagree. "Paper superiority" is a common real life occurance that happens all the time in historical subjects that compare one weapons device to another. It isn't restricted to airplanes either. Its often done vs. pretty much anything, tanks for example. I come from a website that has seen some of the biggest flame fests based on paper-stat comparisons....with the arguments often going into outworldly situations that bear little resemblence to the RL situation. One of my personal favorites is the "Any 76mmm equipped Sherman can take care of any garden-variety Tiger tank....just look at the penetration stats!!!!!!" 





> Now you should be aware that "performance" has a well-defined meaning in an aviation context, describing technical aspects such as speed and climb.



Yes...thank you. I am well aware of what "preformance" means and that when i look at preformance stats in a book or a website that they are theoretical best stats...that will not always be present in RL depending on condition of plane etc etc. Shores made point to mention that in Fighters Over the Desert. That doesn't mean such stats arn't useful but they should not be taken litterally. An example would be max speed. A much abused stat. The way some people (not here) wield it, you'd think all WWII fighter planes tool around at max speed all the time.



> I believe you are using it in its more general meaning here, which is roughly equivalent with "success".



No. I am using preformance as an estimate and then factoring it in to RL obsevations of air combat.



> Now undoubtly success is not guaranteed if you have a significant performance (and firepower, and protection) superiority ... it's merely highly probable. The lack of success of the Spitfire V against the A6M2 is an anomaly, and you can't generalize from anomalies.



Superior preformance definately gives an edge. And yes, it is indeed no gurantee and lack of definitive success (i.e. a Turkey shoot) is not an anomoly, its common place. The anomoly is actually when a very large disperity exists when the two opponents are not seperated by a wide gulf. Such an anomoly occured over Malta in the four month period of 2/41 through 5/41 when 7/JG-26 operated from Sicily.




> What kill-to-loss ratio do you require for applying the term "Turkey shoot"? Wouldn't make much sense to argue about something linguistically vague ...



For me personally...(someone else might coin a different stat), I would say first that a signifigant disperity starts at it's lowest level at above 3:1 ratio. A serious disperity would be roughly around 6:1. The F4U is alleged for example to have scored an amazing 11:1 ratio though its never been confirmed. Some sources use the rule of 2 and say maybe 6:1 ratio. If a more accurate ratio is 6:1 to use the example for a moment it would still not be soley due to the preformance stats of the Corsair but would be aided heavily by the fact that the quality of opposition faced was poor to very poor and the numerical disadvantages and the use of outdated tactics in some cases all contributed to such a slaughter as well. 



> That's where you have to be specific and present a hypothesis explaining how the out-classed A6M2 (flown by experienced IJN pilots) could prevail against the vastly superior Fw 190A-3 (flown by experienced Luftwaffe pilots). Truisms won't take us anywhere.



First off, I didn't say the A6M2 pilots would prevail. I said it wasn't out of the bounds of possibility that they might repeat their preformance against the Spitfires as happened in real life, or etch a draw like the 64th Sentai managed initially vs. "much superior" Spitfire VIII's. I have in this discussion actually given the nod to the FW-190A, especially the mid-service life blocks because the 190 was more adaptible to the changing environment and was overall a younger design. My difference with your accessment which appears to be based on a simple paper stat comparison followed by a transposing of one unique battle sitaution from West to East is that I do not assume a "Turkey Shoot" with FW pilots leasurly flying around BnZing their helpless opponents while reading the morning paper. 

Thus I'd put forth a theoretical 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio. I think given the the fact that many RL comparisons between even aircraft of somewhat disparant paper preformances fell under 2:1 in tactical engagement (sometimes even 1:1 or 1.5:1) like when P-40's initially faced "obsolete" Ki-27's in Burm, or when Cr-42's faced "superior" preforming Hurricanes over Malta (and traded almost 1:1), i'm being generous to the FW pilots.



> Not consistently ... the Ki-43 pilots fighting against the Flying Tiger's P-40 were losing on a regular basis, and the reason is that Claire Chennault drilled high-speed hit-and-run tactics into his men that worked very well against the slower, poorly protected Japanese aircraft. This reinforces my point that the poor success of the Spitfire is an anomaly since the superiority of the Spitfire V as a fighter over the P-40 is well established.



They were edged on a regular basis yes....not Turkey Shoot levels however and the AVG's most common opponent were Ki-27's not Ki-43's. The tactical situation also had much to do with it as well. The AVG fought only when the situation favored them and they were geographically positioned to be able to do so. After mid 42 range was also their friend. In fact the P40 flying AVG/51st FG did better than even "superior" preforming planes like the P-38, Spit VIII and P-51A for a time because of this. Despite similar properties, the Hurricanes were owned by the Ki-43's and for a period of time the Spit VIII's were stalemated despite a major paper superiority. P-38's and P-51 engagements were far more fleeting but for a period of time the ratio was competetive there as well. What turned the game around directly had nothing to do with paper stats....it was a change in tactics, ever increasng numbers and lack of support for the Japanese because Burma was considered a backwater theater.



> Fighting defensively over Australia instead of France would not have lessened their ability to exploit the strenths of their aircraft (and the weaknesses of the enemies').



It shouldn't have lessened the Spitfire's ability either as displayed during the BoB. Yet it did.



> I would not downplay Fighter Command's tactical flexibility or the experience of their fighter leaders and pilots - they had learned from their 1941 mistakes and had much improved by 1942. In 1942, JG 26 still claimed better than 6:1.



Not downplaying it. I've read up on it and discussed what i saw as a chronic malise with some friends i considered more knowledgable on the subject. Yes FC had some great leaders but like the US, they did not keep them all in the cockpits while the Germans tended to do so. FC also continued to greatly expand to preform these offensive missions and as such many green pilots were behind the weel. Such as also the case for the WDAF and contributed to their being often bested by fhigh flying 109s using Friei Jagd tactics.



> They were about the only fighter group on the channel front, and they were having serious losses too, and using rookies to fill up their ranks. Fighter Command's worst hour was 1941, they had learned a lot by 1942.



Yes...in an attritional war all sides lose men and have to replace them with rookies. Doesn't change the fact that JG-26 remained an elite formation and they were later helped by flying defensively and having the tables turned badly on FC who know found themselves faced against a very well running air defense network that often expertly vectored the Luft fighters onto their fighter sweeps.



> The Butler/Caldwell figures I have seen indicate that they claimed just above 5:1 in the 1940 and just above 6:1 in 1942. If you accept 3:1 in 1940 you should have no problems with the same figure in 1942 when the possiblities of verifying the claims were better due to much of the fighting taking place over friendly territory.



I question any claim ratio until I've read a source along the lines of a Shores, or Lundstrom that devotes serious postwar research to the campaign. JG 26 was not any less immune to overclaiming as another airgroup though some historically did better than others. 64th Sentai for example was usually fairly accurate while 50th Sentai's claiming was reliant on whether or not they succeeded in their mission. In the Desert Shores actually credits the Luft with fairly accurate claiming (though sill vulnerable to the classic conditions that produce overclaiming) though also documented the unfortunate incidents involving II/JG53 that led to many Luft claims being held in high suspicion.

As for 3:1 I have accepted that as a theoretical poss over Darwin using 190's with good pilots vs experienced Zero pilots. However....because of what often happened in RL and what *specifically* happened with superior Spits in India as well as Darwin...I'm not discounting the possibility that they might not do as well as that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Dec 30, 2007)

Hi Nikademus,

>"Paper superiority" is a common real life occurance that happens all the time in historical subjects that compare one weapons device to another. 

Do you mean to question the statement that the Spitfire V enjoys real performance superiority over the A6M2, and the statement that the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 enjoys a real performance superiority over both of them?

I don't think you do. The rest is conclusions from facts, and these are either logical or they're not - we don't need a propaganda label to discuss that. 

Calling them "paper superiority" is an attempt to disqualify my conclusions as inherently flawed "paper" conclusions while trying to establish your as valuable "real-life" conclusions. 

If you think you need this kind of rhethoric device to impress the audience or to simply annoy me, I would consider that regrettable

As the term "paper something" can be found in about every second paragraph of the rest of your post, I'll refrain myself from answering until we have resolved this issue.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Soren (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm gonna have to agree with HoHun here Nik, a performance advantage is a performance advantage.

And regarding the US 76mm equipped Shermans, well according both to the paper statistics real life these could NOT handle the Tiger at the promised ranges, the projectiles simply werent of sufficient quality and would shatter against the Tiger's armor even at point blank range. A big disappointment to the US tankers at the front.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 31, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Nikademus,
> 1. Do you mean to question the statement that the Spitfire V enjoys real performance superiority over the A6M2, and the statement that the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 enjoys a real performance superiority over both of them?
> 
> 2. Calling them "paper superiority" is an attempt to disqualify my conclusions as inherently flawed "paper" conclusions while trying to establish your as valuable "real-life" conclusions.


1. Assuming a paper comparison is truly accurate and representative, the question is exactly *what* degree of advantage does a particular speed or climb advantage actually confer? The answer, to the degree it can be found at all, can only be found in two sided documented fighter combat outcomes IMO. Even with all the extraneous factors which inevitably enter into that. And just like I didn't say the Zero outclassed the Spit V (though the Spit V very obviously didn't outclass the A6M2 Zero if it could only manage a 1: several ratio against it), I didn't say there was necessarily a definitive answer to which fighter was, inherently itself, better overall in any reasonably close match up. 

2. But there's some reality to that terminology. The paper results *are* on paper, and actual quoted numbers of speeds of WWII a/c tend to vary considerably. Japanese ones, the real speeds of their fighters in standard favorable conditions, had a tendency to be higher than the official stats. Stats on captured planes were notoriously subject to inaccuracy for various reasons. And some planes coped with unfavorable conditions better than others, why is that not to their credit as planes? 

And the actual combat results *are* actual. But even assuming it's 'actual' speed advantage, *what* conclusion can be drawn about the *quantitative* relationship between a speed advantage of given size and combat effectivness advantage, other than by real combat results? How do you know other more subtle plane factors didn't have equal importance to relatively small speed advantages?, and how would find out other than by testing the planes in real combat against one another?

A few misc. comments of various recent posts:
-F4F design and USN gunnery training: those were not independent factors, the F4F's low nose made high deflection tracking much more practical.
-Hurricane v Zero and Type 1: again, for the several-th time on two threads, the conclusion about Hurricane's effectiveness is simply not drawn from the first battle over Ceylon (or even the second one where the Hurricanes were not surprised). The full stats are given on the other thread, numerous combats v Type 1 and Zero, *all* of which went against the Hurricane, even v. the Type 97 the Hurricane's ratio was <1, though much less bad than against Zero and Type 1, as would be expected.
-Spitfire and Hurricane v the Germans up to '43: some of those results make Spit V v Zero seem slightly less an 'anomaly'. And the poor fighter-fighter exchange ratio of RAF-FC over France in '41 (even pre Fw190) v less poor in BoB seems to undercut the idea that the defensive fighter was at a disadvantage; that frankly seems to me an expedient argument to explain the 'anomaly' of Spit at Darwin, that doesn't jibe with a lot of other results in WWII. The sweeping or escorting fighter pilot's need for a sharper eye on the fuel gauge was recognized as a disadvantage. And a longer legged plane on an offensive mission to reduce that worry was recognized as an advantage, *of the plane*.
-F4U 11:1 ratio: I don't see any validity in a fixed ratio to discount claims, 2 or any other single number, it varied too much. Per Gamble's "Black Sheep" the claims accuracy ratio appeared to be around 40% for F4U units in Boyington's time in the Solomons (Spits at Darwin in 30's% though considerably worse considering only claims against Japanese fighters, and the F4U claims at that time were mainly v fighters). But those Marine units were not claiming close to 11:1, that average includes large scale F4U air combat in 1945 including v Kamikazes. F4U's had an advantage over JNAF fighters at the time of the Spit Darwin campaign, but not a huge one.

Joe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Dec 31, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Joe,
> What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?


To clarify what I said about 'experienced Zero units' remember the unit at Darwin that went ~25:4 against Spitfire V's, the 202nd Air Group, was the redesignated 3rd Air Group of 1941-42, which cut a pretty wide swath through Allied fighter opposition that year starting with raids on the Philippines through to Dutch East Indies campaign and then attacks from Timor on Darwin which was defended by the 49th FG (P-40's) in spring and summer '42. Some of the 3rd's pilots were transferred out but as a whole it didn't undergo grinding down in the Guadalcanal or New Guinea campaigns.

What was the effect there or in general of such *successful* experience on a fighter unit, I think it's a book length topic  but my narrower point is I don't know of many cases where Allied fighters made a simple shift from 'turning with them' to 'hit and run' against the same Japanese units and saw a dramatic turnaround in results right away. So I question the whole idea of black and white statements like 'it was tactics' that tend to imply the possiblity of such radical shifts, or one sided victories by 'outclassed' fighters by simple 'tactics'.

When people compare success of Japanese fighters units early in the war to lack of success later on in terms of tactics, they aren't usually comparing the same J units in same overall situation in closely spaced times. They are including indirect effects of more competitive Allied fighter units over time, eg. the Japanese system as a whole couldn't sustain significant losses and expand greatly (which the Allied forces were doing) so both its quality *and* numerical positions tended to deteriorate as the war went on. Tactics factored in there indirectly, but I don't see the evidence that simple switches in tactics could produce big changes right away.

Back to 3rd/202nd they had at least one quite bad day against the 49th FG after it adopted high speed tactics, August 23, 1942 when they lost 5 to 1 P-40. But the 49th claimed success in other cases where the IJN accounts don't support it. Situationally aware pilots (in planes with excellent cockpit visibility, another strength of the Zero) with an advantage in 'angles' combat would force 'energy' fighters into high deflection shots most WWII pilots couldn't make, though they often honestly believed they had made them. But occasionally even the best would be caught from behind by such tactics, leading to attrition, and if the pilot replacement system was not strong, eventually inferior pilots. But it wouldn't necessarily succeed right away. 

But also, the lack of any real bad days for the 202nd in the '43 campaign against Darwin, even after the Spits claimed to be trying to use energy tactics, suggests that unit with its cohesiveness from 42 to 43 perhaps adapted itself to such tactics, at least to some degree. This is a different situation than comparing the capabilities of 1942 Zero units in the Solomons ground down in equal combat with F4F's then replaced with mainly new units in 1943, or even more so the still fairly capable 1943 IJN fighter units in the Solomons ground down to nothing v their 1944 successors.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 31, 2007)

Hello,



> Do you mean to question the statement that the Spitfire V enjoys real performance superiority over the A6M2, and the statement that the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 enjoys a real performance superiority over both of them?



Which side did I say would most likely win this theoretical matchup over Darwin?




> Calling them "paper superiority" is an attempt to disqualify my conclusions as inherently flawed "paper" conclusions while trying to establish your as valuable "real-life" conclusions.



This is the 2nd time you've accused me of trying to "disqualify" your viewpoint and/or the preformance data you place so much weight on. What I have been "attempting" to do is to combine two different types of information (preformance data (real and/or theoretical best) and junxtaposition it against real life combat situations, circumstances and variables and come to an adequate and careful prediction of the resolution. You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but ironically, my interperation of the various data leads me to essentially the same conclusion as yours in terms of the victor. Where we differ is in judging the degree of victory plus I am also acknowledging that an alternate outcome is possible.




> If you think you need this kind of rhethoric device to impress the audience or to simply annoy me, I would consider that regrettable



I would consider it regrettable if you felt the need to continue commenting on my alleged motivations as a device to cast me in less than complimentary tones. I don't find them relevent to the discussion nor are they accurate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 31, 2007)

> I'm gonna have to agree with HoHun here Nik, a performance advantage is a performance advantage.



Hi Soren,

Yes...a preformance advantage is a preformance advantage. In case my use of the term "paper stats/superiority etc is being misinterpreted, let me clarify what i mean by it; When I use this term, I am not suggesting that the device in question couldn't preform up to those specs assuming the machine is in good servicability. Perhaps it would be less offensive to some parties if i labeled it simply "preformance stats". either way its pretty much the same thing to me.

Point I was trying to make is that a preformance edge is not the be-all/end-all of things in air combat. If it were then the Spit V's at Darwin should have won and won big. They didn't. Preformance is a component of air combat...a very important one, but still a component in an overall equation.



> And regarding the US 76mm equipped Shermans, well according both to the paper statistics real life these could NOT handle the Tiger at the promised ranges, the projectiles simply werent of sufficient quality and would shatter against the Tiger's armor even at point blank range. A big disappointment to the US tankers at the front



Actually the paper statistics from ballistic tests suggested a good chance of penetration of a Tiger's frontal glasis at standard battle ranges. Because of this, several memorable threads have been spawned where certain persons have made the claim i cited as an example and based it on the "preformance data" You and I know that in the field this was not the case but that didn't stop these heated arguments and stats from being thrown around. I can send you the link to the last big one. Tons of fun to read.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Jan 1, 2008)

Hi Nikademus,

>You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but ironically, my interperation of the various data leads me to essentially the same conclusion as yours in terms of the victor. 

I certainly appreciate that.

Still, I'm not happy with the terms "paper superiority", "... performance" etc. These terms are used in no wartime report or tactical study I have ever seen, and cannot be found in Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat" either (the fighter pilot's "bible", if you recognize the title).

So "paper performance" at best is unprofessional jargon, and I still believe it was originally coined as rhethoric device, building on the suggestive context of "paper ..." to downplay the validity of the main term "performance".

I'm glad to hear you intended to use the term as a neutral category, but the problem is that the suggestive nature of the term still invites misunderstandings. As it's definitely not professional terminology, maybe you could simply drop the "paper ..." part? 

Apart from that one issue, I consider your arguments well-researched and logical even where I disagree with them, and since you mentioned it, I'd agree that a different outcome to any particular predicted one is always possible, though I would add that it might be unlikely. (And due to the law of great numbers, in a major campaign the more likely result is what will show as the final score).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Jan 1, 2008)

Hi Joeb,

>>What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?

>What was the effect there or in general of such *successful* experience on a fighter unit, I think it's a book length topic  

It's a one-liner: Experience enables a fighter pilot to determine and implement better tactics.

So if you attribute the result of the Spitfire V vs. A6M2 engagements to the greater experience of the Zero pilots, you actually recognize tactics the decisive factor.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Jan 1, 2008)

Hi Nikademus,

>Actually the paper statistics from ballistic tests suggested a good chance of penetration of a Tiger's frontal glasis at standard battle ranges. 

Hm, I'm not a tank expert, but could it be that this consideration didn't take into account that the Tiger crews were trained to turn their tank into an oblique angle to the enemy to make it harder to penetrate the armour? I have skimmed the "Tigerfibel", and there was a "time of the clock" diagram actually outlined areas of vulnerability against the Sherman - along with instructions how to avoid these vulnerabilities in battle.

If that was indeed the reason for overestimating the Sherman's effectiveness, it would be due to an incomplete picture of combat tactics ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 1, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Nikademus,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 1, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Nikademus,
> 
> Hm, I'm not a tank expert, but could it be that this consideration didn't take into account that the Tiger crews were trained to turn their tank into an oblique angle to the enemy to make it harder to penetrate the armour? I have skimmed the "Tigerfibel", and there was a "time of the clock" diagram actually outlined areas of vulnerability against the Sherman - along with instructions how to avoid these vulnerabilities in battle.



If one were an objective minded person, and truely wanted to analyse fairly the situation...yes one would definatley want to take in the possibility of oblique angles....as well as the far thicker frontal turret armor of the tiger....the fact that in the ballistic "tests" the armor penetration achieved was close to the thickness level of the target (showing how close the margin is) That person might also factor in that the testing methodology specified the pen figures represented 50% chance pen at that thickness level at range indicated.......and lastly of course shatter gap and the quality issue of the US/UK projectiles vs. their German equivilents. After that..add in all the real life commentary.

Alas.....the person who's quote i lifted regarding 76mm armed Shermans taking out any "Garden Variety Tiger" is not one who is interested in any of those things. He and his brood are interested in winning arguments along lines of national contention. So instead of the above....you get blanket statements like 76mm Shermans taking out Tigers frontally with ease...all based on simple ballistic test data stripped out of a website or two.....despite a preponderance of disputing evidence...technical as well as ancedotal....like.....(drum roll)



> ME109 K -- Max airspeed: 440 mph at 7500m (about 24,000 feet).
> ME109H -- Max airspeed 452 mph at 19,685 feet.
> ME109G8++ -- Max airspeed 426 mph at 24,280 feet
> ME109G1-G6 -- Max airspeed 386 mph at 22,640 feet
> ...



From the 109K thread. Same person who posted the above has posted the little gems about Shermans vs. Tigers. Its a fun board when these people come around. (not). 



> If that was indeed the reason for overestimating the Sherman's effectiveness, it would be due to an incomplete picture of combat tactics ...



You are so very correct. I might only add...."deliberately" incomplete picture to it. Generalizations are their friends.

anyway, for those with strong stomach's here's a link to the latest blow up that occured at the beginning of this year. Its not nice but educational on various Internet debating strategies used.

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 1, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> >So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.
> 
> ...



Multiple values.
1. Innate awareness of the relative strengths of your own a/c and they ones you are liable to encounter - leading to better situational awareness, particularly if caught unawares on an initial attack (that failed) from an unseen opponent. 

For example, Me 109 pilots that had little relative 'experience' against a P-47 or a Mustang might tend to dive away when bounced - fatally. A lot of Eastern front LW pilots that moved from Ost to LuftReich died performing a manuever that worked with Spits and Yaks.

2. Stick and Rudder skills - take the same talent and the one that flys a lot in that fighter becomes a part of the airplane he flys. He doesn't 'think/then do" - he reacts instinctively and faster and more violently (and most correctly, even if not enough eventually)- reducing his moment of vulnerability to minimum (if he has the 'experience' noted above.

Bomber pilots on both sides that converted to fighters had less success based on 'flight time' because the skills he learned were smooth co-ordinated, low bank turns made in a heavily loaded bomber. My father personally interviewed most of the bomber pilots volunteering for 2nd SF and gave check rides to most because there were too many fatal accidents going from B-24 to AT-6 to Mustang.

3. Constant alertness and situational awareness. New guy is focused on his leader's wingtip and gets both killed because he's not thinking about the next cloud bank or the Cirrus layer above him, (or whatever). Experienced guy thinking and looking where he is vulnerable.

To name a few benefits to experience...

When I think of PTO combat film taken from Mustangs, F6F, P-38, P-40 and F4F, there is one common theme if the first pass isn't a kill - the zero is pulling G's, tip streams heavy and he disappears either in a tight chandelle or steep banking turn. I haven't seen the Spit film (not too much of it) of Zeros but doubt a significant difference. The Zero was exceptional below 275 in a manuevering fight in which the opponent chose to slow down.

So, in my Opinion, the primary difference in Success (not performance) was skill (and growing experience) and tactics... and I would say the same for Mustang and Thunderbolt vs LW in ETO. The various models (ETO) traded 'slight' performance edges but at the end of the day it was pilot skill and experience (in aggragate) that won out.

This is only common thread for Zero slaughtering Buffs but Finns fighting it quite well - and Zeros hammering Spitfire while Spit holds it's own against Messerschmidt, and Mustangs slaughtering Me 109s and Fw 190s while the P-38 struggles to hold its own - is pilot skills, experience and tactics.

Regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Jan 1, 2008)

Hi Nikademus,

>He and his brood are interested in winning arguments along lines of national contention. 

I think I know that kind of poster, too - if one contributes to internet forums regularly, one is going to run into the "gottawins" sooner or later, inevitably 

It's much more interesting (and fun) to discuss history with people who are willing to look at a situation from different angles, even if we might still keep disagreeing in the end - as we just did 

You're right about invalid generalizations - often a look at the specific circumstances would lead to quite different conclusions. Ironically, there is also the complementary trick of selecting one specific example that fits into the desired picture, and pretending it's typical - I'm sure it would be possible to find a case where some standard Shermans really made short work of an equal number of Tigers, to stay with our example ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 1, 2008)

> Multiple values.
> 1. Innate awareness of the relative strengths of your own a/c and they ones you are liable to encounter - leading to better situational awareness, particularly if caught unawares on an initial attack (that failed) from an unseen opponent.
> 
> For example, Me 109 pilots that had little relative 'experience' against a P-47 or a Mustang might tend to dive away when bounced - fatally. A lot of Eastern front LW pilots that moved from Ost to LuftReich died performing a manuever that worked with Spits and Yaks.
> ...



Excellent Post, Bill!

I would expand on that experience leading to better Situational Awareness. Experience calms the nerves and allows the individual to focus more clearly without becoming fixated. He is better equipped to channel stress into "good stress" that assist's him in survival. Experience has allowed him to test the waters and develop coping skills for that stress.

It is not uncommon for a guy to never see the enemy or get fleeting snapshots of them in his first firefight or dogfight because he has not developed the coping skills for the stress. I great example is Eric Hartmann’s first combat sortie. He is trying so hard to concentrate on so many things at once that he concentrates on nothing. This only increases his stress until panic sets in or he has to concentrate on controlling himself. Now he is introverted when he needs to be extroverted. He falls back to the simple mechanic tasks he was trained on but lacks the capacity to put it all together outside of the very moment of what is directly in front of him.

Didn't the 8th have a saying that went something like, "fly five and stay alive"?



> It's much more interesting (and fun) to discuss history with people who are willing to look at a situation from different angles, even if we might still keep disagreeing in the end - as we just did



It is nice to discuss things without cultural prejudice or some hidden agenda. 

All the best,

Crumpp

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 2, 2008)

Timing and situational awareness are noting but some of the most, if not, THE most important combat attributes out there. The tiniest burst of fire at the right moment can really knock a sucker out. Many of WWII's kills were snapshot-quick.

Even though propaganda has pretty much dwindled my image of the A6M (which I respect, but despise in video games dude to peoples' misuse of the plane). It seems like a rat in the eyes here in Canada. But really some pilots in it were great! Theoretically, an A6M could continuously dodge a Hellcat's attacks over and over again IF that Zeke pilot sees the Hellcat first. After that, it's up to the Hellcat to just give up... he's wasting fuel.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

This is off topic but I have just started reading that tank thread Nikademus posted and I have to say I couldn't continue. I hope that someone points out that the M4A8 did not match the T-34/85 in Korea, as all the T-34s destroyed in a Shermans presence were destroyed by bazookas.


----------



## Gàidhealtachd Mo Chride (Mar 25, 2017)

In the end of the day the Spitfire was faster and had a more unique turning arc, whereas the zero was far nimbler. However, the Spitfire if flown by a veteran pilot would likely beat a veteran zero pilot as it was far more of a precision machine. That said that would make the zero better all round than a MK I or II. That said, later versions of the spitfire (V onward) were far superior to later versions of the Zero.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2017)

Gàidhealtachd Mo Chride said:


> In the end of the day the Spitfire was faster and had a more unique turning arc, whereas the zero was far nimbler. However, the Spitfire if flown by a veteran pilot would likely beat a veteran zero pilot as it was far more of a precision machine. That said that would make the zero better all round than a MK I or II. That said, later versions of the spitfire (V onward) were far superior to later versions of the Zero.



Do you realize that no one has responded to this thread in 9 years?!?


----------



## GregP (Mar 26, 2017)

The flight reports I have read on the Fw 190 suggest to me it might not have done very well against a well-flown Zero.

It had good performance, but also had a viscious stall characteristic that was manifested as zero stall warning. When it let go it just snapped if uncordinated. That being said, they did well against the Western Allies. In the Pacific, where the enemy was flying a much more maneuverable plane than nornal western opponents, the "green" Fw 190 pilot (as in "new to Zeros") might react as he did in Europe and try to turn with the Zero, If he did that and hit the stall, especially at low altitudes, he might not get away with it. Also, he might get a nasty surprise when a Zero did a TIGHT loop and was on his tail, even in a climb.

I have tried to make the point several times in here that real world performance is NOT right at the upper end of the quoted best parameter value. First, you don't usually demand the absolute most from your engine if you are in a single-engine plane, several hunded miles away from home, and second, the quoted numbers are for a new plane, at factory weight, with a new prop, being turned by a relatively new engine. Real-world fighters had nicked props, worn finishes, some "hangar rash" in the form of dents and damage, and were not perfectly tuned or flown right to the edge. They did WELL, but probably not quite up to spec, espcically in the tropics, with outdoor maintenance in coral dust. I'd figure about a 5 - 10% frop in performance for an average fighter after a few months in the pacific ... maybe slightly more, maybe not. I'd bet the guys, that is, the guys in combat at the time, pretty much KNEW what they were dealing with, performance-wise, on both sides. As mentioned above, teh Zero also had cannons. The Fw 190 might not seem as strong if hit with a few connon rounds! But, then again, it might hold up fine. I couldn't say, for sure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2017)

The Corsair did well against the Zero, and post war US evaluations found the 190 and Corsair to be pretty much equal. I think 190 would have done fine.

Not sure where the post is, but someone posted copies of the reports here once.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 26, 2017)

Corsair absolutely DID do well, and you could well be correct. I would hazard that the Corsairs that were doing so well were also flown largely by combat veterans who, and this is the important part, had experience both in the Pacific and also against the IJN Zeros and pilots, even the good ones, as their average pilot ability was slowly degrading over time due to abbrviated training and inability to sortie as many comnbat veterans as they would have liked.

So initially, the Fw 190, if flown by people new to the Pacific and new to Japanese oppostion, might not have a great ride, but the Fw 190 was a first-class fighter by all accounts, and it's success in the end could probably be anticipated in any what-if, once the pilots were accustomed to the Pacific. That assumes the Fw 190 would be sortied versus the Zero.

In the real world, the Fw 190, had it showed up, would have showed up on the Japanese side and would be flown against the Allies. Now THAT could have been interesting, particularly if flown by or had some significant partication by experience Luftwaffe veterans. I have bever seen a discussion of whether or not the tactics used by the Allied pilots in the Pacific were materially different from the tactics used in the ETO. Most of the discussions I have read have concentrated on the differences in tactics between the Germans and Japanese pilots.

That could be another good what-if. Suppose a reasonable contingent of Luftwaffe veterans did not want to surrender, and decided to go fly with the Japanese ... had the Fw 190s ans spares to DO it. But I won't suggest we pursue that because most of the great Luftwaffe aces were, first and foremost, German patriots, and wanted the war to end as badly as we did. They largely wanted to go home, rebuild, and get on with life, not continue the fighting at all costs. Although most, if not all, of the Luftwaffe aces were members of the National Socialist Party, a large portion were not really "into" it and joined out of political necessity, not out of a desire to blindly follow Hitler. They were fighting for Germany, and wanted to end the poverty caused directly by the treaty of Versailles and resume normal life. Without wanting to go political, I was just pointing out that I doubt you could get a large contingent of them to willingly uproot and go fight in the Pacific when Germany was falling. Their wives and families were in Germany, not half a world away. So it is a doubtful option to pursue with any sense that it might have been able to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Mar 28, 2017)

I have a hard time imagining any plane being able to outturn a Spit with its huge amount of wing area of that elliptical wing. If the Zero outturned it, I'd sure like to know it was able to...


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2017)

Zero's wing was about the same size, varied from about 230sq ft to 240sq ft depending on exact model of the Zero, later ones had the lower figure. Since the Zero was lighter it didn't take much else.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 28, 2017)

Greg,

A good "What if" would be more like Hitler sending over a contingent of Luftwaffe pilots and support crews to fight with the Japanese in 1942. Not sure the logistics would work out but a couple of squadrons of 190's would be a mighty big jolt for the allies, especially on top of the whole Zero shock issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Mar 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Zero's wing was about the same size, varied from about 230sq ft to 240sq ft depending on exact model of the Zero, later ones had the lower figure. Since the Zero was lighter it didn't take much else.


I don't see the Zero's wing having nearly as much area as the Spit...


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2017)

Just going by what most sources/descriptions say. 
Early Zero had 2ft 6in more wingspan than a Spit with normal wing tips. Or 1ft 5in less span than a P-47
Trying to use pictures to judge areas doesn't work well.
Latter Zeros clipped the wings a bit.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 28, 2017)

grampi said:


> I have a hard time imagining any plane being able to outturn a Spit with its huge amount of wing area of that elliptical wing. If the Zero outturned it, I'd sure like to know it was able to...



Not to pick nits but I imagine the Zero could out turn damn near anything it wanted to.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2017)

Except for.....................................The Ki 43 Oscar.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 28, 2017)

I Will sit in penalty box two minutes...feel shame.

Of course, maybe the Zero just didn't WANT to out turn the Oscar...

Never thought of that did ya?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2017)

I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right there in wing loading, but the Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models. It probably got very slightly worse in later models, and was always very close to the Ki-43 in maneuverability. I'd bet some biplanes could out-turn a Zero, but I'd also not choose a biplane in WWII. The A6M-2 had almost the same wing area as the Spitfire Mk I. but lost a small bit when they clipped the wingtips. The difference in weight more than made up the slightly smaller wing area.

For the A6M-2, I have 21.3 lbs. sq ft at normal takeoff weight. For the A6M-3 Model 32, I have 22.2 lbs/sq ft. For the A6M-5 I have 26.3 lbs/sq ft.

For a Spitfire Mk. I, I have 24.2 lbs/ sq ft at normal takeoff weight. For the Spitfire Mk. V, I have 28.0 lbs/sq ft. For the Spitfire Mk. IX, I have 30.4 lbs/sq ft. For the Spitfire XIV, I have 35.1 lbs/sq ft.

Both planes got heavier as they developed, but the Spitfire got heavier by a wider margin. The Zero should be able to out-turn it easily as the airfoil is pretty well optimized FOR a turning fight. The Zero was deadly at 180 – 280 mph and sort of out of its element any faster. It was OK slower, but not much … maybe down to 150 mph, aerobatics were easy, with a gentle stall, preceeded by plenty of warning buffeting. A premier dogfighter that was a bit less than wonderful at 340 mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Mar 28, 2017)

grampi said:


> I have a hard time imagining any plane being able to outturn a Spit with its huge amount of wing area of that elliptical wing. If the Zero outturned it, I'd sure like to know it was able to...



The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire, BUT and I couldn't believe this either, the Spitfire could out roll the Wildcat. I would have bet anything that it was the other way around


----------



## pinsog (Mar 28, 2017)

The picture in my head of the FW190 being used in the Pacific is: Zero's and FW190's take off together on a combined mission. halfway to the target all the FW190's run out of gas and fall out of the sky. Zero pilots shake there heads, fly on to the target, fight the Americans, fly back over large contingent of German pilots floating in the ocean halfway to target, shake their heads again and return to base.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right tehre in wing loading, but teh Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models.



I believe (but could be wrong) that the Ki 43s better turning ability came from the combat or butterfly flap. 





which changes not only the square footage but the lift co-efficient of the wing (at least until you get to the aileron).

Trying to fly at 300mph plus might be a bit of problem with the flaps deployed however????
I believe the combat setting was 8 degrees? 

Wing loading is a very good place to start but planes that are close to each other _might _have other features or attributes that change things a few percent (actual lift co-efficient at angle of attack used for hard turn?)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 28, 2017)

There is no doubt in my mind that both the Corsair and the FW 190 were superior technologically to the Zero. Yet, in terms of historical and military importance, neither the German or the American a/c could hold a candle to the Zero. In the case of the corsair, it is hard to justify even its very existence, though at the time of its development, no-one could know this.


The Japanese were significantly influenced in their decision to go to war in 1941 by the knowledge of the Zero's capabilities. They were held back from going to war 1939-1940 against the west, in part at least, because of the range limitations of their existing fighter inventory, and the performance limitations disclosed during the border conflicts with the Soviets. The abilities of the Zeke to escort at long range and then demolish any opposition it encountered once at the target gave a measure of confidence to the Japanese that they could attack the wests far eastern outposts and overwhelm them with high levels of confidence. Their confidence was well founded, and for most of 1942, the Zekes were able to dominate the disputed airspace despite being outnumbered in the vital TOs from an early stage. From early March 1942 through to august, there were around 35 Zeroes based at Rabaul (and its various satellites fields), against this meagre defence, the allies were already pitting in excess of 700 a/c by August 1942.


Against odds like that, no amount of skill or technical excellence is going to see the Japanese through to victory. Once the americans had their six in terms of aircraft quality, tactics and experience, and with the odds lengthening even further as time went by, the results became so one sided against the Japanese as to be laughable as much as they were tragic.


If anything the Corsair was a liability to the Americans. Most of the hard fighting and path to victory had already been done by the time the corsair stumbled like a drunken sailor into the battlefield. The changeover to the new type was a totally unnecessary jump in technology, and its introduction, with all the types nuances had to be a constriction on readiness rates for some time. The general lull in the pace of operations in 1943 after the fantastic victories of 1942 certainly suggest that the changeovers to new technologies embodied in the hellcat and the corsair were an overall impediment to victory. The Americans would have been better served to press on with even greater numbers of F4Fs, P-40s and P-39s .to simply swamp the Japanese in the first half of 1943 rather than pause and mess about with these newer types as the inevitable wrinkles in their deployment became apparent.


The FW 190 was probably slightly more relevant than the Corsair. It at least had a demoralising effect on the RAF as the British realised that they were technologically eclipsed by this new fighter. The Spit V was just not competitive against the FW-190. However one does wonder about its necessity, as 109s were also superior to the second gen spits until the arrival of the spit IX.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2017)

The ditch the Corsair and F6F idea holds up well with hindsight. At the time expecting the Japanese to *fail *to field better fighters in numbers could have been a serious mistake. 
How many threads do we have on a big wing KI 44 instead of mass production of the KI 43 in the last two/three years of the war?
Japanese had done a better job of building the Ki 61? 
Japanese had switched to the Kinsei engine for the Zero sooner than the summer of 1945? 
These are "fixes" the Japanese _might _have followed. But as it was the 
Escorting Helldivers with Wildcats might have been interesting, or should the Americans have scrapped the Helldiver and kept the Dauntless as the main carrier attack bomber? 
The F6F went into combat about 6 months before the N1K1-J Shiden, what happens _*IF *_the Japanese had NOT built the floatplane version and instead had started cranking out even 1400-1500hp Shidens powered by the Kasei engine and not waited for the Homare?
F4Fs would have fared how well without the F6Fs?

With hindsight we know ALL the mistakes the Japanese made. If the Japanese had made fewer (even if not perfect) and the Americans tried to bull their way through with old fighters they still could have won but at how much higher cost and would it have really shortened the war that much if the Americans had taken higher losses?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 28, 2017)

Im less critical of the Hellcat than the Corsair, but a decision needed to be made on one or the other, not both. but even the F6f was essentially a wartime luxury, a trinket that really no other country could afford. In my opinion some form of "stretched" F4F was a better option to a completely new airframe from the point of view of winning the war.


The “we needed to develop newer types because we could not know what the other side was up to" seems a fair argument to mount until we look a little closer at the details. A stretched F4F would, or should, have been relatively seamless development of the existing type, beginning to appear in numbers from the beginning of 1942, ramping up thereafter in say 3 months. It would have allowed the Allies to keep pressing post Guadacanal at a time when the Japanese were desperate to rest and reinforce their shattered front line forces. Work on the “stretched’ F4 might have begun June 1941 or earlier, if the massive efforts being poured into the F6F and the f4U were just scrapped


In other words, stretching existing designs actually reduces the risk of a runaway technology lead by the Japanese, because they are not given any opportunity to recover and are used to wipe the floor a lot earlier than they were. Detouring off to design, develop, perfect and deploy not one, but two completely new types is poor management in my opinion. If the US had been in trouble at any stage, tyhey would have been in more trouble because they wanted some new toys to play with, not less trouble. .


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 28, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Greg,
> 
> A good "What if" would be more like Hitler sending over a contingent of Luftwaffe pilots and support crews to fight with the Japanese in 1942. Not sure the logistics would work out but a couple of squadrons of 190's would be a mighty big jolt for the allies, especially on top of the whole Zero shock issue.



Or the Japanese could have reverse-engineered this beast which they received in 1943:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2017)

We have a few threads on this (or more than few) and there seems to be a bit of trouble with "stretching" an F4F. Like what engine are you going to use? The R-1830 didn't really go anywhere for several years and then staggered up to 1350hp for take-off and about 100hp more at altitude than the 1941-42 engines and that was in 1944/45
Changing to the R-2600 was looked at *twice *by Grumman and they decided that a new airframe was needed to get the Best out of the engine. Swapping a single stage 2 speed R-2600 for the existing two stage R-1830 means over 400lbs of engine weight. A bigger prop (or four blades if you don't want to change the landing gear much). A bigger tail to counter act the torque and..........
The first FM-2 with the 1300hp R-1820 9 cylinder radial was't delivered until August of 1943. later ones got the 1350hp engine with stronger crankshaft. But with only a single stage-two speed supercharger power was 1000hp at 16,600ft. performance at altitudes above 20,000 would be increasingly disappointing. What pasted over some of the differences in powerplant between the F4F-4 and the FM-2 was the FM-2 was about 650lbs lighter. In part due to the engine and in part due to having only 4 guns and in part????

Only other option is swiping R-2000s from C-54s, production doesn't exceed more than a couble dozen a month until June of 1942, yes perhaps they could have change the priority a bit. basically it was an R-1830 with a bore job. More power for take-off but power at altitude showed very little difference. 1100hp at 16,000ft military power for a 1590lb engine. 

I am having trouble seeing where the stretch is going to occur.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 28, 2017)

If they cant stretch the f4, then there is a better case for the F6f, but why then also proceed with the F4u


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2017)

The F4U was a VERY good airplane that was delayed WAY too long by the U.S.A. . Had it been deployed when it COULD have been, it would have made a much greater impact. As it is, the Corsair was probably among the two highest-performing piston fighters we fielded, at least in the F4U-4 variant. Later variants were even better, but were too late for the war. The F2G was great, but they only built 10!

I sometimes knock the Ta-152 for having fielded only 43 or so planes. You can imagine how important I think the F2G was!

I think the Hellcat was hands down, the ace-maker of the PTO and the best we fielded in that theater at the time it was operational. At the same power settings, not in ram air, the Corsair and Hellcat flew the same speed. With ram, the Corsair was slightly faster, but not by much. I strongly believe the Corsair had an "optimistic" aiespeed indicator. Go gly in formation with one. He always indicates faster than the rest!

But, and here's the important part, it's just an opinion. They vary, like your mileage.

Shortround makes some good points above, though. Worth considering. The general level of comments in here is pretty damed good from most. Again, just my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 29, 2017)

Greg, as usual you make a lot of sense. I should say despite my bagging of the Corsair that it was a very fine aircraft. Both the f6F and F4u were winners in that regard. but were they absolutely necessary? I tend now given SRs clarification about the limits on the F4f I am inclined to concede the hellcat was necessary to vital. Its a hard stretch to say that about the corsair though.


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2017)

Hi Parsifal,

Both fighters were very good, with the Corsair being a bit later than was actually possible.

It still did well, but got into the fight during the decline of Japanese aircrew ability, which no doubt contributed to it's successes. To what extent will never be known since there is NO way to monitor that. All we really know, in the end, is that the Japanese were losing veterans faster than they could be replaced. Much the same could be said for the Luftwaffe from mid-1943 onward.

In both cases, the Allies were building up their cadre and the Axis was losing theirs faster than the buildup efforts could support, though they WERE trying. Here in the U.S.A., we didn't have anyone bombing us, so we had a LOT of flying fields that could relax and train people properly. In Japan and Germany, there were bombs dropping everywhere most of the time, and they also had the added plague of having new production of war materiel being bombed, too.

The British did, too, at first, but increasingly less as the war wore on after D-Day. These factors were quite significant, and probably helped seal the outcome. The same could be said for land forces, submarines, ships, and even food and clothing.

We SHOULD have bombed the power stations! Everything would have stopped! The time to do it was when spring was getting warmer, so the coming warm season would be both upon them and simultaneously less deadly to civilians without power. The hope would be to finish it before winter starts killing people. But, it wasn't a popular choice due to possible retalliation. If YOU do something not very nice, THEY can do it back, too. Always has been that way.

In Medieval times, they sometimes had an evening truce so they could gather the wounded and dead. Seems like a good idea to me. Better would be to negotiate and NOT fight, but wars started anyway. They should have gotten together and watched the two opposing leaders fight for the win! That way, they'd elect warriors who KNOW they don't want to fight.

People don't generally realize it, and REALLY didn't in the late 1960's, but the LAST people who want war are soldiers. They have to go fight and die! They want the politicians to succeed and avoid war. Politicians who vote for war should be among the first troops sent to the new front! 

If it were that way, I bet we'd have a LOT fewer wars!


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 29, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Greg, as usual you make a lot of sense. I should say despite my bagging of the Corsair that it was a very fine aircraft. Both the f6F and F4u were winners in that regard. but were they absolutely necessary? I tend now given SRs clarification about the limits on the F4f I am inclined to concede the hellcat was necessary to vital. Its a hard stretch to say that about the corsair though.



You may be right using hindsight but the problem at the time was the timing of programs. The development of the Corsair was overly long for a variety of reasons but a key date was June 30th, 1941. On that date Vought signed a contract with the Navy for 524 Corsairs (after several months of negotiations) and on the same date Grumman signed a contract for TWO XF5F-1 prototypes powered by Wright R-2600 two stage engines. The first prototype would not fly until June 26th 1942. a few days/weeks before Vought rolls out the first "production" F4U. 
Grumman ran one of fastest (if not *the* fastest) design, development and start of production programs of _any_ fighter in WW II. Eastern Aircraft (a consortium of General Motors plants) also took over production of the Wildcat and Avenger freeing up Grumman's factory/s and workers to concentrate on the F6F. 

Brewster and Goodyear were tooled up and starting to produce F4Us in the middle of 1943 after being signed up to join the program in Nov and Dec of 1941 respectively. 

When do you cancel the F4U and try to switch over to the F6F?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2017)

GregP said:


> ...
> I think the Hellcat was hands down, the ace-maker of the PTO and the best we fielded in that theater at the time it was operational. At the same power settings, not in ram air, the Corsair and Hellcat flew the same speed. With ram, the Corsair was slightly faster, but not by much. I strongly believe the Corsair had an "optimistic" aiespeed indicator. Go gly in formation with one. He always indicates faster than the rest!
> 
> But, and here's the important part, it's just an opinion. They vary, like your mileage.
> ...



When aircraft flew, the ram effect was present, whether in bigger or lower form. Certainly with F6F and F4U.
The F6F-3/5 and F4U-1 will be separated by ~20 mph advantage that F4U has. Nothing to do with indicators, the F6F was good for 370-390 mph in tests, the F4U-1 many times went above 400 mph, sometimes around 410-420 mph.
Same situation was with XF6F-6 and F4U-4 (both with -18W engines) - a 20 mph difference.


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 7, 2017)

I read Corky's book. Here's where his theory about the airspeed indicators being off falls to the ground. These planes were flown from aircraft carriers. You have to monitor your airspeed carefully, and correct it to ground speed to rendezvous with your carrier in the middle of the ocean. The Navy would have detected a systematic error in airspeed of either plane early and demanded immediate correction. The 20 MPG difference in top speed lasted through all the war. If you look at the tests at wwiiaicraftperfromance.org. Almost all of the F6F maximum speeds are 375-390 MPH. I'm not knocking the F6F at all. The key to this plane's success is that it was fast ENOUGH.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 14, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> We have a few threads on this (or more than few) and there seems to be a bit of trouble with "stretching" an F4F. Like what engine are you going to use? The R-1830 didn't really go anywhere for several years and then staggered up to 1350hp for take-off and about 100hp more at altitude than the 1941-42 engines and that was in 1944/45
> Changing to the R-2600 was looked at *twice *by Grumman and they decided that a new airframe was needed to get the Best out of the engine. Swapping a single stage 2 speed R-2600 for the existing two stage R-1830 means over 400lbs of engine weight. A bigger prop (or four blades if you don't want to change the landing gear much). A bigger tail to counter act the torque and..........
> The first FM-2 with the 1300hp R-1820 9 cylinder radial was't delivered until August of 1943. later ones got the 1350hp engine with stronger crankshaft. But with only a single stage-two speed supercharger power was 1000hp at 16,600ft. performance at altitudes above 20,000 would be increasingly disappointing. What pasted over some of the differences in powerplant between the F4F-4 and the FM-2 was the FM-2 was about 650lbs lighter. In part due to the engine and in part due to having only 4 guns and in part????
> 
> ...


Interesting you bring up the notion of an F4F powered by an R-2000 (which was based on the R-1830 but re-fitted with R-1340 cylinders and pistons and an improved cylinder head).
That's an XF4F-8, which was the experiment that eventually brought about....the FM-2.
From what I've been able to decipher, the airframe was redesigned during the development of the FM-2 and is accredited with some of the weight loss.
I thought the R-2000's that were in the C-54's were turbocharged? (i.e., exhaust driven vs. mechanically driven)
I also understand that the FM-2 saw a couple of different versions of the Wright R-1820-56 engine. One with water injection and one without. I seem to notice the water injected version was capable of higher WEP. That could also explain part of the 50 HP difference you noticed in that engine (there used to be a very good website that included a very intricate list of US Navy engines in use at the time, but I've long since lost the link).


Elvis


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 15, 2017)

GregP said:


> ... snip...
> People don't generally realize it, and REALLY didn't in the late 1960's, but the LAST people who want war are soldiers. They have to go fight and die! They want the politicians to succeed and avoid war. Politicians who vote for war should be among the first troops sent to the new front!
> 
> If it were that way, I bet we'd have a LOT fewer wars!


I am risking going off topic but your view, whilst popular with this forum’s membership, may not always be true. I feel sure that war is unpopular with most conscripts but officers may have other interests such as a desire for rapid promotion, so that 18th Century junior officers used to drink to "bloody wars and sickly seasons" How does 'promotion' work in the military? - Straight Dope Message Board.

Even senior officers may need glory and it has been argued that Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf - Wikipedia wanted war in 1914 so that he would be allowed to marry his mistress Virginia Reininghaus, whose marriage needed to be annulled Was Conrad von Hötzendorf completely insane? Did his insanity start WWI? - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History. General Galtieri Leopoldo Galtieri - Wikipedia is a more recent example of someone on the boundary between the military and politics.

Then there are those who need funds. For example, we have Admiral Suetsugu remark on war with America “Certainly, even that is acceptable if it will get us a budget” Japan Prepares for Total War.

In fact, the Japanese armed forces in the 1930s can offer a fine collection of “peaceably inclined” officers such as Araki Sadao Sadao Araki - Wikipedia, Mutaguchi Renya Renya Mutaguchi - Wikipedia or Tsuji Masanobu Masanobu Tsuji - Wikipedia. 

Much more worrying are the officers who advocate war now because they suspect that they will lose a war that is postponded. The classic examples are alleged to include several members of the Prussian General Staff of 1914, who feared the consequences of the development of Russian railways by 1917, and Admiral Nagano Osami in 1941, conscious of America’s building program and Japan’s oil shortage.

Hopefully, we will not have an American officer sometime in the 21st Century fearing the consequences of delaying a confrontation with rapidly increasing Chinese forces.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2017)

cherry blossom said:


> I am risking going off topic but your view, whilst popular with this forum’s membership, may not always be true. I feel sure that war is unpopular with most conscripts but officers may have other interests such as a desire for rapid promotion, so that 18th Century junior officers used to drink to "bloody wars and sickly seasons" How does 'promotion' work in the military? - Straight Dope Message Board.
> 
> Even senior officers may need glory and it has been argued that Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf - Wikipedia wanted war in 1914 so that he would be allowed to marry his mistress Virginia Reininghaus, whose marriage needed to be annulled Was Conrad von Hötzendorf completely insane? Did his insanity start WWI? - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History. General Galtieri Leopoldo Galtieri - Wikipedia is a more recent example of someone on the boundary between the military and politics.
> 
> ...



As a former soldier, and combat veteran, I can assure you that Greg is correct. The vast majority of soldiers do not want war. From my experience the majority of your overzealous "Lets go to war" gung ho soldiers were the first to shit themselves when they experienced combat first hand.

No one wants to leave their family, and possibly die. That does not mean you are not prepared to so, but you don't want to.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 15, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As a former soldier, and combat veteran, I can assure you that Greg is correct. The vast majority of soldiers do not want war. From my experience the majority of your overzealous "Lets go to war" gung ho soldiers werethe first to shit themselves when the experienced combat first.
> 
> No one wants to leave their family, and possibly die. That does not mean you are not prepared to so, but you don't want to.


I must admit that almost all of my examples were pre-1945. Since 1945 and especially since 1949 Soviets explode atomic bomb - Aug 29, 1949 - HISTORY.com, everyone has known that a full scale war would only lead to promotion to a higher plane. 

I doubt if the officers that I mentioned lacked courage but they often lacked intellience with Conrad von Hötzendorf being considered a bad general even by WW1 standards and Mutaguchi Renya being on several lists of the worse generals of WW2. Interestingly Araki Sadao and Suetsugu Nobumasa became ministers whilst Tsuji was elected to the Diet, so perhaps I should warn only about soldiers who want to enter politics.

The dangerous post 1945 characters tend to congregate in intelligence and special forces, with perhaps the best example being the ex-KGB Vladimir Putin. In “Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook” Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook - Wikipedia Luttwak comments that special forces are much more likely than more technical forces such as the Air Force to carry out a coup. Whilst politicians are often either bellicose or stupid (or both), I suspect that they get many of their worse ideas from their intelligence services, who would suffer budget cuts if the World became more peaceful.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2017)

GregP said:


> I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right there in wing loading, but the Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models. It probably got very slightly worse in later models, and was always very close to the Ki-43 in maneuverability.
> 
> *Greg,
> I can not believe you are making these statements with the information I have provided in
> ...


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2017)

pinsog said:


> The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire,
> *Pinsog,
> Do you have documents proving this? And where can they be viewed?*


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe (but could be wrong) that the Ki 43s better turning ability came from the combat or butterfly flap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Dead on the Bullseye you are Shortround.*


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2017)

parsifal said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that both the Corsair and the FW 190 were superior technologically to the Zero. Yet, in terms of historical and military importance, neither the German or the American a/c could hold a candle to the Zero. In the case of the corsair, it is hard to justify even its very existence, though at the time of its development, no-one could know this.
> 
> *On a historical and military importance stance, I totally agree. "In the case of the corsair,
> it is hard to justify its existence." WHAT THE #ELL ARE YOU SMOKING? 12 to 1 victory
> ...


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The ditch the Corsair and F6F idea holds up well with hindsight. At the time expecting the Japanese to *fail *to field better fighters in numbers could have been a serious mistake.
> How many threads do we have on a big wing KI 44 instead of mass production of the KI 43 in the last two/three years of the war?
> 
> *That would be the Ki.44-III.*


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2017)

parsifal said:


> If they cant stretch the f4, then there is a better case for the F6f, but why then also proceed with the F4u


SPEED, speed is life and all military tests showed that the F4U had that ability over the
F6F, PERIOD!


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 16, 2017)

*Zero vs. Spitfire vs. Fw 190*
Interesting topic with no boundaries.
I apologize to everyone before I get on my soapbox. It is getting real
tiresome watching this aircraft vs that aircraft vs. that aircraft and then
being asked, "Oh by the way, which one of them there suckers do you
think is the absolute gem-of-the-earth?"
Well then, maybe it is time to put these aircraft into perspective.
*The winner is: Spitfire*. The first Spitfire Mk.1s became operational
on 4 August 1938. No contenders at this time. It gets to rule the
skies of this thread until 19 August 1940.

Oh, I am sorry. Where you envisioning a different time? OK then,
19 August 1940, the first missions of the A6M2. They would have
devastated the newly arrived Spitfire Mk.IIs.* The winner is: Zero.

The truth is the Zero would probably have dominated the skis over
everywhere until its weaknesses were found.
Fw 190A-1 finally decided to show up in August 1941.
*
I am out of time tonight but might just post a comparison of their
performances in August of 1941, If my wife says I can.
Just started a small vacation from work today mates.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> *The winner is: Zero.
> 
> The truth is the Zero would probably have dominated the skis over
> everywhere until its weaknesses were found.
> Fw 190A-1 finally decided to show up in August 1941.*


How much of the Zero's domination was due to pilots and/or poor tactics in the various air forces involved? 

If the P-40 long nose wasn't good enough for Europe in late 1940 compared to the Spit II but was good enough in the hands of _experienced _pilots in the Flying Tigers to handle Ki 43s about a year and half later (early Ki 43 used the same engine as the A6M2 Zero ) then what would have been the result of Flying Tigers flying Spit IIs? granted the Spits _might _not have stood up to the Chinese airfield conditions quite as well. 
Or Zeros in Europe trying to fight 109Fs in 1941, 109s using similar tactics to the Flying Tigers? Use speed and dive and avoid truning fights? 

I would also note the Spitfire V was upgraded twice in allowable boost on the Merlin 45 engine. When first introduced it was limited to 9lbs boost instead of the 12lbs used in the Merlin III. at some point in 1941 it was allowed to use 12lbsl boost and picked up roughly 12-14mph in speed at any altitude below about 18,000ft. In Jan 1942 the allowable combat boost was raised to 15lbs 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

But most power charts and performance charts from later dates show 16lbs of boost. At altitudes under about 13,000ft this was good for about 25mph (?) more than 9lbs boost.

Speeds are for England or Europe and not tropics.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 17, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> How much of the Zero's domination was due to pilots and/or poor tactics in the various air forces involved?
> *I can't give an exact percentage because given the antiquated aircraft such a the P-26 in the
> Philippines and other antiques that were thrown in the air against it this answer probably can't
> even be calculated (at least not by my small mind).*
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2017)

The 45M was the one with the cropped impeller.
for speeds with just change in boost with normal impeller.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_V_Level_Speed_RAE.jpg

test report for Spit V with Merlin 50M (the 45M, 50M and 55M all made the same power, there were other differences) see
Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 17, 2017)

Thank you Shortround,
I studied all that info already. I was just on a roll and threw the 45M in on a whim.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2017)

First things first. aircraft claims made on behalf of aircraft like the hellcat and Corsair are just that, claims. joe b has done some pretty detailed studies over the years. he has always shied away from tackling the two sacred cows in the room, namely Hellcat and Corsair, but has shown in a number of isolate-able campaigns such as the spitfires over Darwin, that claims made against Zekes were out by about 3:1.....that's for every claim of a Zeke being shot down, in fact only 1 was lost. 

We don't know the exchange rates for later in the war, but it was certainly bad and one sided, just not as one sided as is often claimed.

now turning to Japanese exchange rates during the early campaigns, Japanese records show that combat losses to the end of April 1942, amounted to 250 machines. there were other losses due to non-combat courses, but in comparison, allied combat losses in that same period was well over 1500 a/c. Generally allied aircraft fielded were obsolete, but so too were many of the Japanese types put into the air. aircraft like the Sonia, Claude or Ki-27 were all obsolete, but still able to operate. moreover, the Zekes that proved so devastating at this time were very few in number, just 12 (maybe...probably less?) over Malaya, and 40 against the stronger FEAF in the Philipinnes.

In the SWpac area, until well after WATCHTOWER, Zeke numbers committed to defending Rabaul never exceeded 40. To this should be added the 12 or so aircraft of the elite Lae Wing. Ranged against the Japanese defenders were at least 800 Allied machines, not including the carrier borne aircraft. Worse, by about August the Allied logistics issues were rapidly being solved, whilst the Japanese problems were getting worse.

In comparison the LW over Poland saw in excess of 1500 axis aircraft take on about 700 outdated Polish machines. desp[ite the vaunted superiority of the LW, the PAF was not shot out of the sky on the first day, and in fact it appears that German losses exceeded 500 a/c to combat causes.

Against the French and the other allies in the west, the exchange rate was more in favour of the LW but still quite bad....so much for the vaunted superiority of the LW at this time. LW tactics were not boom and zoom incidentally, it was manoeuvre that was favoured by most of its pilots. How would zekes have faired against Me 109s trying to mix it with them in a manoeuvre battle? pretty well actually, but numbers would be so small as to be meaningless

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2017)

much is well said about the individual training and skill of the Japanese aircrew what isn't said but which is equally valid is the shocking level of training they had in tactics, plus the lack of radios in these early years.
The best trained sircrew in these times were the Luftwaffe and with the 109F and 190 they would have had a clear advantage against the Japanese.
The Spitfire II and V had the performance to dominate the Japanese Ki 43 and to a lesser degree the Zero, what was lacking in the early days were the tactics which had been learned in Europe and were totally wrong against the Japanese.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2017)

Well, most of us know that some of the post claims or exchange rates should be taken with a large dose of salt. 
Like 





Just for the initial investigation. 

However trying to separate out even fighter vs fighter combat instead of fighter vs single engine bomber combat (or fighter vs multi engine) requires a lot more digging. Japanese Victories over Vildebeests 




don't tell us much about their ability over Allied fighters ( and the reverse is also true, P-40 vs B5M Mabel?) 

Throw in pilot experience and maintenance/spare parts and it is very hard to figure out why some planes varied so much in combat performance. I mean we have some reasons by have no idea how much any one reason affected things at a given point in time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 17, 2017)

Glider said:


> The Spitfire II and V had the performance to dominate the Japanese Ki 43 and to a lesser degree the Zero,
> *The Mk.V possibly, the Mk.II?...My money is on the Ki.43. It easily outturned either Spitfires
> and probably outrolled at least the Mk.II. Acceleration at low speeds wasn't even a contest.
> Bed time for me now, but a side by side comparison of the Mk.V and TAIC Oscar using WEP
> might prove very interesting.*

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 18, 2017)

Hi Tomo,

Ram effect is not present unless there is a straight or almost straight shot to the carb. If you have roundabout way to the carb, a FOD separator, and a plenum with exit, ram is not present. The Hellcat was rather well known for NOT having ram effect in the main stage. As a result, it never suffered a carb icing crash in service. The Corsair cannot say the same. The Hellcat DID have higher operational losses when not in combat. Maybe it was a case of being there while the Corsair was not? The Corsair was late to the party. But they both used the same engine and prop until the F4U-4, so reliability would likely be very similar.

If you fly the Hellcat and the Corsair, both in main stage (no S/C) and both with 3-blade props, there is little to no difference in speed at similar power settings. With ram, yes, the Corsair had a better ram setup. The achievements of both types are well known and the Hellcat did better by a long shot. Opportunity due to being there? Maybe.

I am inclined to believe the Corsair was a better fighter, but you certainly can't prove it with actual war record achievements, can you? Good thing they were both on the same side. It would be tough to choose between them for me. Most in here would likely choose the Corsair, probably including you, but I'd likely opt the other way.

Likely as not, we'd both be happy with our choices and also on the same side, and would be almost as happy with the other selection when actually in flight. Very close in the real world. Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 18, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> Ram effect is not present unless there is a straight or almost straight shot to the carb. If you have roundabout way to the carb, a FOD separator, and a plenum with exit, ram is not present. The Hellcat was rather well known for NOT having ram effect in the main stage. As a result, it never suffered a carb icing crash in service. The Corsair cannot say the same. The Hellcat DID have higher operational losses when not in combat. Maybe it was a case of being there while the Corsair was not? The Corsair was late to the party. But they both used the same engine and prop until the F4U-4, so reliability would likely be very similar.



Once the aux stage is on (above 7000-8000 ft), the main stage of the 2-stage R-2800 will start receiving the compressed air, not ram air. The F4U-1 have had especially convoluted ram air intake piping, ie. no construction advantage for it re. ram air usage. Engines were not the same, -8(W) vs. -10(W), granted there was more similarities than differences. F4U also used a bigger prop sometimes.
Hellcat was later to the party than Corsair, by 6 months.
Care to share details on how many Corsairs were lost due to the carb icing?



> If you fly the Hellcat and the Corsair, both in main stage (no S/C) and both with 3-blade props, there is little to no difference in speed at similar power settings. With ram, yes, the Corsair had a better ram setup. The achievements of both types are well known and the Hellcat did better by a long shot. Opportunity due to being there? Maybe.



Main stage = S/C.
With just main stage on, military power setting, F6F was 30 mph slower than F4U-1. Has nothing to do with achievements.



> I am inclined to believe the Corsair was a better fighter, but you certainly can't prove it with actual war record achievements, can you? Good thing they were both on the same side. It would be tough to choose between them for me. Most in here would likely choose the Corsair, probably including you, but I'd likely opt the other way.



I can prove that F4U-1 was considerably faster than F6F-3 or -5 on same power setting. As above - it has nothing to do with war achivements.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 18, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo,
> The Corsair was late to the party. But they both used the same engine and_ prop until the F4U-4,_ so reliability would likely be very similar.
> Greg,
> *I do not want to take away anything from your Post #186. My purpose here is just
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2017)

When trying to use current Warbirds to prove or disprove WW II performance figures we have to know if the current warbirds are in WW II configuration.
As in same weights or ballasted to represent service weights. Guns, ammo etc. Protection? still have armor installed? change in fuel tanks? I would guess that most/all have had the self sealing material removed for safety sake as it deteriorates with age.
Surface finish? a few Warbirds seem to be flying with a higher gloss than most WW II service aircraft?

Are the Warbirds actually using the correct WW II engines? I don't know but more than few were supposed to have been using ex-airliner/transport engines back in the 50s-60s-70s. They were much cheaper at times. Perhaps they have all been fully restored to correct engines?
If comparing cruise speeds at low throttle settings are the cooling flaps opened an equal amount? I am sure the pilots are operating the engines at the proper temperatures but some aircraft may have varied in drag with different flap openings.
Level flight speed tests were pretty much done with the flaps closed while climb tests are done with flaps open (or partial open?)
Cruise for fun is done how?

I am making no claim that all or even any of these conditions apply to the F6Fs or F4Us that are flying next to each other today. Just pointing out _possible_ differences between some of today's aircraft and test results from 70 years ago.

I would also note that while the power to drag ratio might be very close at low or medium airspeeds one aircraft might show a steeper drag rise in the high speed (mach number) range as you get closer to max speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 18, 2017)

Did the Japanese every receive any 190's or 109's from Germany for testing? As allies I wondered if there was any sharing?


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2017)

A page from a US Intelligence report on German technical aid to Japan, which was substantial.






Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 18, 2017)

Thanks Steve,

I wondered and my Google Fu was feeling weak this morning! Appreciate the info. I recall seeing a photograph of an A6M with Nazi markings so I assume some degree of reciprocity existed but was not sure.


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2017)

I'm not sure that the Ki-61 "is clearly an adaptation of the German model [Bf 109]". It clearly shows the influence of German design, in the form of Dr Richard Vogt, on Kawasaki designs. It had an inline liquid cooled 'German' engine for a start!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2017)

For the record, the P&W R-2800-18W used in both the F4U-4 and F6F-6, results in same HP at Combat Power. That said, the F4U is ~ 40mph faster at 24,000 feet.and 35+mph faster at SL.

Nothing in warbird community is being driven above MP, all are much lighter with no guns, no full combat load out of fuel, etc. So there is nothing to talk about as far as modern day comparisons to fighters being hammered at 80" boost and 150 octane fuel compared to 57-61" and 100LL

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 18, 2017)

The one thing about the Japanese Bf 109E that always impressed me
was the Ki.61-I was as fast or even much faster than the 109 powered
by the DB 601. 342-354 mph. vs. 348-361 mph.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 18, 2017)

drgondog said:


> Nothing in warbird community is being driven above MP, all are much lighter with no guns, no full combat load out of fuel, etc. so there is nothing to talk about as far as modern day comparisons to fighters being hammered at 80" boost and 150 octane fuel compared to 57-61" and 100LL



Wow Bill, if that isn't a mouthful I don't know what is.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

pinsog said: ↑
The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire,
*Pinsog,
Do you have documents proving this? And where can they be viewed?*




*COMBAT COMPARISONS*
Adlam described in his book a personal test flight between himself, in a Wildcat, and a friend, in a Seafire. Both were serving aboard HMS Illustrious in 1943 and were undergoing working-up exercises in Scotland.

The unscientific comparison involved a race and a mock dogfight. Nor is the model of the Martlet recorded, though he lists the Seafire as being a "IIC":

For the race, we flew alongside and level at a steady 130 knots and then, at a signal , we both opened the throttles wide. As expected the Seafire was faster and gradually moved ahead but not all that swiftly. We reckoned and agreed afterwards that the Seafire was no more than 7 or 9 knots faster than the Wildcat.




The combat, Adlam records, was something more of an eye-opener:

For the dog-fight, my Wildcat and I were at a disadvantage because Bruce was an exceptional pilot and always had been even while training, whereas I was never in that category. It was interesting to find that the Seafire had a much better rate of climb but the Wildcat was steady and gained speed faster in a steep dive. It was surprising to find that the Wildcat with its stubby little wings could sustain a steep turn inside the Seafire and this was all the more surprising and gratifying too bearing in mind that Bruce was by far the better pilot.

Here is the link:

Grumman F4F Martlet: Variants

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

Grumman F4F Martlet: Variants

Delete this please


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 18, 2017)

You guys never cease to amaze me.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> You guys never cease to amaze me.



I had no idea, I just stumbled into that one night. I wouldn't have believed it myself but that is from the Wildcat/Martlet pilot himself, who also says the Spitfire guy is a better pilot.


----------



## Glider (Jul 18, 2017)

Clearly any attempt to dogfight a Spit II with a Ki43-I would be foolish but with the early Ki43's having 2 x LMG and the Spit II with a respectable amount of armour there is a decent chance that the Spit would get a second life.
The speed advantage of the Spit II over the Ki43-I was very significant and no doubt the dive speed as well. Clearly the Ki43 would be in serious trouble if hit. With next to no armour the 8 x 303 would be a very effective weapon against the Ki43

As I said on my original posting the tactics would play a major part


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

Glider said:


> Clearly any attempt to dogfight a Spit II with a Ki43-I would be foolish but with the early Ki43's having 2 x LMG and the Spit II with a respectable amount of armour there is a decent chance that the Spit would get a second life.
> The speed advantage of the Spit II over the Ki43-I was very significant and no doubt the dive speed as well. Clearly the Ki43 would be in serious trouble if hit. With next to no armour the 8 x 303 would be a very effective weapon against the Ki43
> 
> As I said on my original posting the tactics would play a major part



One thing to consider: The Ki43 was slower than a Zero, but is was also even more maneuverable and the big point, as I understand, the Ki43 did not lose its handling, especially its roll rate at high speed like the Zero did. If that is correct, then the "all you have to do is dive faster than 300 mph and roll to the right to escape a Zero" won't work on a Ki43. Aside from too light of an armament, it could possibly be more dangerous than a Zero.

That being said, I wouldn't want to be in a Ki43 when a Spitfire hits him with a close range burst......but i wouldn't want to get caught at 250 mph in a Spitfire with a Ki43 anywhere near me either.

Actually, you might in a 1 on 1 battle end up with a stalemate like at Guadalcanal when the Wildcats were trying to shoot down the Japanese bi-plane float planes. The Japanese bi-planes had trouble hurting the Wildcats, although they did shoot down one, but the Wildcats had trouble ever hitting them, the bi-planes could just flick out of the way at will, like swatting flies with a hammer

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 18, 2017)

Thank you pinsog. Great stuff.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

It may be listed earlier in this thread, I haven't read the whole thing, but have you seen the mock combat between a P40E and Spitfire V with the tropical air filter? This is copied and pasted. Again, if someone told me this I would have not believed it until I read this account.

The tests were conducted over 3rd to 5th of November 1942, at the No.2 Operational Training Unit in Mildura - a very hot dry open locale in western Victoria. Oversighting the tests was Wing Cmdr. Peter Jeffrey; the actual test pilots beng: 
Flying the P-40E - Flt. Lt. Arthur and Flt.Lt. Jackson.
Flying the Spitfire Mk.Vc - Flt. Lt. Foster and Flt Lt. Wawn.
All pilots involved were experienced combat pilots, with Arthur, Jeffrey, Foster and Jackson all being aces - Foster (9) flying Spitfires over Europe, Arthur (8) and Jeffrey's (6) flying P-40's in the Western Desert and Jackson (5) flying the P-40 against the Japanese over Port Moresby, New Guinea.

The results of the tests were as follows:

1. The Spitfire was fitted with a Volkes Filter

2. As the Spitfire was fitted with VHF, and the P-40 with HF, no R/T between them could be used.

3. The Spitfire tested suffered from negitive 'G' cutout, a typical Spitfire trait.

4. The Tests were carried out at heights between ground level and 20,000ft.

5. Results:
a) Spitfire had the greater rate of climb at all heights - the difference becoming greater as height increased above 13,000ft.
b) Spitfire is far more manoeuvrable at all heights.
c) Kittyhawk is faster in level speed from 0 to 16,000ft. Above 16,000ft Spitfire is faster and again the difference becomes greater as height increases. Estimated speed advantage of Kittyhawk up to 16,000ft: 0ft - 15mph; 12,000ft - 20 to 25mph; 16,000ft - 5 to 10mph.
d) Kittyhawk accelerates, both in dive and on increase of throttle on the level, far more quickly than the Spitfire.

6) Combat 1 - commenced at 13,000ft (equal height) and lasted for 5 to 7 minutes, in which time the fight was practically a stalemate. At the end of this period height was reduced to 4,000ft when the Kittyhawk pilots decided he had nothing to gain by staying and so broke off by diving away. Thus, in combat up to 16,000ft, the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will. In such a combat the Kittyhawks tactics are to hit and run, and then come again.

7) Combat 2 - commenced at 20,000ft (equal height) and lasted less than 2 minutes. Spitfire quickly gained dominate position on the tail of the Kittyhawk and couldn't be shaken. Kittyhawk pilot broke off by diving away.

8) Combat 3 - Commenced at 16,000ft (height advantage to Kittyhawk) an lasted 14 minutes. Kittyhawk made repeated dive and zoom attacks with the Spitfire alternatively breaking hard to avoid and climbing for advantage where possible. Fight reduced to 9,000ft with neither pilot gaining a decisive advantage.

9) Combat 4 - Commence at 16,000ft (height advantage to Spitfire) and lasted 11 minutes. Spitfire pounced on Kittyhawk and attempted to gain a position on tail. Kittyhawk used speed advantage in first level flight and then shallow dive to gain separation and then climb for advantage. Spitfire countered by climbing hard. Gaining advantage Spitfire used climb and dive tactics to force the Kittyhawk to make repeated diving breaks to avoid. At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire, who countered with steep climb. Kittyhawk then used speed advantage to again gain separation and fight was broken off.

10) Visions - the vision in the Spitfire with the hood closed is better than the Kittyhawk, but it is a definte disadvantage that the hood cannot be opened at speeds above 160mph particulary when searching up-sun.

11) The flying characteristics of the Spitfire make it more suitable for Operations:
a) it is easier to fly.
b) Take-off run is much shorter and so could be operated from smaller landing grounds. Note - ithe Spitfire does not handle hard dirt strips as well as the Kittyhawk.
c) Mixture and boost are automatically controlled.
d) It is not necessary, as it is in the Kittyhawk, to alter rudder and elevator trims over great speed changes.

All these facts greatly reduce the pilot's problems and so increase his fighting efficiency.

The report concluded by recommending that as the large Volkes air filter on the Spitfire cost 20-30mph in top speed, it should be removed inoperational service - or at least an alternative found. Also mentioned was the effect of the Spitfires rough paint finish on performance but the general feeling of the report was that the Spitfire was perahps the better fighter, especially at altitude.

The report also mentioned being surprised at just how well the Kittyhawk managed to hold it's own against the Spitfire in combat, concluding that in combat against an opponet it highlights the importance of using one's aircraft strengths to advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 18, 2017)

Regarding German assistance to the Japanese, the US intell report does NOT show extensive levels of assistance, with one exception, which came far too late to be of any material assistance (read the article posted by steve and you will see this). As the US intell report states, early models of the standard LW types were acquired mostly out of sheer curiosity and did not lead to any significant changes to the Japanese designs or the structure of their aero industry. Many of the designs showed definite inferiority to the Japanese types entering service and were just not suited to conditions in the pacific. Many of the types, including the bombers, lacked the range to be adopted by the Japanese. Many of the technologies used were not easily translateable to Japanese industry. this was true of the 20mm mauser ammunition and cannon they acquired. the Japanese acquired several copies of the me109e and later subtypes as they became available and always considered them to be inferior in manouverability to their own, inferior in range, and were singularly umimpressed with the technical capabilities of the type overall. I think they were justified to reach that conclusion in the context they were faced with.

Japanese types that faced soviet fighters in 1939 faired as good as the supposedly much superior me 109s in 1941, facing much the same Russian technology. Flying mostly Ki-27s and A5Ms against mostly i-15s and I-16s you will not find a significantly different exchange rate between the two scenarios. Over China, a year later soviet piloted I-16s were shot out of the sky by land based Zeroes.

it is not valid to suggest Germany was ahead of the Japanese in air technology in 1940. Just different. the Japanese were pushing small capacity lightweight construction and were ahead of everyone in the development of certain materials like Duralumin. they lagged in the development of sheer engine power, communications, weapons, self sealing tanks and in the end, with the kind of air warfare that developed, this was to prove vital. at the time of the Zekes inception, no opposing fighter other than a few experimental types were protected by armour. The difference was that the small capacity and light weight of the Zeke, indeed its whole design philosophy prevented it from being stretched in the same way as other types.

Even in the vital areas of jet technologies, German assistance was too late and too little. The U-Boat carrying the plans and examples of the specialised technologies for the Me 262 was sunk enroute, leaving the Japanese with only rough guesses as to how they might work and more importantly how they might build it. The design they finished up with in the Nakajima Kikka actually owed little to the Me 262. The engine, for example, was a wholly Japanese piece of kit, not as good as the german stuff, but certainly not a copy either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

Here is an eye opening test between a Zero and a Spitfire

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2017)

What is a bit weird is that the Spitfire _seems _to be limited in boost. Performance charts on another page of that site list 9lbs boost as the max for 5 minutes? 
Shortage of spare parts or spare engines meant emergency boost could not be used? Test was in August of 1943. so I would assume that similar aircraft in England were allowed 16lbs of boost and could make 1300hp or more at any altitude between 4000ft and about 17,500ft.

For some reason the "poor relations" Australians seem to get versions of the Spitfire about 1 year or more after they were used in combat in Europe or the Med. MK VIII Spits being used in the Invasion of SIcily but don't show up in Australia until well into 1944.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2017)

GregP said:


> Ram effect is not present unless there is a straight or almost straight shot to the carb. If you have roundabout way to the carb, a FOD separator, and a plenum with exit, ram is not present. The Hellcat was rather well known for NOT having ram effect in the main stage. As a result, it never suffered a carb icing crash in service.



I'm not so sure about that Greg.

You will get a degree of ram effect with a forward facing intake. 

However, that ram effect will be reduced by losses caused by long ducts, changes in direction and changes in area.

I'm not sure that the F4U could claim to be superior in that regard, since its intake to the engine was through some tight bends.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Once the aux stage is on (above 7000-8000 ft), the main stage of the 2-stage R-2800 will start receiving the compressed air, not ram air. The F4U-1 have had especially convoluted ram air intake piping, ie. no construction advantage for it re. ram air usage. Engines were not the same, -8(W) vs. -10(W), granted there was more similarities than differences. .



I believe the main difference was that the -8 had a downdraft carburetor and the -10 an updraft carburetor.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> What is a bit weird is that the Spitfire _seems _to be limited in boost. Performance charts on another page of that site list 9lbs boost as the max for 5 minutes?
> Shortage of spare parts or spare engines meant emergency boost could not be used? Test was in August of 1943. so I would assume that similar aircraft in England were allowed 16lbs of boost and could make 1300hp or more at any altitude between 4000ft and about 17,500ft.
> 
> For some reason the "poor relations" Australians seem to get versions of the Spitfire about 1 year or more after they were used in combat in Europe or the Med. MK VIII Spits being used in the Invasion of SIcily but don't show up in Australia until well into 1944.


Would the Tropical Filter cause the issues you just listed? Or is the Tropical filter strictly an aerodynamic problem?

As far as shipping old, used Spitfires to Australia, well why bother with new, late model Spitfires? After all the Japanese planes and pilots are second rate at best, certainly not able to compete with any European fighters. Even a Hurricane can totally outperform any Japanese fighter. We don't have to listen to US pilots about how good this Zero is, after all we won the BoB against German planes. A BoB ace can whip any 2nd rate Japanese fighter while still hungover and flying a Sopwith Camel.

European arrogance is your answer. Even after reports back from their own pilots the bosses in England calling the shots still thought the Hurricane was superior to the Zero. At least that's what I have read.

I think the Zero was the equal of anything up to the Fw190. Since they didn't meet I guess we will never know

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2017)

pinsog said:


> Would the Tropical Filter cause the issues you just listed? Or is the Tropical filter strictly an aerodynamic problem?



I doubt that the filter could reduce the maximum boost available. Though, a very restrictive filter would reduce the mass air flow through the engine, so that could possibly lead to lower FTH - it would, in effect, be like the throttle was part closed. Note that boost was maintained below FTH in Merlins by restricting the mass air flow by using the throttle.

The filter will, most likely, have had an effect on ram air and thus reduced the FTH. 

But its main effect, I believe, would still be aerodynamic.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Regarding German assistance to the Japanese, the US intell report does NOT show extensive levels of assistance, with one exception,



I was referring to the entire report, not just the aircraft section. There was a substantial transfer of technology to Japan. The report starts by listing the nearly 50 Japanese technical staff attached to their embassy in Berlin.
Radar/radio technology and hardware was transferred, as was optical technology and hardware.The Germans supplied batteries for Japanese torpedoes as well as mines and associated devices, including acoustic and acoustic-magnetic firing devices. On a more general scale the Germans transferred some of their chemical and industrial expertise to Japan, more basically the Japanese Type 98/Type 1 machine gun is described as a direct copy of the MG 15, which is hardly surprising as it was built under licence in Japan.
It is certainly true that the transfer of jet and rocket technology was too late, and in the case of the latter, very incomplete. It is also true that in the latter stages of the war the physical transfer of complete aircraft, vehicles, etc. became almost impossible. The transfer of plans and smaller items continued.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Elvis (Jul 19, 2017)

stona said:


> I'm not sure that the Ki-61 "is clearly an adaptation of the German model [Bf 109]". It clearly shows the influence of German design, in the form of Dr Richard Vogt, on Kawasaki designs. It had an inline liquid cooled 'German' engine for a start!
> Cheers
> Steve


Maybe its just me, but the Ki-61 looks very Italian to me.

Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

The Ki 61 had more in common with the He 100 than it did the Bf 109. 
However that was more in the line of construction details (like engine mount) than in overall shape or form.

I would also take any wartime or immediate post war intelligence report with a large dose of salt. It maybe that the anti Japanese prejudice was still going on and while it may be true that the Japanese got a look at something it doesn't always mean they copied it.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2017)

Elvis said:


> Maybe its just me, but the Ki-61 looks very Italian to me.
> 
> Elvis



It's not just you. It's why it got the code name 'Tony'.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I would also take any wartime or immediate post war intelligence report with a large dose of salt. It maybe that the anti Japanese prejudice was still going on and while it may be true that the Japanese got a look at something it doesn't always mean they copied it.



True enough, but a lot of the sources for that report are German, particularly regarding when German items or plans were given to the Japanese. It doesn't follow that the Japanese automatically copied the German technology, in some instances they would have had no need to, but in others they certainly did.
Nobody should argue that the Japanese were in some way behind the curve generally in matters of technology, but is certain areas, including those I mentioned in a previous post, the Germans had a lead on almost everybody. German chemical engineering would be a case in point and there is evidence that the methods and hardware of some processes were made available to the Japanese.

I have a birdwatcher friend who uses a pair of service binoculars (Dienstglas) manufactured by Hensholdt (bmj) in 1943, and he swears they are superior to most modern binoculars. Optical instruments, not just simple binoculars, is one area where technology was transferred from Germany to Japan.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2017)

I read somewhere, probably a website, that the Wildcat had quite good performance at low altitude, better than many Allied fighters.

That said, I think that a lot of the _objective_ aircraft performance data show that there is none of the contemporary P-40, P-39, Spitfire, or Zero which can consistently dominate in air combat, although the Spitfire tested in Australia seems to be badly handicapped by the Vokes filter. 

The Vokes filter could be (and maybe has been) the subject of another thread: why was it so bad?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

Compared to the US P-39 and P-40 the situation was the reverse. the two stage supercharger in the F4F gave it better performance at high altitude (over 20 thousand ft) than the V-12 powered aircraft. 

However compared to other allied aircraft available in China, Burma, Singapore, the Dutch Colonies and the south pacific. Hurricane Is, Buffaloes, assorted Curtiss products with radial engines, P-35s and so on, the WIldcat may very well have been better at low altitudes


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The Vokes filter could be (and maybe has been) the subject of another thread: why was it so bad?



It wasn't. The Australians were concerned by the loss of performance incurred with the fitting of the Vokes filter, and there was much debate about alternatives. Eventually they attempted to replace the Vokes filter on their tropicalised Spitfires with a locally produced version of the standard temperate system but couldn't get one to work. The Aussies are a determined lot, and the fact that they couldn't produce a satisfactory alternative is an indicator of just how complicated such a seemingly simple device actually was. In the end they had to send to the UK for plans to enable them to reproduce the Supermarine designed intake.
The tribulations with the local design are reported here:







Even when improvements were made the difference in performance between the locally produced temperate version (prior to the arrival of the Supermarine drawings) and the original Vokes filter were not as great as had been anticipated:









There was an allegedly improved filter produced, in at least two versions, by the MU at Aboukir but I can't find any numbers for Spitfires equipped with an 'Aboukir' filter. They must exist somewhere.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

stona said:


> It wasn't. The Australians were concerned by the loss of performance incurred with the fitting of the Vokes filter, and there was much debate about alternatives.



You have two basic aspects of the filter to consider.
1, is it actually stopping the dirt from getting into the engine.
2. How much performance loss is there, which can also be broken down into two parts.
A. pressure loss before carburetor .
B. Aerodynamic drag caused by larger intake/fairing.

I have no idea how well the Vokes filter worked at keeping dirt out of the engine.

as far as pressure loss goes, hard to figure but a tropical trials aircraft in England managed to keep 9lbs boost while climbing (2850rpm) to 14,000ft at 196mph TAS and to 17,400ft in level flight at 354mph while an early MK V held 9lbs to 15,000ft while climbing and to 20,100ft without snowguard at 371mph and to 18,800ft with snowguard fitted at 365mph. 
Different serial number aircraft with different engines. The engine/s should have been able to provide more boost at less than the full throttle heights. The snow guard only seem to make a difference in speed at over FTH.


----------



## stona (Jul 19, 2017)

The Australians were worried about engine wear caused by removing the Vokes filter. It does seem to have been effective. They were balancing this against a performance penalty, which was generally less on their service aircraft than feared, particularly at altitudes above 20000 ft where the Spitfire worked best.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 19, 2017)

So how serious do you gentlemen think the actual, real world performance hit on a Volkes filter equipped Spitfire was? 10mph? 15mph?

The test on post 204 says the P40E was faster from 0-16,000 and, even more surprising to me, could out accelerate the Spitfire. Wouldn't both of those indicate a pretty substantial decrease in the Spitfires performance?

Or was the P40E closer to the Spitfire below 16,000 than most people like to believe?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 19, 2017)

error


----------



## Greyman (Jul 19, 2017)

pinsog said:


> So how serious do you gentlemen think the actual, real world performance hit on a Volkes filter equipped Spitfire was? 10mph? 15mph?



Data from a Spitfire Vc 'improvements' document. Figures are in reasonable agreement with Spitfire Vb testing of normal and tropical examples at the A&AEE (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

*Tropical Vc (6,883 lb) +9 and +16 boost
Normal Vc (6,737 lb ) +9 and +16 boost*

The P40E / Kittyhawk I is generally shown to be about as fast (or slightly faster) as the normal Vc Spitfire at +9 in this graph up to about 15,000 feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 19, 2017)

Good info. Thank you. Too bad they just couldn't keep the weight gain under control on the P40. Wouldn't a P40E be 1,000 to 1,500 pounds heavier than a Spitfire V?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 19, 2017)

pinsog said:


> Good info. Thank you. Too bad they just couldn't keep the weight gain under control on the P40. Wouldn't a P40E be 1,000 to 1,500 pounds heavier than a Spitfire V?



8,475 lb is a good average number from what I've seen from various sources.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 19, 2017)

And the SpitfireV coming in around 6,700. Amazing a P40E is even in the ballpark. Makes me wonder how it would have done if they could have kept the weight around 6,700.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> You have two basic aspects of the filter to consider.
> 1, is it actually stopping the dirt from getting into the engine.
> 2. How much performance loss is there, which can also be broken down into two parts.
> A. pressure loss before carburetor .
> ...



In one of the posts above, (Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 | Page 11 | WW2Aircraft.net Forums it states that the Vokes filter cost something like 25 mph in top speed, or about 7%. This would be about a 2.5% power loss, or about 40 or 50 horsepower. This strikes me as a lot, although one would need a comparison with a different filtration system to be sure. What sort of filtration was used in, say, the P-40? Air filtration systems aren't trivial; one of the problems with the M1 tank was that the original air filtration system was not very good at keeping sand out of the engine; that part of the system was Chrysler's (later, that part of Chrysler was taken over by GD Land Systems), and it wasn't until GD took over that the air filter was sorted out.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 19, 2017)

Someone smarter than me will reply soon, but I thought I read somewhere the P40E Allison air intake was up high out of the worst dust? Wasn't the Spitfire air intake down lower where dust was worst?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

pinsog said:


> Good info. Thank you. Too bad they just couldn't keep the weight gain under control on the P40. Wouldn't a P40E be 1,000 to 1,500 pounds heavier than a Spitfire V?




What do you what to take out of the P-40? 

It wasn't a matter of keeping the weight gain under control. It was a matter of meeting different requirements in the initial specifications: Spitfire I vs P-36. 

Once you try to turn the P-36 into a P-40 you are faced with the inevitable weight gain unless you do something drastic. Like limit the P-40 to pair of .50 cal guns and 2-4 .30 cal guns or leave out the self sealing fuel tanks or accept a lower strength/load factor.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2017)

pinsog said:


> Someone smarter than me will reply soon, but I thought I read somewhere the P40E Allison air intake was up high out of the worst dust? Wasn't the Spitfire air intake down lower where dust was worst?



Exactly that.

The P-40 (except the Merlin powered versions) had a top intake behind the spinner. 

All Spitfires had intakes below the fuselage.

The Allison in the P-40 came with a downdraft carby, the Merlin (and Griffon) in the Spitfire had an updraft carby.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2017)

pinsog said:


> And the SpitfireV coming in around 6,700. Amazing a P40E is even in the ballpark. Makes me wonder how it would have done if they could have kept the weight around 6,700.




P-36C had a max gross weight for "safe flight" of 5840lbs, this meant no restrictions. The plane could be loaded to a heavier weight buthen had to flown under restrictions according to AIr Corps Circular 60-9

Now please note that at 5840lbs the tank behind the pilots seat was empty, there is only 105 US gallons of fuel on board. The oil tank is only part filled, 40 quarts, an additional 14 quarts are needed if the fuel tank is filled. Armament is one .50 cal gun with 200 rounds and three .30s with 500 rounds each. total weight of guns ammo 292lbs.
Now add 200lbs worth of cooling for the Allsion engine (the Allsion was lighter than the R-1830 which cancels out around another 90lbs. 
Add armor, add self sealing tanks etc.

And BTW the P-40 no letter picked up a heavier wing (165lbs) heavier tail, heavier landing gear and so on. Early P-36s suffering from skin buckling over the landing gear and wing roots. 

A P-40 No letter grossed 6800lbs and that is with just two .50s and two .30s, no protection and only 19 gallons in the rear tank. 
P-40C went about 7600lbs without belly tank.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 19, 2017)

Wing buckling obviously needs addressed, but did they over build the tail, landing gear etc? I know 6 50's and ammo were very heavy. If equipped with 2 30's and 2 20mm, could the P40 have been kept near the Spitfire on weight, or was it just impossible to do even with hindsight?

It is mind boggling to think that a Spitfire XIV weighed the same as a P40E.


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2017)

pinsog said:


> Someone smarter than me will reply soon, but I thought I read somewhere the P40E Allison air intake was up high out of the worst dust? Wasn't the Spitfire air intake down lower where dust was worst?


 
This is true, and the Australians commented on it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> In one of the posts above, (Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 | Page 11 | WW2Aircraft.net Forums it states that the Vokes filter cost something like 25 mph in top speed, or about 7%. This would be about a 2.5% power loss, or about 40 or 50 horsepower. This strikes me as a lot, although one would need a comparison with a different filtration system to be sure.



The British, specifically the RAE, told the Australians that the full tropicalisation of the Spitfire V would reduce the speed at 370 mph by 2%, that is by 8 mph. This did not agree with the Australians own rather unscientific tests which indicated a loss of speed in excess of 20 mph.
The Australians noted that at 330 mph the reduction in speed of their Beaufighters equipped with Vokes filters was just 3 mph.
Something did not add up, and the Australians embarked on a series of tests to establish whether fitting a copy of the temperate air intake could improve performance and whether the tropical filter was really necessary (they would tow aircraft to the end of runways to reduce the ingestion of dust for example).
As I have shown, the locally produced copy of the temperate intake/cowl didn't work well at all. In my experience the Australians are not people to be easily discouraged, but producing a suitable air intake locally proved much more difficult than had been assumed. The results were the reverse of those anticipated:






The Australians now came up with a plan B, even though the real performance loss with the Vokes filter was not really known.






When the Australians finally got a modified cowling to replace the Vokes filter to work the results were not what they had hoped for.






Now the Aussies really got their knickers in a twist and another debate started. The figure of 16 mph for the penalty incurred by the Vokes filter now appears from somewhere. Some obviously felt that fitting a temperate air intake to the original Supermarine design might give a better improvement than the locally produced copy.






Eventually the British replied.






The Australians had no real way of measuring the performance difference which is why all sorts of odd reports came back from operational units, hardly best qualified to make them. There was no RAE or A&AEE to which they could refer. A report like this is pretty meaningless:






It's really no more than pilots' impressions, helped by a stop watch 

In the end the Australians did fit a temperate cowling to most if not all of their operational Spitfires. Whether the performance gain was 10 mph, 16 mph or more than 20 mph nobody can say for sure, because nobody ever measured it accurately and scientifically in Australia.
The 16 mph loss of maximum speed is, I think, the official British figure for the Merlin 45, as is the 12 mph loss for the 20,000ft max. weak cruising speed.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2017)

I would note the the vokes filter *may not *have been the only difference.

From Spitfire Mk. VB (Tropical) AB.320
Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing

"This aircraft was *fully tropicalised*; this included an air cleaner installation whose fairing produced an external bulge beneath the nose, and *tropical radiator and oil cooler installations*. In addition various items of desert equipment were carried. Details of this equipment and of the weights and loadings will be issued in a separate report."

Bolding by me. _IF _tropical Spitfires were fitted with larger radiators and oil coolers than "standard" Spitfires then there is going to be additional drag even if such units fit in the original ducts/housings. There will be either more airflow or a larger pressure drop through the matrix or both. 

Perhaps the 9lb restriction was due to inadequate cooling at higher boost levels?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Bolding by me. _IF _tropical Spitfires were fitted with larger radiators and oil coolers than "standard" Spitfires then there is going to be additional drag even if such units fit in the original ducts/housings. There will be either more airflow or a larger pressure drop through the matrix or both.



They certainly had a slightly larger radiator, which is why the British included the third drawing, deeming it relevant.

I can't look it up now, but from memory the difference was really very small. There may have been changes to the internal ducting as well as the slight bulge in the fairing (hence the drawing), and the radiator flap actuator was certainly altered to allow the flap to open further.

Edgar Brookes wrote:

_"The matrix, itself, had more honeycombs, and was physically larger, but a note, on the drawing, says that it was to be fully interchangeable with the standard Morris Radiators item, which sounds as though it was accommodated in the already-available space. In their listings, Vickers also give the frontal area, on all of the Vs, including the tropical version, as identical."_

But this does not preclude a bulged fairing which would still attach in the same way to the aircraft underside. The fact that the British sent a drawing of the radiator fairing to the Australians certainly implies that there were some differences.

As for the oil cooler, I believe the unit was essentially the same, the tropical version having a 'flared' exit, meaning a larger outlet duct.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2017)

Frontal area does not measure airflow or drag inside a duct. 
The shape of a duct can also vary a bit without changing the frontal area. 
Look at the lumps and bumps on top of Spitfire wings. Unless the top of the "bump" is higher than the thickest (highest) point of the wing it doesn't add to the frontal area although they can certainly add to the drag. 

Perhaps the radiator only changed things a few mph or perhaps it didn't, just trying to figure out why there may have been a difference between the "tropical" aircraft and the normal ones aside from the Vokes filter if changing the Vokes equipped aircraft back to a standard inlet didn't restore full speed/performance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Frontal area does not measure airflow or drag inside a duct.
> .



Indeed, and the radiator matrix was certainly larger, meaning that the ducting for the airflow through the radiator core may well have been different.

The Australians came up with a list of things to improve the performance of their Spitfires very similar to one I have seen in the UK, featuring everything from a streamlined mirror to filling and polishing that infamous double row of rivets along the wing leading edge.

Generally just improving the finish and fit of service aircraft could gain them anything up to 15 mph, which puts the loss due to the tropicalisation into some perspective.

The Australians even tried to polish their Spitfires, but one plaintive report from Townsville notes that they had only been polished to _"a slight degree"_ as it had proved_ "impossible to obtain any wax or polishing compounds in this area."_

Having seen the definitely non factory standard cars tear arsing up and down Townsville's sea front first hand I very much doubt that the same is true today 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2017)

It seems that most of the Vcs operated by the Australians DID retain the Vokes filter.

In an article by Anthony Cooper, author of 'Darwin Spitfires' he writes:

_"It is noteworthy that the standard VCT aircraft demonstrated a maximum speed of 316 knots at 22 500 feet in several separate tests - achieved once again at 3000 rpm and plus 9 pounds of boost. This was a much better performance than might have been expected, given the Vokes Filter’s bad press, for it was only a little less than the 321 knots achieved by temperate-intake aircraft in the UK powered by the same Merlin 46.


In short, it appears that the adverse reputation of the Vokes Filter was greatly exaggerated! Under the pressure of further perceived performance shortfalls while chasing speedy Mitsubishi Ki.46 reconnaissance machines during the 1943 Darwin raids, the matter was revisited and comparative tests re-run, but these confirmed that the performance difference was less than 5 knots. A few of the re-engineered temperate air intake cowlings saw service with aircraft of 79 Squadron in New Guinea , but the bulk of the Mark VC fleet soldiered on to the end with its unsightly air filters doing the prosaic but necessary job for which they were designed."_

His source for the 5 knot difference (316 and 321) is a signal from RAAF London to the Air Board of 26/12/42 (NAA A1196: 1/501/478. I'm not familiar with NAA filing).

The Australians jumped on the Vokes bandwagon, already up and running in the MTO. The performance deficit was not as large as suspected and it certainly wasn't entirely due to the filter.

This may be of interest.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2

And, in the context of this thread:

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 20, 2017)

pinsog said:


> Someone smarter than me will reply soon, but I thought I read somewhere the P40E Allison air intake was up high out of the worst dust? Wasn't the Spitfire air intake down lower where dust was worst?


Not necessarily "smarter", but I do know a picture says 1000 words....

Allison V-1710-39






Merlin V-1650-7






Hope that helps.


Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 22, 2017)




----------



## Wawny (Aug 6, 2017)

pinsog said:


> It may be listed earlier in this thread, I haven't read the whole thing, but have you seen the mock combat between a P40E and Spitfire V with the tropical air filter? This is copied and pasted. Again, if someone told me this I would have not believed it until I read this account.
> 
> The tests were conducted over 3rd to 5th of November 1942, at the No.2 Operational Training Unit in Mildura - a very hot dry open locale in western Victoria. Oversighting the tests was Wing Cmdr. Peter Jeffrey; the actual test pilots beng:
> Flying the P-40E - Flt. Lt. Arthur and Flt.Lt. Jackson.
> ...





Hi 
Interesting reading here. Bardie Wawn was my father (died 1990). He was credited with ~4 3/4 so just under 'Ace' by definition. He had many probables noted. 
FYI, he was involved in trials at Eagle Farm, Brisbane against a Japanese 'Hap' Zero Mk 2 fighter. Quite an intense trial by all accounts.
Interesting to note that when he landed, it was discovered that he'd put a 9 deg bend in the tail of his Spitfire. 
Dad was also involved in the trialling of the original Cotton 'G' suit, designed by Professor Cotton, Sydney.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wawny (Aug 6, 2017)

Wawny said:


> Hi
> Interesting reading here. Bardie Wawn was my father (died 1990). He was credited with ~4 3/4 so just under 'Ace' by definition. He had many probables noted.
> FYI, he was involved in trials at Eagle Farm, Brisbane against a Japanese 'Hap' Zero Mk 2 fighter. Quite an intense trial by all accounts.
> Interesting to note that when he landed, it was discovered that he'd put a 9 deg bend in the tail of his Spitfire.
> Dad was also involved in the trialling of the original Cotton 'G' suit, designed by Professor Cotton, Sydney.


He also flew Kittyhawks in 76 Sq RAAF in Milne Bay during the Battle for Australia 1942

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Aug 7, 2017)

Chiron said:


> "However going into a Dogfight with the Zero was stupid,"
> 
> Ya, I have to agree on that, Zero was a superior dogfighter, probably the best dogfither.



Depends on your definition of "dogfighting". If you mean using tactics that favor the Zero, i.e. slow speed maneuvering, turning , etc, then yes, I agree, the Zero was the best at that. But why would any pilot flying a plane that is faster in both level flight and in a dive, and zoom climbs better, has better armourment, and is more sturdily built (which most fighters of that time were) get into a slow speed tangle with a Zero? There was absolutely no reason to do that. Why wouldn't a pilot always use his speed and fire power advantage against a Zero? That would be like Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard fighting again, but this time Hagler insists that Leonard can only stand in the middle of the ring and fight him toe to toe...he can't use his superior boxing skills, he must fight Hagler's fight...that would be totally stupid on Leonard's part...same goes for fighting against the Zero...you fight using YOUR tactics, not his....


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2017)

If you can ...

The other guy is trying his best to make you do the opposite of what you want to do, and sometimes he may be better than you.

Against Saburo Sakai, most would have been outmatched.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 7, 2017)

grampi said:


> Depends on your definition of "dogfighting". If you mean using tactics that favor the Zero, i.e. slow speed maneuvering, turning , etc, then yes, I agree, the Zero was the best at that. But why would any pilot flying a plane that is faster in both level flight and in a dive, and zoom climbs better, has better armourment, and is more sturdily built (which most fighters of that time were) get into a slow speed tangle with a Zero? There was absolutely no reason to do that. Why wouldn't a pilot always use his speed and fire power advantage against a Zero? That would be like Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard fighting again, but this time Hagler insists that Leonard can only stand in the middle of the ring and fight him toe to toe...he can't use his superior boxing skills, he must fight Hagler's fight...that would be totally stupid on Leonard's part...same goes for fighting against the Zero...you fight using YOUR tactics, not his....



Grampi,

I think hindsight can be a wonderful thing. In reality I don't think our guys were trained properly in theory or hands on. They were part of a military exploding in size but not experience, using less than optimum equipment, fighting giants (Zeros) far from home. They learned eventually but it took time, effort, and lives.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 8, 2017)

GregP said:


> If you can ...
> 
> The other guy is trying his best to make you do the opposite of what you want to do, and sometimes he may be better than you.



Yep. The most important factor was most often the human at the controls.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Cosmotabis (Nov 15, 2019)

Chiron said:


> "the spit's got the zero beat........."
> 
> I believed Zero actually outclassed Spitfire in early Pacific war, due to its superior dog fight and its unbelieved long range capability.
> 
> ...



The Zero was an excellent dogfighter in the early stages of the war and arguably one of the most important planes at the outbreak of the war in the Pacific theatre.
By the end of the war, the US P-51D Mustang, and later models of the UK Supermarine Spitfire are good examples of planes that had been developed and improved throughout the course of the war and far outclassed the Zero, which had been virtually unchanged from its first appearance. 

At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero and the Oscar (the Japanese army fighter that was similar to the Zero)
That was the P-38 Lighting.
The superiority of the Zero/Oscar over others was in these areas
Acceleration
Climb
Initial dive speed
Turn rate under 250 mph
stall speed
pilot knowledge
PILOT KNOWLEDGE
This was critical. The Japanese knew everything the Germans knew. All the data from the European war was transmitted to the Japanese by the Germans. The Japanese knew exactly what every allied type could do and many US types were used by the British. The P-40 and the Wildcat were used by the British. They had used the information to plan fighter tactics.
The British and US knew essentially nothing about the Zero/Oscar except for Clair Chenault’s reports which they apparently ignored.
LIMITATION OF TURN RATE
What was not known was that over 250 mph the Zero’s turn rate dropped off and it became increasingly hard to turn due to the size f it’s flaps so that an aircraft that kept the fight above 270 mph was in fact able to turn with or inside a Zero.
Until this fact was known the Zero and Oscar were very deadly in any turning engagement. They could and did usually dominate any other allied aircraft in a turning fight.
ACCELERATION
The light weight of the aircraft enabled it to have such a great acceleration and climb and initial dive that it could simply accelerate away on the flat or in a dive or climb away from almost all allied types when it found itself in an unfavorable situation.
STALL SPEED
In a climb or hard turning engagement the Zero or Oscar will stall at a slower speed than all allied types and can keep turning or climbing until the allied fighter stalls out and goes into an uncontrollable spin. The Zero then kills it.
THE ASPIRIN FOR THE HEADACHE
Only one allied fighter could counter it consistently in the first year of the war. No not a Spitfire at all. The P-38 Lightning. The Mark 5 Spitfire was no better it was slower in acceleration and climb and unable to match the turn rate below 260 MPH.
P-38 simply massacred these Japanese fighters from day one. While individual pilots may have tried to turn in with a Zero and lost the P-38 pilots were taught never to do it in general tactical doctrine. The P-38 was not designed as a turning fighter in the first instance though it could turn well. It was designed to be the fastest the highest flying and the best accelerating climbing and diving fighter. The pilots knew what they were and and used it. It turned out to be a combination tat was just out of the Zero’s price range.
The P-38 was really the first time the US air force decided to build a fighter that was technologically superior to everyone else. In the mid 30’s Britain Germany Japan France Italy and the Soviets were putting out design requirements for future short range fighters with short ranges and top speeds of 300 mph. The US Army Air Force decided on a high altitude long range interceptor with a top speed of 400 mph and had to be agile as well.
This really pushed the envelope of the possible but it was done. The aircraft had big teething issues in Europe due to the cold temperatures and no cockpit heating and the low octane rating of the fuel causing really bad engine reliability rates. The aircraft suffered more crashes due to engine failures than enemy action. The two engines did not help at first because the pilots could not handle the high performance aircraft going from 300 hp trainer to a 2,400 hp twin engine monster.
The other big problem was the aircraft was so fast in a dive the air broke the sound barrier over the control surfaces that the flaps failed to work and the P-38s dived into the ground and nobody knew why. The pilots were terrified of the aircraft until all this got sorted out but it took a year to 18 months for all the issues to totally be resolved in Europe. The problem of trying to get cutting edge new aircraft into service in the middle of battles in a new environment.
But in the warmer Pacific with high octane fuel the thing was a beast.
Later in the war when the Japanese fighters high speed turn limitations were known P-38 pilots did use more turning in engagements but did it at speeds over 300 mph and held a turning advantage over the Japanese aircraft at those speeds.
But they did not need to. The P-38 was an energy fighter. Boom and Zoom that type of fighter was called. The best there was at the time and they climbed higher and harder and dived faster. They could sit at higher altitude and decide when to fall on a Zero and the centrally mounted firepower meant they had a massive firepower advantage over a wing mounted gun fighter. They had a higher power to weight ratio could out accelerate and out climb a Zero and they were 100 mph faster in level flight and had an altitude advantage.
The surviving Japanese ace who’s name I keep looking up and then forget wrote in his memoirs how he hated those P-38’s and the helpless feeling of struggling to try to get up to their altitude and then seeing one just lazily peel off and plummet down and a Zero/Oscar or bomber would explode and the American would just keep going down like a rocket through the formation and then when clear climb away safely to altitude and then hang above them again like a vulture choosing another prey.
The only saving element for the Japanese was that the P-38’s were quite limited in numbers and many were being sent to Europe. By far the most Army fighters were the P-39 and P-40.
The SW Pacific Air Force commander (New Guinea) Gen Kenny wrote the command in the USA requesting every P-38 that was available to be sent urgently. However the bombers needed them in Europe. So he got what he got but they were doing a 10 to 1 victory rate even at the beginning of the war when the Zero was at it’s best.
The story of both the Zero and the P-38 separately and together back before radar missiles and stealth was to have a dominant envelope and to only fight in that envelope.
The Zero was in medium to low speed turning fights the P-38 was in high speed climb and dive attacks. In the wash up it proved climb and dive was superior. The air had a 3rd and 4th dimension pilots have to deal with, the vertical and the vector of acceleration. High speed and altitude are king in the air. It allows a pilot the option to attack or to just avoid combat if the offs are against him. A slower aircraft with lower ceiling has to take what comes. This is bad juju.
Back in WW1 this lesson was learned and highly agile fighters were being defeated by more powerful fighters that could climb dive and maintain airspeed better. Even back then the race was for more powerful engines and air frames that could cope with the power rather than tighter turns. Overall the war was won by the faster higher flying fighters even if battles might be won by better turning fighters.
The triplane fighters the Sopwith Triplane and the Focker Triplane were amazingly tight turning aircaft but were discontinued because of the drag imposing limits on their speed. The turning radius was useless if they could not catch a Se5a or a Focker Dv and it left them behind by 60 mph.
The amazing Sopwith Camel was a second string fighter after it’s year in the sun because the less maneuverable in a flat turn Se5a was 50 mph faster and the Camel was used for trench strafing as it simply could not catch the new German fighters.
The Japanese knew these things too but they were hampered by their engine tech and they built a great set of fighters within the engine they had and taught their airmen how to use it.
The US had a good idea with their plans but cost cutting by congress changed their plans and the P-39 and the P-40 were built without the turbochargers on their engines they were designed to have. This showed up badly when they were pushed into the higher altitude fighter role because the P-38 had early teething and production problems being a very advanced design and so was not available in numbers. It was supposed to cover the other aircraft but lagged in availability.
The p-39′s and P-40′s did okay but it would have been interesting to see them with their designed turbochargers fitted and how that would have affected the fight.
Once the US and Britain and the Soviets began mass producing fighters with engines with 1,800 and then up to 2,600 hp twin supercharged monster engines coming into service the Zero and Oscar were decidedly second rate by mid 1943. They received upgrades but their upgraded engines were only 1130 hp and the fuel was low octane and they didn’t even make their full power.
However if a new allied pilot was too aggressive and wanted a kill badly he might follow a Zero or Oscar wily old ace into a slow turning fight and nothing would save them then. So the aircraft remained dangerous if not treated with respect.
The Japanese built some very good fighters that were equal to the later allied fighters with very powerful engines but they could not build enough and had little fuel and not enough pilots as their training was also hampered by the oil shortage.

You stated opinion but not the facts.

Please original text in the link below,
Was the Japanese 'Zero' plane the best fighter plane during WWII overall? - Quora 

How the US's Wildcat fighter plane held the line against the fearsome Japanese Zero during World War II


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2019)

<a truckload of popcorn appears in front of my house>

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 15, 2019)

Have some of mine Tomo....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 15, 2019)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> The FW 190A would probably have torn the Zero to shreds.


Searched for some vids of these two. A bit of R/C fun...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 15, 2019)

Cosmotabis said:


> At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero and the Oscar (the Japanese army fighter that was similar to the Zero)
> That was the P-38 Lighting.


The "beginning of the war" was in 1939. The P-38 didn't see operational service for another 2.5 years. 
And these are facts, not opinions

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 15, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The "beginning of the war" was in 1939. The P-38 didn't see operational service for another 2.5 years.
> And these are facts, not opinions


Forget the P-38, in September 1939 at the “beginning of the war“ neither the Zero or Oscar were in service. The Zero was introduced in the summer of 1940, the Oscar not until the autumn of 1941, several months after the superior Fw 190 and the much faster and heavily armed Typhoon. If the latter can keep its tail on, the Japanese won’t see it coming.

Perhaps he means the beginning of the Asian war? But to Chinese people, that’s 1937.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 16, 2019)

IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack. Now, I'm neither a pilot and lack the knowledge of many on this forum, but this seems to me like a rather significant advantage. The ability to attack the enemies airfields, while yours are immune from attack, seems as if it would be a pretty major benefit. The Zero had the ability to go on the offense, while the Spitfire was a point-defense fighter. A very good point defense fighter however. Granted, when you don't need to worry about carrying a large fuel load or managing drag to extend range, it's a lot easier to build a capable fighter for that mission. 

Concerning combat against the Zero, I suspect Spitfire pilots had been trained as maneuver pilots-dogfighters, which the Spit excelled at vs German fighters. But when faced with the Zero that out-performed the Spit in this particular realm, there was a learning curve. Basically pilots had to relearn much of what they had been trained for, and forced to learn "boom and zoom" tactics....the same as every other fighter that tackled the Zero. Now this is supposition-but given that they were primarily a point-defense fighter, and were forced to react to the enemy instead of dictating terms of engagement, I would guess (and would like input) that they were often in a position where they were down on energy with respect to the enemy. Specifically they would be climbing from lower altitude to an engagement altitude-and under those conditions, unable to "boom and zoom". The undeniable advantage of short-range fighter? If you are shot down-and manage to bail out-it's far better to do so over your airfield than over enemy territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Nov 16, 2019)

I think the Spitfire's lack of range could've been solved by the naval variant, _The Seafire_.
This would literally put the Spit on an aircraft carrier, where it could be brought within range of the Japanese bases.
I agree on the notion of British pilots "relearning" how to dogfight, in order to combat the Zero.
...I just wonder if they would've adopted the "Boom & Zoom" tactics that the Americans developed...or would they have figured something else out......


----------



## pinsog (Nov 16, 2019)

The problem with the Spitfire V that fought those Zero’s is they had no performance advantage. Below 20,000 feet they were actually a bit slower, climb was slightly in favor of the Spitfire but not enough to matter, and the Spitfire couldn’t even dive away from the Zero because it accelerated too slowly in a dive. Most all US aircraft, even those generally outperformed by the Zero had some sort of escape plan, the P39 and P40 could both roll over and dive away (the P39 can’t take many hits due to engine location) the Spitfire simply had no escape plan. I would rather fight a Zero in an Me109, they can ‘bunt’ into a dive and breakaway from a Zero at will.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 16, 2019)

Cosmotabis said:


> The Zero was an excellent dogfighter in the early stages of the war and arguably one of the most important planes at the outbreak of the war in the Pacific theatre.
> By the end of the war, the US P-51D Mustang, and later models of the UK Supermarine Spitfire are good examples of planes that had been developed and improved throughout the course of the war and far outclassed the Zero, which had been virtually unchanged from its first appearance.
> 
> At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero and the Oscar (the Japanese army fighter that was similar to the Zero)
> ...




By the summer of 1942, the P-38 was in operation in the Aleutians and Iceland. Even thought the P-38 was in theory available at the beginning of the war, as a practical matter, it wasn't available in combat zones as a fighter until Fall 1942. According to General Kenney's autobiography, "Air War in the Pacific", the first P-38s delivered to the Southwest Pacific theater were not ready for deployment when they were received. They were grounded or kept out of combat for several months while defects were being remedied. I don't have the book in front of me, but IIRC it was October or November 1942 that they flew the first combat missions. The first P-38s to reach Guadalcanal were ready November 1942, just too late for most of the crucial battles. Against the Germans, P-38s arrived in England, ran a few work-up missions, then were diverted to North Africa. P-38s started combat in North Africa also in November 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The problem with the Spitfire V that fought those Zero’s is they had no performance advantage. Below 20,000 feet they were actually a bit slower, climb was slightly in favor of the Spitfire but not enough to matter, and the Spitfire couldn’t even dive away from the Zero because it accelerated too slowly in a dive. Most all US aircraft, even those generally outperformed by the Zero had some sort of escape plan, the P39 and P40 could both roll over and dive away (the P39 can’t take many hits due to engine location) the Spitfire simply had no escape plan. I would rather fight a Zero in an Me109, they can ‘bunt’ into a dive and breakaway from a Zero at will.



You base that on the fight over Darwin, had the RAAF been supplied with brand new MkV's with 16 psi rated Merlin 45's the Zero's equality would have been non existent, Mk 11 Spits would have been even better in my opinion, being more maneuverable and the 303's putting out more lead per sec firing time.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack. 

You need to remember that the Zero's range came from flying very slow over open ocean, combined with no armour, radio, self sealing tanks and weak guns, they were good planes early on in the war but were proved to have glass jaws very quickly.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack.
> 
> You need to remember that the Zero's range came from flying very slow over open ocean, combined with no armour, radio, self sealing tanks and weak guns, they were good planes early on in the war but were proved to have glass jaws very quickly.



We need to remember that Zero's range came also from having a 50% more fuel than the usual European fighters we mostly talk about (Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, Yaks and LaGGs), low-powered engine, and drop tank facility from day one. It was also well streamlined aircraft, and not too big.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.


So did the Japanese. 

As soon as they had an engine powerful enough, Japan included armour and self sealing fuel tanks. The Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K and Kawasaki Ki-100, arguably the three best Japanese fighters were thusly protected.

It‘s a funny thing that we give the Zero (and Oscar) such respect. The Zero was fatally flawed and unbalanced, and only existed because Japan was seemingly unable to make more powerful engines. It’s akin to having a fire truck that can get to the burning house in record time, but had only a thin hose and room for two firemen. Japan should have licensed the Fw 190’s BMW 801, or just put more attention to engine design. Now, if Japan enters the war with a force of powerful, agile and protected Ki-84, that earns respect.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance



Not everything; the Zero had a floatation bag aft of the pilot's seat that would inflate when the aircraft ditched to enable the pilot to get out. No, it didn't have self sealing tanks, but then by the time the Zero first flew in April 1939, not many front line fighters did, in actual fact. For what Japan wanted and needed, the Zero was far better suited than any European or US fighter at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.



European approach does not work for Japanese in 1937-42.



Admiral Beez said:


> So did the Japanese.
> 
> As soon as they had an engine powerful enough, Japan included armour and self sealing fuel tanks. The Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K and Kawasaki Ki-100, arguably the three best Japanese fighters were thusly protected.
> 
> It‘s a funny thing that we give the Zero (and Oscar) such respect. The Zero was fatally flawed and unbalanced, and only existed because Japan was seemingly unable to make more powerful engines. It’s akin to having a fire truck that can get to the burning house in record time, but had only a thin hose and room for two firemen. Japan should have licensed the Fw 190’s BMW 801, or just put more attention to engine design. Now, if Japan enters the war with a force of powerful, agile and protected Ki-84, that earns respect.



Fatally flawed? Is it Zero's design fault that japanese didn't came out with a heir to the Zero?
Japan was well able to make more powerful engines already in 1941. How much of them is debatable, though.
Ki-61 featured self-sealing tanks, it's internal tank even bigger than those on the Zero, and it sported 2 drop tanks. All on less than 1200 HP.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.



I'm not so sure that was a deliberate "design philosophy". We sometimes think that the Japanese culture put little value on the lives of individuals, which history in some ways shows true compared to "western" culture. But I'm not convinced that was the case with the A6M design. They lacked an aircraft engine with the power to haul around a heavy fighter with reasonable performance. So the balance is what-performance or protection? What good is armor and self-sealing tanks if you're terribly underpowered and under-performing? By keeping the weight to a minimum the natural side effect was low wing loading and excellent low-speed handling. And by keeping the fixed weight down, they both got good fuel economy-and of course had space to pack a lot of fuel tanks on board. Once they had developed a better, more powerful engine, the Japanese incorporated those features-and had the performance to equal the best Allied or German fighters in many areas. They just lacked the industrial might and resources (including pilots) to build them in sufficient quantity and get them in the field.

Another thought on the design philosophy of the Zero. The empire they were building (or desired) in the Pacific and SEA was vast and took endurance to cover. This wasn't Europe where you can cover multiple countries in an hour flying time. I can't help but think that was a factor in the design as well. The Spitfire or even the BF-109 would have been of little value if it didn't have the range to cover a significant portion of their empire-or even fly to the next island with an airbase.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 17, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> So did the Japanese.
> 
> As soon as they had an engine powerful enough, Japan included armour and self sealing fuel tanks. The Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K and Kawasaki Ki-100, arguably the three best Japanese fighters were thusly protected.
> 
> It‘s a funny thing that we give the Zero (and Oscar) such respect. The Zero was fatally flawed and unbalanced, and only existed because Japan was seemingly unable to make more powerful engines. It’s akin to having a fire truck that can get to the burning house in record time, but had only a thin hose and room for two firemen. Japan should have licensed the Fw 190’s BMW 801, or just put more attention to engine design. Now, if Japan enters the war with a force of powerful, agile and protected Ki-84, that earns respect.


Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 17, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.


It's not 1941 that the Zero's fatal flaws came to light. The A6M was the IJN's sole fighter until the end of the war, so it must be compared to allied naval fighters throughout the Zero's service period. Same as the Bf 109 must be compared against allied fighters right up to 1945.

And yes, fatally flawed. No one else was fielding unarmoured, unprotected carrier fighters into 1942-45. I'd still give the Zero positive odds against the Seafire and fair odds against the Wildcat, but Hellcat and Corsair show the fatal flaws designed into the Zero.

The Combined Fleet was beaten to a draw at Coral Sea and wiped out at Midway. The Zero for all its wonderment did not save the day. It was just another fighter.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> I'm not so sure that was a deliberate "design philosophy".
> .



The sacrifice of endurance (range is a poor measure) for performance and firepower was absolutely a compromise explicitly and deliberately made in the case of the Spitfire.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 17, 2019)

stona said:


> The sacrifice of endurance (range is a poor measure) for performance and firepower was absolutely a compromise explicitly and deliberately made in the case of the Spitfire.


Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engines.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 17, 2019)

1943

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 17, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> 1943
> 
> View attachment 561114​


IIRC, the Miles M20 had a range of about 900 miles without drop tanks and would have had double that with 2 X 90 IG. So a worthy competitor for the Zero in the Pacific and East Indies.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 17, 2019)

_Every_ design is a compromise; some just work out better than others. The IJN decided that it needed a long-range, high-performance carrier-based fighter and placed more import on maneuverability and range than did the USN with their designs, which placed more on robustness. Since the only other country with its own serious fighters launching off its carriers in 1941 was the USN (the Sea Hurricane was a kludge, not an _ab initio_ design), there isn't a whole lot of aircraft for comparison.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 17, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> _Every_ design is a compromise; some just work out better than others. The IJN decided that it needed a long-range, high-performance carrier-based fighter and placed more import on maneuverability and range than did the USN with their designs, which placed more on robustness. Since the only other country with its own serious fighters launching off its carriers in 1941 was the USN (the Sea Hurricane was a kludge, not an _ab initio_ design), there isn't a whole lot of aircraft for comparison.


Miles M20. See previous post.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engines.



Yes it was. It could be made to have greater endurance, as various PR types did, but as a fighter interceptor it was short ranged because it was designed for a role that did not require great endurance. The eight gun specification only required a tankage of 66 gallons, so the fact that the Spitfire ended up with 85 gallons, only 9 gallons short of the requirement for four guns was a bonus.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> ...
> The Combined Fleet was beaten to a draw at Coral Sea and wiped out at Midway. The Zero for all its wonderment did not save the day. It was just another fighter.



Short list of Zero's faults:
- IJN has no radars worth speaking about in 1942
- USA is reading a lot of Japanese mail
- USN was expected to behave like Japanese admirals want, not like US admirals want
- pittyful state of fleet AA guns (both in quality and quantity)
- pittyful state of IJN damage control
- no 'bodyguard' ships for the carriers
- wrong doctrine of IJN, like attacking ground targets with carrier-borne aircraft instead of ship guns etc
- waste of design resouces and time and still not coming out with replacement to the Zero itself
- no emphasis on new pilots' training, and protection once airborne
- dividing the forces of IJN in May/June 1942
- failure to deploy submarine screen around Midway in timely manner, and not bothering to report to the fleet when that happened
- Shokaku left in japanese waters during the Battle of Midway

What a flawed fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 17, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> It's not 1941 that the Zero's fatal flaws came to light. The A6M was the IJN's sole fighter until the end of the war, so it must be compared to allied naval fighters throughout the Zero's service period. Same as the Bf 109 must be compared against allied fighters right up to 1945.
> 
> And yes, fatally flawed. No one else was fielding unarmoured, unprotected carrier fighters into 1942-45. I'd still give the Zero positive odds against the Seafire and fair odds against the Wildcat, but Hellcat and Corsair show the fatal flaws designed into the Zero.
> 
> The Combined Fleet was beaten to a draw at Coral Sea and wiped out at Midway. The Zero for all its wonderment did not save the day. It was just another fighter.


We'll just have to agree to disagree which of course is ok. I don't think you can compare a 1941 design to a 43 or 44 one. Especially considering the pace of development durring the war. I don't for example consider the f4f fatally flawed because it doesn't look that impressive next to a Me262. 
That the IJN failed to field a follow on design to replace the A6m had zero to do( so to speak) with any deficiency in it's design. That it was still a dangerous oponent in the hands of a competent pilot far past it's reasonable best by date unlike so many othe designs speeks not of a fatal flaw or series of such but the opposite. Imho.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 17, 2019)

Tell me something...did the _early_ BF-109's have armour protection? Self-sealing tanks?
I know the F2A-1 didn't, because that was part of the creation of the "-2" and "-3" varients.
Those planes would be _design_ contemporary's of the A6M, since they all benefit from the knowledge/technology available in the mid-late 1930's (actually, with the 109, you could go back to the early 30's).
So if you're questioning about the lack of such things, think about when the plane was designed. What was the knowledge of that time?
I think, sometimes, we all suffer from a bit too much "hindsight-is-20/20".

Elvis

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

Not everything; the Zero had a floatation bag aft of the pilot's seat that would inflate when the aircraft ditched to enable the pilot to get out. No, it didn't have self sealing tanks, but then by the time the Zero first flew in April 1939, not many front line fighters did, in actual fact. For what Japan wanted and needed, the Zero was far better suited than any European or US fighter at the time. 

The floatation bag, radio, parachute was often removed to save weight and yes the Spit and 109 didn't have pilot protection in 1939 but it was very quickly added.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941. 

The loss of the IJN carriers at Midway could be directly attributed by many things, one of them is the Zero. The IJN armed and fueled their aircraft below decks as to leave the flight deck clear for CAP Zero's, the Zero pilots would land as soon as possible once the 20mm ammunition was expended to re-arm, all it took was a well aimed bomb to ignite the fueled and loaded planes and the carriers burnt to the water line. Fatality flawed?, yes the Zero was, because it directly influenced carrier tactics which contributed to the carriers being lost.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engines. 

The Spitfire could have been very long ranged if all the communication equipment, armour, self sealing tanks, bullet proof windscreen, had mauser 20mm instead of Hispano's, had both rear and underseat unsealed tanks and the pilots flew over France doing 130mph at 10,000ft, but you would have to have a very robust pilot training program to keep up and the Luftwaffe would have many more pilots with over 100 kills to their name.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> 1943
> 
> View attachment 561114​



So we are comparing a Spit with a single 85 gallon tank to a Mustang with main, rear Berlin tank and two DT's?.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Tell me something...did the _early_ BF-109's have armour protection? Self-sealing tanks?
> I know the F2A-1 didn't, because that was part of the creation of the "-2" and "-3" varients.
> Those planes would be _design_ contemporary's of the A6M, since they all benefit from the knowledge/technology available in the mid-late 1930's (actually, with the 109, you could go back to the early 30's).
> So if you're questioning about the lack of such things, think about when the plane was designed. What was the knowledge of that time?
> ...



No, neither did the Spit, but both had protection fitted from the factory plus all in service aircraft were retrofitted after the battle of France and before the Battle of Britain. The British, American and German air forces put great emphasis on saving their pilots.


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.
> 
> The loss of the IJN carriers at Midway could be directly attributed by many things, one of them is the Zero. The IJN armed and fueled their aircraft below decks as to leave the flight deck clear for CAP Zero's, the Zero pilots would land as soon as possible once the 20mm ammunition was expended to re-arm, all it took was a well aimed bomb to ignite the fueled and loaded planes and the carriers burnt to the water line. Fatality flawed?, yes the Zero was, because it directly influenced carrier tactics which contributed to the carriers being lost.


All aircraft have faults and any one of those faults could contribute to disaster if if the pin action of a battle goes just right after which in hind sight we can say it was fatally flawed just look at what happened because it didn't have enough speed, or couldn't climb fast enough to intercept those bombers that clinched the decisive battle, or didn't have the range to get to the enemy, or in this case didn't carry a substantial ammunition load.
By that standard I guess all aircraft are fatality flawed in some way so ok, ya.
However, in total what was the better aircraft for what the IJN needed in 1941 if they could have anything else in existence at the time? The Buffalo? The Bf109e? The p40? Even assuming you could fly them off of a carrier.
Imho it was THE best aircraft in the world at the time for those requirements.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> ...
> The IJN armed and fueled their aircraft below decks as to leave the flight deck clear for CAP Zero's,
> ...



Source?



PAT303 said:


> The Spitfire could have been very long ranged if all the communication equipment, armour, self sealing tanks, bullet proof windscreen, had mauser 20mm instead of Hispano's, had both rear and underseat unsealed tanks and the pilots flew over France doing 130mph at 10,000ft, but you would have to have a very robust pilot training program to keep up and the Luftwaffe would have many more pilots with over 100 kills to their name.



Yet, somehow, people at Kawasaki managed to have radio, armor, self sealing tanks, BP windscreen, along with double the internal fuel tankage on the even smaller fighter, the Ki-61.
Back in the UK, people at Supermarine managed to stuff extra 36 gals on the Spitfire VII/VIII, and later to cram extra 75+ imp gals of fuel on Spitfire XI (unfortunately too late). Or, what about the people in the USA that did about the same, and flew the Spitfire to the UK? How did they dared? Nevermind, the war was going on.

The only thing precluding Spitfire from being designed as a long range fighter was then-current RAF doctrine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> So we are comparing a Spit with a single 85 gallon tank to a Mustang with main, rear Berlin tank and two DT's?.



You asked "Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engine" I gave you a map of when the " UK point defence role was passed" Does that look short range or long range?. And when was I mentioning Mustangs? Note Mustang date of 1944


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Source?
> 
> 
> Shattered Sword.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2019)

However, in total what was the better aircraft for what the IJN needed in 1941 if they could have anything else in existence at the time? The Buffalo? The Bf109e? The p40? Even assuming you could fly them off of a carrier.
Imho it was THE best aircraft in the world at the time for those requirements. 

Give me a Wildcat anyday, yes they didn't have the performance of the Zero but they also didn't burst into flames at the the first sign of a hit, protect your most valuable asset first and foremost, your pilots.


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> However, in total what was the better aircraft for what the IJN needed in 1941 if they could have anything else in existence at the time? The Buffalo? The Bf109e? The p40? Even assuming you could fly them off of a carrier.
> Imho it was THE best aircraft in the world at the time for those requirements.
> 
> Give me a Wildcat anyday, yes they didn't have the performance of the Zero but they also didn't burst into flames at the the first sign of a hit, protect your most valuable asset first and foremost, your pilots.


I agree the f4f would probably be the closest. Some would say a little better overall. Some would say not quite as good but even assuming the f4f is a bit better( I would call them about even overall but not for what the IJN needed, specifically range), but even giving a slight edge to the Wildcat is a slight edge enough to say the other plane is fatally flawed?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack.
> 
> You need to remember that the Zero's range came from flying very slow over open ocean, combined with no armour, radio, self sealing tanks and weak guns, they were good planes early on in the war but were proved to have glass jaws very quickly.



True enough-but what British fighter could do the job of the Zero? What one had the range of the Zero, along with performance and protection? Oh, and could land on a carrier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 17, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I agree the f4f would probably be the closest. Some would say a little better overall. Some would say not quite as good but even assuming the f4f is a bit better( I would call them about even overall but not for what the IJN needed, specifically range), but even giving a slight edge to the Wildcat is a slight edge enough to say the other plane is fatality flawed?


All aircraft have the potential to be fatally flawed. It's just a case of when the circumstances of the moment happen to coincide with one of that plane's weaknesses. Early on, the performance and firepower of the Zero, largely due to its lack of protection, kept that lack from causing crippling losses. But as soon as it started to encounter planes with equivalent firepower and superior survivability, even if with somewhat lesser performance, that lack became a critical flaw.
Any warplane is a package deal; in modern parlance, a "weapon system", consisting of the plane, the aircrew training and proficiency, and the operational doctrine and tactics.
Given that perspective, the A6M2 was the best possible fit for the IJNAF in 1941. The only other potential contenders, IMHO P40 and F4F, were each incompatible with the other 2/3 of the IJNAF "package".
The biggest mistake of the Japanese was the failure to trade a little of the Zero's awesome agility advantage for self sealing tanks and pilot armor to bring a 1940 fighter to 1942 standards.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> yes they didn't have the performance of the Zero but they also didn't burst into flames at the the first sign of a hit,



It didn't though. Have you read Saburo Sakai's book Samurai? Let's also remember that even in 1945, US pilots were warned not to dog fight a Zero. it was in 1940 the best carrier fighter in the world and was a formidable foe right until the end. Apart from the uninformed ramblings of internet warriors, no one who has had anything to do with the Zero at the time has ever considered it 'fatally flawed'.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Apart from the uninformed ramblings of internet warriors, no one who has had anything to do with the Zero at the time has ever considered it 'fatally flawed'.


Maybe so, but I've spoken with enough WWII pilots and read enough WWII interviews that agreed Zeroes "flamed easily", to chose to disbelieve it.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> but I've spoken with enough WWII pilots and read enough WWII interviews that agreed Zeroes "flamed easily", to chose to disbelieve it.



Doesn't mean it was 'fatally flawed' - put enough shells into a Tiger tank and it'll flame easily. The problem is, this argument comes up sooo often on this forum that I find myself trolling through old posts to recycle what's been said in the past. This is a post I made a few years ago.

"Zeroes could take a lot more punishment that what most people realise. They were not structurally weak, contrary to popular opinion. A light weight structure doesn't mean a weak structure. Yes, Horikoshi carried out lightening measures, which included lightening holes in everything, but it wasn't structurally weak. In Sakai's book Samurai (admittedly embellished a bit by Caidin, unfortunately) he discusses occasions where Zeroes returned back to the carriers completely shot up, their pilots wondering how they made it back in the condition they were in. The following is from a report written by American John Foster Jr., Managing Editor of “Aviation” magazine on the A6M3 Model 32;

"Nothing has been spared to keep weight down, neither excessive manhours to manufacture complex units, nor increasing maintenance difficulties for ground crews. Lightening holes, for example, are used prolifically— even in the pilot’s seat—and diameters as small as half an inch are found throughout the craft. Outstanding of the weight saving measures is complete elimination of protective armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. It all results in a plane that is extremely vulnerable despite good maneuverability at medium speeds.
_This weight-saving design would indicate that the craft is flimsily built but such is not the case, for its strength compares favorably with many American-built planes_."

I'm trying to find the quote from Sakai's book where he talks about times when Zeroes returned full of holes. They could withstand much more punishment than is often realised. I have no doubt that during combat US pilots were often amazed by what they saw when they shot at Zeroes and saw them explode, probably happened a lot, too. Was it a fatal flaw? No, because that didn't always happen. Hit any aircraft in the right place and it'll go down in flames after little encouragement, as you know.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.


We‘re not shopping for a better carrier fighter for Japan. This thread is about the Zero vs. the Fw 190 and Spitfire. Since the latter aren't carrier aircraft, we have to assume the A6M is either flying from a land base or was launched from a carrier and then flown to the Spitfire or Fw 190.

In 1941, against the Fw 190 the Zero is fatally flawed. When it entered service in August 1941 the Fw 190 was arguable the finest fighter aircraft in the world. It was much faster than the Zero, heavier armed and with armour and self sealing tanks. Certainly dogfighting with the A6M is undesirable with pretty much any Germany, Italian or Allied fighter, but the faster Fw 190 doesn't need to dogfight.

Just look at the excellent armour protection the Fw 190 pilot enjoys...







We keep talking about 1941, but for the most part the Allies were fighting the Zero from 1942 onwards, which gives us the superb Spitfire Mk IX. Again, dogfighting with a A6M should be avoided, but like Fw 190 the Spitfire IX has speed, protection and firepower advantages over the A6M.

Was the A6M the best carrier fighter of 1941? Yes, protection aside, it had the range and sufficient firepower. The Zero is one of my all time favourite aircraft and I want to give it a fair shake. A British version of the same would have been invaluable in the Mediterranean convoys and carrier ops. But against the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX that entered widespread service in 1942, the A6M is in trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 17, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> We‘re not shopping for a better carrier fighter for Japan. This thread is about the Zero vs. the Fw 190 and Spitfire. Since the latter aren't carrier aircraft, we have to assume the A6M is either flying from a land base or was launched from a carrier and then flown to the Spitfire or Fw 190.
> 
> In 1941, against the Fw 190 the Zero is fatally flawed. When it entered service in August 1941 the Fw 190 was arguable the finest fighter aircraft in the world. It was much faster than the Zero, heavier armed and with armour and self sealing tanks. Certainly dogfighting with the A6M is undesirable with pretty much any Germany, Italian or Allied fighter, but the faster Fw 190 doesn't need to dogfight.
> 
> ...




IMO, either the Spit or FW190 would have been nearly useless to the Japanese in 1940-42. At that point, the Japanese were on the offensive and needed aircraft (such as the Zero and Oscar) that had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Both the Spit and the FW, as good as they were as point defense fighters, couldn't do that, at least not over the long distances of the Pacific. By late 42 on, maybe, when the Japs were much more on the defensive. But even then, they needed the capability to carry out long-range strikes. Wrong tool for the job.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 17, 2019)

According to others on this site who researched it extensively including research of the Japanese records of the units involved, the Japanese with the ‘fatally flawed Zero’ flew 500 miles 1 way, shot down 28 Spitfires over Darwin for the loss of 3 Zeros and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that ran out of fuel over their own territory, I believe they lost 10 Spitfires in one raid due to running out of fuel (a bit embarrassing that a 2nd rate turd of a fighter like a Zero could fly 500 miles one way and run the vaunted Spitfire out of fuel over their own base. I guess the Japanese pilots weren’t smart enough to know they were supposed to all burst into flames at the sight of a Spitfire) They were MarkV Spitfires with 2 20mm cannon and 4 303 machineguns, these particular Spitfires being equipped with high altitude engines. Some people make excuses about the high altitude engine being the reason it couldn’t compete with the Zero, but in some of these raids the bombers were coming in at 28,000 feet (apparently to stay above the P40’s). If 28,000 feet isn’t a good time to have a high altitude engine then I’m not sure when you would need one.

Quick question: if a Spitfire carrying 85 gallons of fuel is getting shot down at a rate of 28-4, how are they supposed to increase the internal fuel capacity to get better range, obviously increasing weight, and not have an even worse exchange ratio?

As I stated before I believe an Me109 (or FW190) would either one be better for fighting a Zero than a Spitfire, both being able to dive away at will and the FW190 in particular having a fantastic roll rate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> According to others on this site who researched it extensively including research of the Japanese records of the units involved, the Japanese with the ‘fatally flawed Zero’ flew 500 miles 1 way, shot down 28 Spitfires over Darwin for the loss of 3 Zeros and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that ran out of fuel over their own territory, I believe they lost 10 Spitfires in one raid due to running out of fuel (a bit embarrassing that a 2nd rate turd of a fighter like a Zero could fly 500 miles one way and run the vaunted Spitfire out of fuel over their own base. I guess the Japanese pilots weren’t smart enough to know they were supposed to all burst into flames at the sight of a Spitfire) They were MarkV Spitfires with 2 20mm cannon and 4 303 machineguns, these particular Spitfires being equipped with high altitude engines. Some people make excuses about the high altitude engine being the reason it couldn’t compete with the Zero, but in some of these raids the bombers were coming in at 28,000 feet (apparently to stay above the P40’s). If 28,000 feet isn’t a good time to have a high altitude engine then I’m not sure when you would need one.
> 
> Quick question: if a Spitfire carrying 85 gallons of fuel is getting shot down at a rate of 28-4, how are they supposed to increase the internal fuel capacity to get better range, obviously increasing weight, and not have an even worse exchange ratio?
> 
> As I stated before I believe an Me109 (or FW190) would either one be better for fighting a Zero than a Spitfire, both being able to dive away at will and the FW190 in particular having a fantastic roll rate.


Agreed. If you can't get to where the war is you can't even start to fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> It didn't though. Have you read Saburo Sakai's book Samurai? Let's also remember that even in 1945, US pilots were warned not to dog fight a Zero. it was in 1940 the best carrier fighter in the world and was a formidable foe right until the end. Apart from the uninformed ramblings of internet warriors, no one who has had anything to do with the Zero at the time has ever considered it 'fatally flawed'.



IJN carrier doctrine revolved around the ability for CAP Zero's to land and re-arm once their 20mm ammunition was expended, that put fueled and armed strike planes below decks. It was the fires these planes propagated after USN bomb hits that has been recognised as one of the leading contributors to the carriers being lost at midway. Saburo Sakai was a formidable fighter pilot, it was lucky he flew the Zero because if he had a Hellcat many more Allied pilots would not have made it home.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> According to others on this site who researched it extensively including research of the Japanese records of the units involved, the Japanese with the ‘fatally flawed Zero’ flew 500 miles 1 way, shot down 28 Spitfires over Darwin for the loss of 3 Zeros and 1 Ki43.



That is an exceedingly selective quotation. In the campaign over NW Australia 1 Fighter Wing did lose 28 Spitfires to enemy action. It shot down (according to those Japanese records) 15 bombers, 7 reconnaissance aircraft and 6 fighters.



pinsog said:


> They were MarkV Spitfires with 2 20mm cannon and 4 303 machineguns, these particular Spitfires being equipped with high altitude engines. Some people make excuses about the high altitude engine being the reason it couldn’t compete with the Zero, but in some of these raids the bombers were coming in at 28,000 feet (apparently to stay above the P40’s). If 28,000 feet isn’t a good time to have a high altitude engine then I’m not sure when you would need one



There were well known and documented issues with the cannon. The RAF claimed one stoppage per gun per 1500 rounds, but this was not the experience of 1 Fighter Wing. The cannon armament in Australia proved dysfunctional, unable to cope with cold/altitude, with the ingestion of dust from poor airfields and with the failures of the Austin Belt Feed Mechanism. Combat Reports almost invariably note failures of cannon to fire. The first Fulton raid on 30th June saw 54 Squadron make 13 gunnery passes at the Japanese bombers in their initial attack (the escorting fighters did not intercept the Spitfires). Every single Spitfire except one suffered cannon failures. This was not atypical as a browse of those combat reports will show. Shooting down a bomber, even a Japanese bomber, with 4 rifle calibre machine guns was never going to be easy. The Japanese reports of bombers returning damaged shows that they were being hit, but not destroyed.

Then there is the problem of the failing CSUs. The British blamed this on the pilots for their over vigorous opening of their throttles in dives, but the RAAF had other explanations, beyond the scope of this reply. It is true that the pilots in Australia were not following the rather precise instructions for the use of the propeller- CSU- engine combination on their aircraft, but it was a lot to ask of a pressured or frightened pilot manoeuvring in combat. Altitude and cold were factors, the same problem did not manifest itself over, for example Malta, where the Axis bombers typically arrived 10,000 feet lower.

All in all the performance of three Spitfire squadrons, flown by _extremely average pilots _and operating in adverse conditions beset by numerous technical problems, not least their armament, is not really a good measure of performance. It's actually remarkable that given their situation, the Spitfires of 1 Fighter Wing did not perform in a markedly inferior way to their colleagues in other theatres. It was only in the defence of Malta that the Mk V came close to matching the Mk I's record in the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 18, 2019)

Quick question: if a Spitfire carrying 85 gallons of fuel is getting shot down at a rate of 28-4, how are they supposed to increase the internal fuel capacity to get better range, obviously increasing weight, and not have an even worse exchange ratio? 

The pilots of 1 Wing RAAF were ordered to ignore the escorts and attack the Betty's, of the 28 Spits lost, 19 were shot down while they themselves were directly attacking a bomber, as ordered. http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action 
How could they have done better, have a read http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=articles


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> I have no doubt that during combat US pilots were often amazed by what they saw when they shot at Zeroes and saw them explode, probably happened a lot, too. Was it a fatal flaw? No, because that didn't always happen. Hit any aircraft in the right place and it'll go down in flames after little encouragement, as you know.


A flaw is only "fatal" if it results in an unacceptable loss rate. The planes (of all combatants) that made it back to base "full of holes" are the ones that weren't hit in an unprotected vital spot. I'm sure they all engendered faith and gratitude in their pilots. But when your long range fuel tanks and your cockpit and your lubrication system are unprotected, there's a lot less area left to punch "harmless" holes in.
As long as your performance and tactics are sufficiently superior to keep enough formidably armed opponents from getting a good shot at you, you're able to dominate. But when their tactics and performance catch up, and it's your turn to take a beating, your vulnerability to fire becomes a fatal flaw IMHO.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 18, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> IMO, either the Spit or FW190 would have been nearly useless to the Japanese in 1940-42. Wrong tool for the job.


Of course, they’re not useful to the Japanese, the A6M is a long range carrier aircraft, the Fw 190 and Spitfire are neither.

But I don’t think that’s the topic of this thread, we’re not trying to replace the Zero. Instead we’re looking at how the three compare. That’s my take anyway.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> your vulnerability to fire becomes a fatal flaw



Sorry, man, I respect what you are saying, but the Zero's fate by the time the Allies introduced the Hellcat was sealed, regardless of this so-called 'fatal flaw'. It didn't matter if it was the most heavily protected fighter in the world, the result would have been the same. Japan didn't stand a chance by 1944/1945 because of the diminishing quality of its pilots and lack of resources, not because the Zero turned into a flamer. Had Japan been able to field better quality pilots, a more advanced aircraft to replace the Zero and better tactics, such flaws would not have been as glaring or easily exploitable.

Like I said in an earlier post, there weren't many fighters in April 1939 that had self sealing fuel tanks, armour plating etc, so by whose standards are you judging the aircraft on? The Zero was the equivalent of the F4F and the Fairey Fulmar in terms of carrier fighters. But, you put an ace like Sakai or Nishizawa in an A6M2 and a tyro pilot in a Hellcat and watch what happens. As I've said in another post, the US pilot having been bested by a well flown Zero isn't going to sit there as his burning aircraft spirals to the ground, saying "But his aircraft has a fatal flaw! I should have beaten it!"

(This doesn't diminish my respect for you and your flying career, man - keep the recollections up).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> IJN carrier doctrine revolved around the ability for CAP Zero's to land and re-arm once their 20mm ammunition was expended, that put fueled and armed strike planes below decks. It was the fires these planes propagated after USN bomb hits that has been recognised as one of the leading contributors to the carriers being lost at midway.



That has nothing to do with the Zero or its abilities or flaws, nor does whether the floatation bags were removed or whether the pilots flew without parachutes, nothing whatsoever. And your statement about Sakai in a Hellcat, that's a bit obvious, but consider this, if Sakai was flying an A6M2 and a tyro flying a Hellcat and the two pitched themselves into a fight, I'd still put my money on Sakai in the Zero, frankly. And this is the point I'm trying to make - the Japanese didn't lose because of the diminished abilities of the Zero compared to aircraft such as the F4U or Hellcat; not at all. The Japanese lost through far more strategic reasons than no follow-up to the Zero and having to live with its flaws. Right until the very end of the war, US pilots were warned never to dogfight a Zero. That in itself was a credit to the design and ability of what was by then an obsolescent fighter.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 18, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> 1943
> 
> View attachment 561114​


Those oft cited charts are somewhat out of synch. In December 1943, neither the Mustang nor the early P-38J's had the extra 85 gallon fuselage and 55 gal LE fuel tanks in operational quantities. Accordingly both the P-51B w/75 gal externals and P-38J with 300 gallon externals could get past Brunswick - but well short of Berlin. The Depot installed kits for both fighters were installed in sufficient numbers in late Feb/early March to make Berlin (and Munich to Stettin in case of P-51B). By late March, enough P-47Ds had been Depot modified with wing racks and plumbing to attain P-47D-16 config and escort to Kassell/Brunswick/Stuttgart targets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 18, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Of course, they’re not useful to the Japanese, the A6M is a long range carrier aircraft, the Fw 190 and Spitfire are neither.
> 
> But I don’t think that’s the topic of this thread, we’re not trying to replace the Zero. Instead we’re looking at how the three compare. That’s my take anyway.


Agreed on the topic of the thread but a comparison must take into account how good they were at there individual assigned mission not just how they would fair if they were to all meet somewhere at a pre determined location for a one on one dual. Imho.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 18, 2019)

Wrong thread...doh!!!!


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 18, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Wrong thread...doh!!!!


Very cool story though. Can't believe I've never heard that before.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> They were MarkV Spitfires with 2 20mm cannon and 4 303 machineguns, these particular Spitfires being equipped with high altitude engines. Some people make excuses about the high altitude engine being the reason it couldn’t compete with the Zero, but in some of these raids the bombers were coming in at 28,000 feet (apparently to stay above the P40’s). If 28,000 feet isn’t a good time to have a high altitude engine then I’m not sure when you would need one.
> 
> Quick question: if a Spitfire carrying 85 gallons of fuel is getting shot down at a rate of 28-4, how are they supposed to increase the internal fuel capacity to get better range, obviously increasing weight, and not have an even worse exchange ratio?
> 
> As I stated before I believe an Me109 (or FW190) would either one be better for fighting a Zero than a Spitfire, both being able to dive away at will and the FW190 in particular having a fantastic roll rate.



The Spitfires had the Merlin 46 but they had a defective CS prop that failed at high altitude due to freezing oil. 20mm cannon failures were common, and when one cannon failed the asymmetrical recoil would make accurate aiming nearly impossible. Many of the Spitfires that were shot down, were probably lost because their CS props were malfunctioning and/or their cannon failures exposed them to counterattack. The Spitfire could easily outpace the Zero in a dive.

The RAAF/RAF Spitfires were supplied with 30IG drop tanks, which CO Caldwell neglected to use initially, which proved disastrous. Caldwell's use of "big wing" tactics was also a major mistake. The Spitfire VIII, which was being supplied in large numbers to the USAAF in the ETO in mid 1943, due to their lack of capable fighters, was the obvious candidate for Australia, and it increased internal fuel capacity to 124IG, plus a 30/45/90 IG slipper drop tank.

The exchange rate was not 28-4, but was about 1-1, since the Spitfire's mission was to destroy the IJ bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 18, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfires had the Merlin 46 but they had a defective CS prop that failed at high altitude due to freezing oil. 20mm cannon failures were common, and when one cannon failed the asymmetrical recoil would make accurate aiming nearly impossible. Many of the Spitfires that were shot down, were probably lost because their CS props were malfunctioning and/or their cannon failures exposed them to counterattack. The Spitfire could easily outpace the Zero in a dive.
> 
> The RAAF/RAF Spitfires were supplied with 30IG drop tanks, which CO Caldwell neglected to use initially, which proved disastrous. Caldwell's use of "big wing" tactics was also a major mistake. The Spitfire VIII, which was being supplied in large numbers to the USAAF in the ETO in mid 1943, due to their lack of capable fighters, was the obvious candidate for Australia, and it increased internal fuel capacity to 124IG, plus a 30/45/90 IG slipper drop tank.
> 
> The exchange rate was not 28-4, but was about 1-1, since the Spitfire's mission was to destroy the IJ bombers.








Apparently when flown head to head the Spitfire could neither outclimb nor outdive a Zero. I would assume that the prop on the Spitfire in question was in working order or they would have mentioned it.

If your prop doesn’t work because it’s dusty, if your guns don’t work because it’s dusty, if you have to put a big giant filter on your engine that cuts performance because it’s dusty and the other guy is flying in the same conditions except all his stuff works, then which is the better fighter? 

The Zero they flew against had been rebuilt from some captured wrecks so I doubt it was museum quality. 

Wildcats flying out of Guadalcanal would have loved to had conditions as good as Darwin and yet they had about a 1 to 1 exchange rate with the Zero not including the bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 18, 2019)

I'd suggest you read all the articles in the link I posted in regards to answering your questions, or not.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> That has nothing to do with the Zero or its abilities or flaws, nor does whether the floatation bags were removed or whether the pilots flew without parachutes, nothing whatsoever. And your statement about Sakai in a Hellcat, that's a bit obvious, but consider this, if Sakai was flying an A6M2 and a tyro flying a Hellcat and the two pitched themselves into a fight, I'd still put my money on Sakai in the Zero, frankly. And this is the point I'm trying to make - the Japanese didn't lose because of the diminished abilities of the Zero compared to aircraft such as the F4U or Hellcat; not at all. The Japanese lost through far more strategic reasons than no follow-up to the Zero and having to live with its flaws. Right until the very end of the war, US pilots were warned never to dogfight a Zero. That in itself was a credit to the design and ability of what was by then an obsolescent fighter.



It has everything to do the Zero's flaws, IJN carrier doctrine evolved around many of the inadequacies of their equipment or lack there off, the Zero, re it's light armament was one of them and that directly lead, combined with other problems such as poor damage control to the carriers being lost, that's a fatal flaw. The Japanese lost experienced pilots very early on in the war because their aircraft in general had a low survival rate after being hit, the air forces of all the other fighting nations put great emphasis on pilot survival even to the detriment of the aircraft's performance, the Zero gained it's agility by not being protected or protecting it's pilot, that's a fatal flaw. As to your comment on the Zero not catching fire easily, there's hours of gun camera footage/film of Japanese planes literally bursting into flames when hit.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Sorry, man, I respect what you are saying, but the Zero's fate by the time the Allies introduced the Hellcat was sealed, regardless of this so-called 'fatal flaw'. It didn't matter if it was the most heavily protected fighter in the world, the result would have been the same. Japan didn't stand a chance by 1944/1945 because of the diminishing quality of its pilots and lack of resources, not because the Zero turned into a flamer. Had Japan been able to field better quality pilots, a more advanced aircraft to replace the Zero and better tactics, such flaws would not have been as glaring or easily exploitable.
> 
> Like I said in an earlier post, there weren't many fighters in April 1939 that had self sealing fuel tanks, armour plating etc, so by whose standards are you judging the aircraft on? The Zero was the equivalent of the F4F and the Fairey Fulmar in terms of carrier fighters. But, you put an ace like Sakai or Nishizawa in an A6M2 and a tyro pilot in a Hellcat and watch what happens. As I've said in another post, the US pilot having been bested by a well flown Zero isn't going to sit there as his burning aircraft spirals to the ground, saying "But his aircraft has a fatal flaw! I should have beaten it!"
> 
> ...


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 18, 2019)

There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted. There is a good write up about the fitting of armour to the Me109 in JG 26's diaries after their loses in the battle of France.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted.



Yup, as did the Zero - to correct this deficiency, the A6M5c had self-sealing tanks and armour plating. This version debutted during the Marianas Turkey Shoot, which surely demonstrated that the type's and the Japanese Navy air arm's days were numbered. Remember the Japanese didn't replace the Zero when they should have, and they kept it that way because to weigh it down would have nullified its advantages, they were also painfully aware of its disadvantages.

Look at it this way, in Saburo Sakai's book Samurai he describes over several pages encounters with Hellcats, where Zeroes are outnumbered, yet he still manages to shoot a few down and return. He acknowledges that Hellcats are superior to his own aircraft, but he still gets a few kills despite hard combat, where the Hellcats outnumber him and attack. Firstly, if this was a fatal flaw, surely if he got hit, his aircraft would have exploded, yes? Secondly, based on your logic, if the Hellcat could still be outmanoeuvred and be shot down by a Zero, then its fatal flaw was that it could be outmanoeuvred and shot down. But we know that's not the case though, is it.

As I've said, the Zero had a distinct advantage right until the end of the war, you should never dog fight a Zero. Every US Navy and USMC pilot was told this. To counter it, advantages such as high speed vertical manoeuvring had to be used. This exploited its weaknesses, its low foward speed and lack of altitude performance compared to more modern fighters. If you go into a combat arena against an opponent with superior attributes, you exploit its weaknesses to gain an advantage, one of which was its lack of self protection. Like I said earlier, even a Sherman with a 75mm gun could disable a Tiger tank if it shot it in the right place.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> As I've said, the Zero had a distinct advantage right until the end of the war, you should never dog fight a Zero. Every US Navy and USMC pilot was told this. To counter it, advantages such as high speed vertical manoeuvring had to be used.


But why didn’t Japan replace the Zero to counter these advantages? The IJAAF continued to recieved incrementally improved new designs. The IJAAF’s Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar entered service around the same time as the A6M. But the IJAAF didn’t stop with the Oscar, but followed it with the likes of the Ki-44, Ki-84, Ki-100 and Kawanishi N1K. Where was the Zero’s successor? These later IJAAF aircraft had powerful engines, sufficient to cancel out the additional weight of armour and self sealing fuel tanks.

Obviously the A7M was too late, but the Kawanishi N1K was an IJN aircraft, first flying in floatplane form in 1942 - why wasn’t that made into the Zero’s successor?


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 18, 2019)

Wawny said:


> Hi
> Interesting reading here. Bardie Wawn was my father (died 1990). He was credited with ~4 3/4 so just under 'Ace' by definition. He had many probables noted.
> FYI, he was involved in trials at Eagle Farm, Brisbane against a Japanese 'Hap' Zero Mk 2 fighter. Quite an intense trial by all accounts.
> Interesting to note that when he landed, it was discovered that he'd put a 9 deg bend in the tail of his Spitfire.
> Dad was also involved in the trialling of the original Cotton 'G' suit, designed by Professor Cotton, Sydney.



Attached is the full file that your document was extracted from and you will note two differences. Whoever copied the pages you posted did a far better job than the National Archives of Australia when they copied the file, and there is no note on the bottom of the first page.

Incidentally Sydney Cotton also designed the famous WW1 Sidcot flying suit and had a lot to do with developing aerial photography

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The problem with the Spitfire V that fought those Zero’s is they had no performance advantage. Below 20,000 feet they were actually a bit slower, climb was slightly in favor of the Spitfire but not enough to matter, and the Spitfire couldn’t even dive away from the Zero because it accelerated too slowly in a dive. Most all US aircraft, even those generally outperformed by the Zero had some sort of escape plan, the P39 and P40 could both roll over and dive away (the P39 can’t take many hits due to engine location) the Spitfire simply had no escape plan. I would rather fight a Zero in an Me109, they can ‘bunt’ into a dive and breakaway from a Zero at will.



Once Mrs Shillings Orifice was fitted to the Spitfire - well before Pearl Harbor - it could do negative G manouvres without the engine stalling so why do you say it could not bunt?


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 18, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You need to remember that the Zero's range came from.... no armor, ....... self sealing tanks .



Nor did the early P-39s or P-40s (and many other US aircraft) have self sealing tanks in 1939/40/41 so they were not alone on that.

The vast majority of the USAAC aircraft in the Philippines (PI) at the start of the war had no self sealing tanks. As far as I know only the P-40E had them in the PI on Dec 7, 41 and that was pretty much the contemporary of the A6M5c Zero which also had self sealing tanks

The Americans had started fitting self sealing tanks because the British demanded them on the aircraft shipped to the RAF and the USAAC realized the Brits combat experience needed to be incorporated into the USAAC aircraft as well. Very few pre PH aircraft had them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Where was the Zero’s successor? These later IJAAF aircraft had powerful engines, sufficient to cancel out the additional weight of armour and self sealing fuel tanks.



As early as 1940, the navy considered a replacement for the Zero and this was 16-Shi specification. Almost immediately it ran into difficulty as falling on Mitsubishi, whose dsign staff were overworked at the time, headway was not made and was withdrawn, but re-instated by the navy in April 1942. To this renewed spec, 17-Shi, the A7M was built. Again, the reason behind the delay in building the first Reppu was shifting wartime priorities and demands made on Mitsubishi by naval staff, for other work. Sounds awfully familiar. Also, in March 1945, Mitsubishi's Nagoya factory was bombed out and the A7M mock-up and thousands of drawings were lost.

Variants of the Zero were progressively upgraded, as we know, and the naval staff responded belatedly to Mitsubishi's repeated requests to improve the Zero's performance with new engines and modifications and it was the disappointing performance of the A6M5c and '6c that forced the navy to do as Mitsubishi rcommended and fit the Kinsei engine, which Mitsubishi had preferred for the Zero from the outset, but the navy insisted on the Sakai. This new became the A6M8, which first appeared in April 1945 and the Kinsei was a 1,560hp engine, modifications such as improved fire extinguishing systems and self-sealing tanks were added and the nose machine guns removed. It was hoped that this aircraft could successfully take on the Hellcat, but they never met in combat as no A6M8 was completed before the end of the war owing to the chaotic state of the manufacturing industry in the last year of the war.

In hindsight, the biggest hindrance to plans to replace the Zero appeared to be the Imperial Japanese Navy staff. By the time they acquiesced to the manufacturer's requests, it was too late.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 18, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Once Mrs Shillings Orifice was fitted to the Spitfire - well before Pearl Harbor - it could do negative G manouvres without the engine stalling so why do you say it could not bunt?


He didn't say it couldn't bunt; he said the 109 could accelerate sharply away from the Zero in a power dive, but the Spit Vc couldn't. This has nothing to do with any feminine orifice, and everything to do with size, wing loading, power loading and drag. Read carefully the descriptions of the comparative trials. The Spit could only just barely pull away from the Zero in a dive, leaving it the chance for a good solid burst before the Spit gets out of range. The 109 is a comparatively "denser" machine, smaller with less frontal area/drag for its weight and power, thus faster power dive acceleration.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The only thing precluding Spitfire from being* designed* as a long range fighter was then-current RAF doctrine


 It wasn't just doctrine. 
As mentioned other places/threads it was a combination of things. The Fixed pitch prop might or might not be considered doctrine (or just standard engineering practice?)
The Spitfire didn't even get a two pitch prop for several years after it was _designed_. 
Between the Prop and the small airfields there was only so much you could do with a fighter plane in 1936-38 as far as range goes. 

Granted the 109 in 1938 was no ball of fire (most of them used Jumo 210 engines in 1938) and the French were building MS 406s (with Dw 520s being developed) 

The Fairey Battle had an operational radius of about 400 miles ( 5 hours at around 200 mph, 2 hours out, 2 hours back, 1 hour for combat/reserve) which handley exceeds any reasonable
endurance for a 1937-38 Spitfire (fixed Pitch prop) let alone what the multi-engine bombers could do. Compromising your interceptors so you can have an escort fighter that can only escort part way to the targets seems a bit wasteful.

The British certainly screwed up by deciding that since the single engine escort fighter was difficult to impossible in 1936-39, there was no need to re-evaluate things in 1940-41 when they had constant speed props and 100 octane fuel (better power to weight ratio of the powerplant) and were building larger airfields. At this point you might be correct is saying it was "doctrine" because the technical features needed had shown up. BUt some of these technical features were not in existence in 1936-37 or at least used by the British. 

Aircraft structure and streamlining was also changing by the year. Later aircraft had lighter structure for a given aircraft weight, often masked because the entire plane was larger/heavier. 

The Spit was sort of an outlier when it came to streamlining/low drag. Better than many of it's contemporaries even if not as a good as the Mustang. 
But if somebody took a look at the Hurricane it's ability to operate as an escort fighter is highly suspect.

Remember that the Germans thought you needed two engines for a long range fighter at the time as did the Italians. The Japanese Army had the Ki-45 so perhaps they weren't sure of the Ki-43? Russians had several twin engine fighters in the works. 

The Spit might have been able to be *modified *into a long range fighter in 1940-41 but that is not the same as being being *designed* to be one in 1936.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Firstly, if this was a fatal flaw, surely if he got hit, his aircraft would have exploded, yes?


No! Nothing in war is that cut-and-dried. Cut-and-dried thinking loses wars. The greater the portion of an aircraft's mass is unprotected flammables, the greater the likelihood of an explosion under gunfire. Too many of these instances will lead to unacceptable attrition.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The greater the portion of an aircraft's mass is unprotected flammables, the greater the likelihood of an explosion under gunfire. Too many of these instances will lead to unacceptable attrition.



As you said, not everything was as cut-and-dried. Zeroes returned from combat sorties completely shot up, yet didn't explode. That's the point I was making - that early Zeroes didn't have self-protection measures was a flaw exposed by experience by the US Navy in the Pacific (let's not forget US Army AF, RAAF, RNZAF Dutch AF etc), but it wasn't necessarily fatal. Up to the time the Japanese encountered experienced pilots and better flown aircraft, it had not been an issue and enabled the aircraft to achieve amazing performance because of the weight saving. Besides, in 1944, Zeroes were being fitted with self-sealing tanks and armour plating. The fact so many were shot down from then on was down to several things, better US aircraft and more of them, better trained pilots being the most important ones.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 18, 2019)

….all these points you guys bring up has me wondering how the BoB would've turned out, if the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Zero's...hmmm...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Up to the time the Japanese encountered experienced pilots and better flown aircraft, it had not been an issue and enabled the aircraft to achieve amazing performance because of the weight saving.


Almost exactly what I said in post #291 upthread.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2019)

Hm, yup. See Wes, I look at it this way - I absolutely cringe when I hear blatantly dismissive statements, such as "it was a copy of the Hughes Racer", or "it was completely over-rated" or "it had a fatal flaw in that it had no self-protection". These are largely inaccurate assessments and are almost predominantly made by Americans and have been generated from myths perpetuated since the end of the war. They completely belie the fact that the Zero was an outstanding design, full of modern innovations in 1939 and between then and 1942 was undoubtedly one of the world's best fighters in service. That it was overtaken by more modern and powerful designs is in hindsight obvious and was at the time inevitable, so such dissmissive statements do nothing to acknowledge the genius behind the aircraft.

take a look through this thread that I posted a number of years ago.

Mitsubishi A6M3 Type '0' Carrier Fighter in detail

Next, n case I get accused of displaying far too much bias in my praise of the aircraft, read through this; this is a wartime US analysis of the Zero and is where I got a lot of the information I presented in my thread above:

Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 18, 2019)

Elvis said:


> ….all these points you guys bring up has me wondering how the BoB would've turned out, if the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Zero's...hmmm...


I think it would have made things an awful lot tuffer for the RAF.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 18, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think it would have made things an awful lot tuffer for the RAF.


The He 112 would have made it tougher as it had longer range. So wasn't it great that the Germans never planned for an air war over the South coast of England, whilst us Brits had our radar system best concentrated in the South because we had expected our next war to be with the French. In the last 1000 years most of our wars have been with the French.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Nov 19, 2019)

According to wiki only 98 Zeros were built in 1940. Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude. This would not be the case in any BoB scenario. The Zero would be up against a concentrated force of 1000, non tropicalized, radar directed, Spitfire I and IIs and Hurricane I and IIs. Everything lacking in the Pacific would be in place. Spotters, intelligence, AAA, spare parts, aircraft repairs, ample supplies of Dixon/Dewilde ammo, fuel, coolant ect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 19, 2019)

slaterat said:


> According to wiki only 98 Zeros were built in 1940. Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude. This would not be the case in any BoB scenario. The Zero would be up against a concentrated force of 1000, non tropicalized, radar directed, Spitfire I and IIs and Hurricane I and IIs. Everything lacking in the Pacific would be in place. Spotters, intelligence, AAA, spare parts, aircraft repairs, ample supplies of Dixon/Dewilde ammo, fuel, coolant ect.


In dont think it would likely change the ultimate outcome either but do think it would make for a tuffer slog. Not so much because of any performance atributes of the A6m but because of its endurance.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted. There is a good write up about the fitting of armour to the Me109 in JG 26's diaries after their loses in the battle of France.



I had suspected that but I have never seen it in any historic document so where can I find the JG 26 diaries.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Shattered Sword.



Nope. 
Japannese attack aircraft operating from cariers were refueled and rearmed under the deck because it was how it was done by the IJ Navy - as stated in the Shattered Sword.



Kevin J said:


> The He 112 would have made it tougher as it had longer range. So wasn't it great that the Germans never planned for an air war over the South coast of England, whilst us Brits had our radar system best concentrated in the South because we had expected our next war to be with the French. In the last 1000 years most of our wars have been with the French.



What was the range of the He 112? How much of fuel it carried?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It wasn't just doctrine.
> As mentioned other places/threads it was a combination of things. The Fixed pitch prop might or might not be considered doctrine (or just standard engineering practice?)
> The Spitfire didn't even get a two pitch prop for several years after it was _designed_.
> Between the Prop and the small airfields there was only so much you could do with a fighter plane in 1936-38 as far as range goes.
> ...



Fairey Battle flew with 2-pitch prop from day 1, so it does not take a degree in rocket science to have 2-pitch prop included in design of the Spitfire.



> Remember that the Germans thought you needed two engines for a long range fighter at the time as did the Italians. The Japanese Army had the Ki-45 so perhaps they weren't sure of the Ki-43? Russians had several twin engine fighters in the works.
> 
> The Spit might have been able to be *modified *into a long range fighter in 1940-41 but that is not the same as being being *designed* to be one in 1936.



Americans certainly didn't think that one needs two engines when long range was needed, nor the Japanese Navy. 
Russian 2-engined fighters were not trying to be especially long ranged, but to out-perform and out-gun the 1-engined fighters.
And as above and before - people at Supermarine have had all the technological ingredients to design Spitfire as a long range fighter from day one (same with people at Hawker for the Hurricane), like excellent engine, drop tank technology, big enough airframes (especially the big wing choosen) and 2-pitch prop. That the AM/RAF didn't asked/needed/wanted for such a fighter is alltogether something else.


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> What was the range of the He 112? How much of fuel it carried?



Less than the Bf 109 with the DB 601. I can't find the figures.

The He 112 was crap and the Germans were correct not to proceed with it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Nope.
> Japannese attack aircraft operating from cariers were refueled and rearmed under the deck because it was how it was done by the IJ Navy - as stated in the Shattered Sword.
> 
> 
> ...


Have a look on wikepedia.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

stona said:


> Less than the Bf 109 with the DB 601. I can't find the figures.
> 
> The He 112 was crap and the Germans were correct not to proceed with it.


Not according to Wikipedia.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Have a look on wikepedia.



In other words: you don't know, and wan't to send me into wild goose chase instead.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Nope.
> Japannese attack aircraft operating from cariers were refueled and rearmed under the deck because it was how it was done by the IJ Navy - as stated in the Shattered Sword.
> 
> It was done that way by the navy to keep the decks clear for the rearming of CAP fighters, as stated in Shattered Sword.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> It was done that way by the navy to keep the decks clear for the rearming of CAP fighters, as stated in Shattered Sword.



Was it ever a SOP* by IJN to rearm and refuel it's attack aircraft (dive- and torpedo-bombers) on the flying deck before mid-1942?

*standard operating procedure


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not according to Wikipedia.



It was_ 'not suitable for aerial combat'_ according to the Luftwaffe/RLM who probably had a greater interest in producing a competitive fighter than Wikipedia.

The Germans produced far too many different types of aircraft from 1933 almost until the end of the war. Repeated attempts at rationalisation failed, there were too many interested parties and cronyism was endemic to the Nazi system of administration. One of the few smart decisions made was to adopt a DB 601 powered version of the Bf 109 as the primary Luftwaffe fighter not adopt the He 112. That decision effectively denied the He 112 the engine it needed to have been more competitive ( the comment above was made on a Jumo powered version).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 19, 2019)



Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> In other words: you don't know, and wan't to send me into wild goose chase instead.


That's where the info is.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 19, 2019)

From another book...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> That's where the info is.



Including the info about He 112's fuel tankage? If so, please quote it, or concede the point.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Including the info about He 112's fuel tankage? If so, please quote it, or concede the point.


Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia


That extra 100 miles is the difference between getting to London and back or ditching in the English Channel.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia



No info about fuel tankage.


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> That extra 100 miles is the difference between getting to London and back or ditching in the English Channel.



Do you mean with the Jumo 210?

That extra 100 miles would give the RAF a better chance of shooting you down. Do you want to take on a 360 mph fighter in an aircraft giving away 50 mph and one that the Germans themselves considered lacked manoeuvrability.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

stona said:


> Do you mean with the Jumo 210?
> 
> That extra 100 miles would give the RAF a better chance of shooting you down. Do you want to take on a 360 mph fighter in an aircraft giving away 50 mph and one that the Germans themselves considered lacked manoeuvrability.


Obviously you need the He 112B with a DB601A. As for manoeuvrability, wiki says that they were manoeuvrable, but complex to maintain.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 19, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> These are largely inaccurate assessments and are almost predominantly made by Americans and have been generated from myths perpetuated since the end of the war. They completely belie the fact that the Zero was an outstanding design, full of modern innovations in 1939 and between then and 1942 was undoubtedly one of the world's best fighters in service.


You know and I know (and so does most everyone here) that that all of the above is true. With all due respect, my friend, and leaving ignorant internet warriors aside, even the world's best carrier fighter of '40-'42, which the Zero undoubtedly was, is capable of having a weakness turn into a fatal flaw when circumstances change. A fatal flaw is not an immutable permanent feature of a combat aircraft, but the result of a weakness in its design being exploited by the enemy to create unacceptable attrition. It only becomes a fatal flaw when circumstances allow that weakness to be exploited. A superb machine, I'd love to have an A6M to start my (dream) personal collection (as long as no one is shooting at me!).
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Was it ever a SOP* by IJN to rearm and refuel it's attack aircraft (dive- and torpedo-bombers) on the flying deck before mid-1942?


Good question. Has anybody seen any info on this? I would venture to guess that prior to 12/7/41 no Japanese carrier had ever faced a credible airborne threat, but had launched numerous strikes ashore. It's hard to imagine all that available real estate being ignored.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Obviously you need the He 112B with a DB601A. As for manoeuvrability, wiki says that they were manoeuvrable, but complex to maintain.



Which loses you 200 Km of range.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 19, 2019)

stona said:


> Which loses you 200 Km of range.


On a Db600a but the Db601 had fuel injection so you should recover that loss.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> the Zero undoubtedly was, is capable of having a weakness turn into a fatal flaw when circumstances change.


A ww2 fighter plane is going to get shot at. It needs to be able to take what it can dish out. 

Imagine an A6M analog in a medium battle tank. You'd have a gun equal to your enemy, superior speed and off road ability, but nearly zero armour. Essentially you're in a M-18 Hellcat fighting the PzKpfw V Panther.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 19, 2019)

".....In the Battle of Arracourt, two platoons of Hellcats — eight in total — from the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion moved swiftly into ambush positions behind a low ridge on a foggy day, only their turrets poking over the rise. When a battalion of Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade entered their sights, they knocked out 19 for the loss of three of their own number...."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> On a Db600a but the Db601 had fuel injection so you should recover that loss.



Pure conjecture unless you have the figures to support it.

There is a reason that the tankage of the Bf 109 was increased when the DB 601 was fitted.

There were no DB 601s available after the adoption of the Bf 109. They were all earmarked principally for the Bf 109 and Bf 110 (which obviously required twice as many) and even then the RLM argued about the allocation for the next few years.

We had this debate in the Whirlwind thread. Wars are fought with finite resources and painful decisions have to be made. Choosing the Bf 109 over the Heinkel was the correct decision.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> ".....In the Battle of Arracourt, two platoons of Hellcats — eight in total — from the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion moved swiftly into ambush positions behind a low ridge on a foggy day, only their turrets poking over the rise. When a battalion of Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade entered their sights, they knocked out 19 for the loss of three of their own number...."



A major point of tactics -- and ambushes are sound tactics -- is to minimize one's weaknesses relative to an enemy. It would still be smart tactics had the US Army had a time machine and was able to replace the M18s with Abrams M1A tanks. It just would be superfluous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> It has everything to do the Zero's flaws, IJN carrier doctrine evolved around many of the inadequacies of their equipment or lack there off, the Zero, re it's light armament was one of them and that directly lead, combined with other problems such as poor damage control to the carriers being lost, that's a fatal flaw. The Japanese lost experienced pilots very early on in the war because their aircraft in general had a low survival rate after being hit, the air forces of all the other fighting nations put great emphasis on pilot survival even to the detriment of the aircraft's performance, the Zero gained it's agility by not being protected or protecting it's pilot, that's a fatal flaw. As to your comment on the Zero not catching fire easily, there's hours of gun camera footage/film of Japanese planes literally bursting into flames when hit.


A couple of points
a) 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG was quite a decent amount of firepower for a good part of the war
b) Another reason for the Japanese loss of pilots was the reluctance to use parachutes in the early part of the war. I have read a number of stories where they either didn't carry them, or had to be ordered to wear them. Remember the greatest fear of a Japanese combatant was to be captured, and the use of a parachute significantly increases those chances.
c) Whilst your observation that the Japanese aircraft tended to be less well protected is true, to rely on gun footage to prove the case is 'flakey'. I have seen a number of footage films of British, German and American aircraft catching fire.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> ".....In the Battle of Arracourt, two platoons of Hellcats — eight in total — from the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion moved swiftly into ambush positions behind a low ridge on a foggy day, only their turrets poking over the rise. When a battalion of Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade entered their sights, they knocked out 19 for the loss of three of their own number...."


That's akin to a A6M jumping an inattentive pilot flying a Fw 190 or Spitfire IX. It doesn't matter what your opponent is flying, it could be a superlative Grumman F8F Bearcat, if he's inattentive.

The A6M isn't designed for ambush attacks, and in my tank example, the M-18 Hellcat and the PzKpfw V are both aware of each other, it's a clear field, good visibility. No one is surprised. What do you want to be in, the Panther with its near ideal balance of armament, protection and mobility, or the unprotected but otherwise well armed and highly mobile Hellcat? 

It's the balance of firepower, protection and performance (including agility and endurance) that's needed. Where do you want to be, in the balanced Fw 190 or the unbalanced A6M? When Mitsubishi submitted its design for the A6M, the IJN should have sent it back, and demanded a better balance of the three core elements needed for any fighter. If the engine is too weak, then get a new one - it's 1939, you have two years to get a new engine made.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 19, 2019)

A kill is a kill. Your superior equipment gets knocked out no matter how, you can't say "doesn't count, you aren't playing right" You are still dead to an inferior piece of equipment

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> A kill is a kill. Your superior equipment gets knocked out no matter how, you can't say "doesn't count, you aren't playing right" You are still dead to an inferior piece of equipment


Sure, but a little bit of protection makes you harder to kill, and makes it more likely you'll kill the other guy. It's all about improving the odds of your guys winning and coming home.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 19, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Sure, but a little bit of protection makes you harder to kill, and makes it more likely you'll kill the other guy. It's all about improving the odds of your guys winning and coming home.



And that's exactly what happened to the weaker Hellcat at the Battle of Arracourt

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> And that's exactly what happened to the weaker Hellcat at the Battle of Arracourt


Such asymmetric victories are as old as David and Goliath going back as far as men with fire driving mammoths into traps. As soon as you develop a successful weapon and strategy someone else will develop something to overcome it.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Such asymmetric victories are as old as David and Goliath going back as far as men with fire driving mammoths into traps. As soon as you develop a successful weapon and strategy someone else will develop something to overcome it.


And that's the A6M's fatal flaw, being a design that was unable to evolve and cope with the opponents adaptions. Even though they first flew in 1935/36, throughout the war the Bf 109 and Spitfire, through continuous observation and improvements were able to match pretty much any fighter they came across. To the Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190, etc... if more armour was needed, a more powerful engine was added: if more range was needed, internal and external fuel was increased, etc.

Only the A6M seems stuck as a one trick pony. If no one is willing to engage is a low speed, close dogfight with you, you're dead. Imagine if the IJN entered the Pacific War with something like the Kawanishi N1K. Armoured, fast and heavily armed, but yes, shorter ranged than the Zero, but not disastrously so.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You know and I know (and so does most everyone here) that that all of the above is true. With all due respect, my friend, and leaving ignorant internet warriors aside, even the world's best carrier fighter of '40-'42, which the Zero undoubtedly was, is capable of having a weakness turn into a fatal flaw when circumstances change. A fatal flaw is not an immutable permanent feature of a combat aircraft, but the result of a weakness in its design being exploited by the enemy to create unacceptable attrition. It only becomes a fatal flaw when circumstances allow that weakness to be exploited. A superb machine, I'd love to have an A6M to start my (dream) personal collection (as long as no one is shooting at me!).
> Cheers,
> Wes





That just about sums up my thoughts on the A6M. Plane design is very similar to tank design, tanks are a balance of mobility firepower and protection, The Spitfire Me109 and FW190, the planes in this discussion, all balanced those three factors well, the Zero had lots of agility, at low speeds only, below 200mph, weak firepower and no protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> ".....In the Battle of Arracourt, two platoons of Hellcats — eight in total — from the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion moved swiftly into ambush positions behind a low ridge on a foggy day, only their turrets poking over the rise. When a battalion of Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade entered their sights, they knocked out 19 for the loss of three of their own number...."



And if two platoons of Panthers moved swiftly into an ambush position against a battalion of Hellcats the result would be what, a bunch of not destroyed Hellcats?.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 19, 2019)

Glider said:


> A couple of points
> a) 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG was quite a decent amount of firepower for a good part of the war
> b) Another reason for the Japanese loss of pilots was the reluctance to use parachutes in the early part of the war. I have read a number of stories where they either didn't carry them, or had to be ordered to wear them. Remember the greatest fear of a Japanese combatant was to be captured, and the use of a parachute significantly increases those chances.
> c) Whilst your observation that the Japanese aircraft tended to be less well protected is true, to rely on gun footage to prove the case is 'flakey'. I have seen a number of footage films of British, German and American aircraft catching fire.




All through this discussion I have said saving your most important asset, the pilot is critical, how many Aces on both the Allied and German side were shot down, many numerous times only to return and fight another day because of the protection given by their aircraft?. Look at the lengths the USN went to in the Pacific to save their pilots, knowing your aircraft can protect you and your mates will come looking for you if the worst happens is a huge moral boost and inspires confidence. Here's a question, would you go up against 8 gunned Spits and Hurri's in 1940 in an A6M knowing the effectiveness of De Wilde ammunition in starting fuel fires with 180 or so 303's per sec entering your plane with a padded seat cushion as your only protection?.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> And if two platoons of Panthers moved swiftly into an ambush position against a battalion of Hellcats the result would be what, a bunch of not destroyed Hellcats?.


Why is everyone upset that the weaker underdog won the battle. I'm out

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> All through this discussion I have said saving your most important asset, the pilot is critical, how many Aces on both the Allied and German side were shot down, many numerous times only to return and fight another day because of the protection given by their aircraft?. Look at the lengths the USN went to in the Pacific to save their pilots, knowing your aircraft can protect you and your mates will come looking for you if the worst happens is a huge moral boost and inspires confidence. Here's a question, would you go up against 8 gunned Spits and Hurri's in 1940 in an A6M knowing the effectiveness of De Wilde ammunition in starting fuel fires with 180 or so 303's per sec entering your plane with a padded seat cushion as your only protection?.


Zero’s would mop the floor with a Hurricane, about the same top speed, Zero had much better acceleration than either the Hurricane or Spitfire, neither could dive well enough to disengage, climb with the Hurricane and Zero should be about the same, Hurricane isn’t fast enough to stay above 300 mph to start out turning the Zero. Hurricane has 0 cards to play. Spitfire is about 25 mph faster and will climb faster but the Zero can climb much steeper. Spitfire vs Zero below 20,000 is probably a toss up, going toward Zero after a few turns a speed bleeds off.

Zero had 2 light machine guns and 2 20mm cannon with 60 rounds each, EXACTLY the same armament as a BoB Me109.

Would I want to be in a Zero getting shot at? No. But I wouldn’t want to fight a Zero in any allied aircraft in 1942 except a P38 (and they weren’t really ready either)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Zero’s would mop the floor with a Hurricane,


I suppose the Sea Hurricane would fare just as poorly. Which takes us to the natural opponent of the A6M, the Seafire. With its limited range, this will need to be a case of the Zero coming to the RN CAG. The Seafire is slower and heavier than the Spitfire.

At what version does the Seafire have a good chance? Does the Zero have a radio to enable multiple aircraft coordination? This thread followed by this book look like good places to start.... Seafire vs. A6M Zero: Pacific Theatre by Donald Nijboer


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2019)

stona said:


> There were no DB 601s available after the adoption of the Bf 109. They were all earmarked principally for the Bf 109 and Bf 110 (which obviously required twice as many) and even then the RLM argued about the allocation for the next few years.


 Secondary uses were the Do 215 and the He 111, although not in that order. But the supply of DB601s was limited and without it the He 112 was a non-starter in 1939.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Why is everyone upset that the weaker underdog won the battle. I'm out


Everyone?


----------



## pinsog (Nov 19, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I suppose the Sea Hurricane would fare just as poorly. Which takes us to the natural opponent of the A6M, the Seafire. With its limited range, this will need to be a case of the Zero coming to the RN CAG. The Seafire is slower and heavier than the Spitfire.
> 
> At what version does the Seafire have a good chance? Does the Zero have a radio to enable multiple aircraft coordination? This thread followed by this book look like good places to start.... Seafire vs. A6M Zero: Pacific Theatre by Donald Nijboer



Here is a test that shocked me between a 6 Gun Wildcat and a Seafire.








This makes me wonder how well an F4F-3 would have done considering how much performance dropped between the F4F-3 and the F4F-4

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 19, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Why is everyone upset that the weaker underdog won the battle. I'm out


I believed you have posted a "tank destroyer destroys tanks" shocker. Who is stronger and weaker is for history to decide but the M 18 is historically described as a tank destroyer and it seems to have destroyed tanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2019)

Glider said:


> a) 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG was quite a decent amount of firepower for a good part of the war


This rather depends on the 20mm cannon involved and to a much lesser extent the LMGs involved. 

The Zero in Dec of 1941 and most of 1942 had _about _the same fire power as a Bf 109 (at least the cannon armed ones) of late 1939/early 1940.
The German LMGs had a bit higher rate of fire (and possible a lot more ammo, probably too much if the ammo bins were full).
The Japanese 20mm type 99-1 cannon had about the lowest velocity and one of the poorer rates of fire of any of the 20mm cannon used during the war. A6Ms with the 100 round magazines only started leaving the production lines in April of 1942, service use started when? 

The Zero was an amazing design, unfortunately for the Japanese (and fortunately for the Allies) the Japanese were not able to update it in a timely fashion. 
Increases in engine power (after the switch to the 2 speed engine) were very slow in coming, which meant there wasn't enough power to compensate for improved protection. Even such a simple thing as using cooled exhaust gases in the fuel tanks to suppress or reduce fires was late in coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Zero’s would mop the floor with a Hurricane, about the same top speed, Zero had much better acceleration than either the Hurricane or Spitfire, neither could dive well enough to disengage, climb with the Hurricane and Zero should be about the same, Hurricane isn’t fast enough to stay above 300 mph to start out turning the Zero. Hurricane has 0 cards to play. Spitfire is about 25 mph faster and will climb faster but the Zero can climb much steeper. Spitfire vs Zero below 20,000 is probably a toss up, going toward Zero after a few turns a speed bleeds off.
> 
> Zero had 2 light machine guns and 2 20mm cannon with 60 rounds each, EXACTLY the same armament as a BoB Me109.
> 
> Would I want to be in a Zero getting shot at? No. But I wouldn’t want to fight a Zero in any allied aircraft in 1942 except a P38 (and they weren’t really ready either)



Funny how the Hurricane is such a deadbeat and yet many threads on this forum cite that the Wildcat was at least on par with the A6M. Clearly, I'm missing something...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 19, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Funny how the Hurricane is such a deadbeat and yet many threads on this forum cite that the Wildcat was at least on par with the A6M. Clearly, I'm missing something...


I completely understand your comment and frankly I can’t explain it either. The Hurricane has a performance advantage over the Wildcat but I would say the Wildcat was tougher and I would prefer the 50 caliber machineguns. But there is a world of difference in how they did against the Japanese. I guess there aren’t enough stats to know how the Wildcat would have done in Europe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Here is a test that shocked me between a 6 Gun Wildcat and a Seafire.
> 
> This makes me wonder how well an F4F-3 would have done considering how much performance dropped between the F4F-3 and the F4F-4




I like the bit about the stubby little wings on the Martlet, which were 38ft in span or 1ft 2in longer than the Spitfire's wings. 

If they were working up with planes that would be used in combat then the martlet model can probably be trimmed down to Martlet IV. 
This is because the Martlet II and III (100 and 30 built respectively) would have been almost two years old in 1943. 
The Martlet IV started deliveries in the summer of 1942 and 220 were built making a much more likely plane to being used in early 1943. 

I would also note that the Martlet IV used a Aright R-1820 engine that was several hundred pounds lighter than the R-1830 used in the F4F-4.
One also wonders about the ammo load on such training flights. A 6 gun Martlet would be carrying 432lbs of ammo if it was carrying ammo.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I like the bit about the stubby little wings on the Martlet, which were 38ft in span or 1ft 2in longer than the Spitfire's wings.
> 
> If they were working up with planes that would be used in combat then the martlet model can probably be trimmed down to Martlet IV.
> This is because the Martlet II and III (100 and 30 built respectively) would have been almost two years old in 1943.
> ...


Reasonable questions. Are you questioning the ability of a loaded Martlet to turn inside a Seafire? I have no idea, as I said it surprised me. I would have guessed the Martlet would outroll a Spitfire but not outturn it.


----------



## slaterat (Nov 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Zero’s would mop the floor with a Hurricane, about the same top speed, Zero had much better acceleration than either the Hurricane or Spitfire, neither could dive well enough to disengage, climb with the Hurricane and Zero should be about the same, Hurricane isn’t fast enough to stay above 300 mph to start out turning the Zero. Hurricane has 0 cards to play. Spitfire is about 25 mph faster and will climb faster but the Zero can climb much steeper. Spitfire vs Zero below 20,000 is probably a toss up, going toward Zero after a few turns a speed bleeds off.



You should pick up a copy of Terrence Kelley's "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War". As a Hurricane pilot who combated both Zero's and KI 43's , he has some interesting thoughts on the matter of the quality of these fighters.

The Hurricane II easily out dives a Zero, has a better operational ceiling, better high speed handling and is a much tougher and better protected fighter. Twelve .303s is almost the perfect armament to shoot down a Zero. With parity in numbers and radar control for the RAF, its the Zero that is short on cards in an air battle over Britain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2019)

The trouble is we don't have a lot of information. 
We don't know the altitude they were dogfighting at or if they were using combat power or military power (neither plane can really sustain a High G turn for very long without losing altitude). 

and yes weight/s can have a lot to do with it, the Seafire may not have been carrying ammo either but the a full load of ammo for the Seafire in question is around 245lbs. 

Going by the data cards a Seafire IIC goes 6106lbs light (no fuel, oil ammo or pilot) while a Martlet/Wildcat IV goes 6390lbs, The Martlet will hold 120imp gallons inside vs the Seafires 85 gallons. 

data card for the Martlet/Wildcat IV is here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-IV-ads.jpg 



unfortunately the data card for the IIC is for the low altitude version with the Merlin 32. 

test of the Seafire IIC with the Melrin 46 is here but low altitude data is a bit lacking. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafireIIc.pdf 
The "standard" version got the Merlin 46 and unless the Martlet pilot was stupid enough to try to the mock dog fight at over 17,000ft or so the Merlin 46 was going to have a real power problem vs the Wright R-1820. if the Merlin 46 was held to 9lbs boost or less.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I completely understand your comment and frankly I can’t explain it either. The Hurricane has a performance advantage over the Wildcat but I would say the Wildcat was tougher and I would prefer the 50 caliber machineguns. But there is a world of difference in how they did against the Japanese. I guess there aren’t enough stats to know how the Wildcat would have done in Europe.


Maybe it comes down to that the Wildcat had one( two if you count toughness) advantage on the Zero that being dive speed, but the Huricane had none. Against the Germans at least the Huricane had a tighter turn.
It seems youve got to have at least one advantage somewhere, otherwise if there's nothing you can do better than your opponent it's going to be tough going.
For whatever it's worth in the few encounters the Wildcat had with German fighters it seems to have done surprisingly well. At least from what I've read.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 19, 2019)

slaterat said:


> You should pick up a copy of Terrence Kelley's "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War". As a Hurricane pilot who combated both Zero's and KI 43's , he has some interesting thoughts on the matter of the quality of these fighters.
> 
> The Hurricane II easily out dives a Zero, has a better operational ceiling, better high speed handling and is a much tougher and better protected fighter. Twelve .303s is almost the perfect armament to shoot down a Zero. With parity in numbers and radar control for the RAF, its the Zero that is short on cards in an air battle over Britain.


I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?


As with all these comparisons, it hinges on which marks of the aircrafts are involved and the circumstances of the comparison. As demonstrated in the A6M3 vs Spit Vc fly off referenced in the link upthread, a plane with a higher terminal dive speed statistic can still be shot down by a pursuer whose initial dive acceleration can nearly match it, even if terminal speed (what you read on the data card) is lower. Data card numbers, being "snapshots" of what is actually dynamic action, can be misleading.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

slaterat said:


> You should pick up a copy of Terrence Kelley's "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War". As a Hurricane pilot who combated both Zero's and KI 43's , he has some interesting thoughts on the matter of the quality of these fighters.
> 
> The Hurricane II easily out dives a Zero, has a better operational ceiling, better high speed handling and is a much tougher and better protected fighter. Twelve .303s is almost the perfect armament to shoot down a Zero. With parity in numbers and radar control for the RAF, its the Zero that is short on cards in an air battle over Britain.


I would agree on everything you typed except dive speed. Will a Hurricane II outdive a Spitfire V? A Spitfire V will eventually out pace a Zero in a dive but not quickly enough to avoid being shot down. A Hurricane will also have better high speed handling, the problem is trying to stay above 300 mph to out handle a Zero when your absolute top speed in a brand new fighter all cleaned and polished is 335 mph or so. That might be easy to do in a P38, Corsair, Hellcat or Britain based Spitfire with no filter, but much more difficult in a Hurricane, P39 and P40’s at altitude, or a Wildcat anywhere but in a dive.

12 303’s or 4-6 50’s, any of those will do the job if you can hit him, the problem is being able to stay with him long enough to hit him. I can kill a fly with a hammer, IF I can hit him.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?


I believe the problem is the initial acceleration. The Spitfire accelerated slowly in the dive at the beginning allowing a pursuing Zero to get in a really good burst. Spitfires aren’t as durable as many other allied fighters, P39 had the same issue with the rear mounted engine. A P40 has a great roll rate, so a Zero drops on your tail, you can easily out roll him, so in an instant your on your back, it also accelerated quickly in a dive, so by the time the Zero finished its roll and was on its back, the P40 was safely out of range. P40’s and Wildcats were also extremely tough, both being able to absorb quite a few hits before they make their escape, the Spitfire, while tougher than a Zero, did not enjoy that reputation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Maybe it comes down to that the Wildcat had one( two if you count toughness) advantage on the Zero that being dive speed, but the Huricane had none. Against the Germans at least the Huricane had a tighter turn.
> It seems youve got to have at least one advantage somewhere, otherwise if there's nothing you can do better than your opponent it's going to be tough going.
> For whatever it's worth in the few encounters the Wildcat had with German fighters it seems to have done surprisingly well. At least from what I've read.


This is an FM2 Wildcat vs a Zero model 52





Notice the Zero initially outdives the FM2

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The Spitfire, while tougher than a Zero, did not enjoy that reputation.



Are there any sources to confirm that reputation or is it merely "American aircraft are better" bias?


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Are there any sources to confirm that reputation or is it merely "American aircraft are better" bias?


“American aircraft are better” bias? Oh come on. If you can find some my other posts such as the one pointing out that a bombless B17 or B24 can beat an F4F-4 wildcat, P39 or P40 to 30,000 feet it might answer that question. I had suggested, tongue in cheek, that either of those bombers should have been used over Guadalcanal as interceptors as they were faster at altitude and had better time to climb than any of the mentioned fighters. I like the Spitfire, I’m defending the Zero because it was a worthy adversary and not a piece of junk that got lucky. I also stated in that same paragraph you quoted that P39’s did not stand up well to damage due to the rear mounted engine. The P39 was American wasn’t it? The P51 did not have a reputation for taking damage either. But, the P40 and the Wildcat do have that reputation. Let’s see, the OFFICIAL way to fight a Zero at Guadalcanal in a Wildcat was “fly straight and jink up and down until the Zero ran out of bullets or someone shot him off of you. Don’t turn so he can hit you or the engine” That is the official recommendation for what to do in a Wildcat. I also stated in this thread that the Hurricane had a performance advantage over the F4F-4 Wildcat and I can’t explain why the Wildcat did better except that maybe it was a bit tougher and maybe the 50 caliber guns were just the right choice. (I should have included that the Wildcat was also setup for deflection shooting which would allow pilots to shoot at Zero’s that they never could have got on their 6)

Let’s quit looking for bias where there isn’t any and discuss the facts we have.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Funny how the Hurricane is such a deadbeat and yet many threads on this forum cite that the Wildcat was at least on par with the A6M. Clearly, I'm missing something...


When the Hurricanes finally began replacing the RAF Buffalo at Singapore and Dutch AF units, was there any noticeable improvement vs. the Buffalo?

Some interesting reading RAAF/NZ/RAF Squadrons in Malaya 1941


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 20, 2019)

Several times in this thread it was stated that Zero was flawed because it lacked self sealing tanks and it didn't get a much more powerful engine later in the war. However, it did received self-sealing tanks with the version 52c, and that was manufactured in decent numbers. 
A non-installation of a more powerful engine is not a flaw of the Zero as it was, but it was a fault of the people in charge in the IJN. The Zero received the Kinsei in 1945 in form of two prototypes - too late to matter. Picture of the A6M8 tested by Americans: link

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Let’s quit looking for bias where there isn’t any and discuss the facts we have.



I was actually more interested in facts than reputations. The latter are too easily influenced by any number of biases, including ignorance. I'm not accusing you of the latter, simply looking for facts that show the Spitfire was not robust.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I was actually more interested in facts than reputations. The latter are too easily influenced by any number of biases, including ignorance. I'm not accusing you of the latter, simply looking for facts that show the Spitfire was not robust.


As an example. To turn the Hurricane into the Sea Hurricane, you need a conversion kit. To turn the Spitfire into the Seafire, well it's a long list and it takes about 2 years to get a decent Seafire. So yes, the Spitfire was fragile, lots of bent wings and twisted tails in the BoB.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I was actually more interested in facts than reputations. The latter are too easily influenced by any number of biases, including ignorance. I'm not accusing you of the latter, simply looking for facts that show the Spitfire was not robust.







This is post number 12 on this same thread. 

I’m not sure what else we have to go on besides reputation. I know from reading about Guadalcanal that those Wildcats were beaten, shot, shelled, put together from multiple wrecks and kept fighting. The ‘pincushion’ tactic of letting Zeros shoot at you and your armor stopping bullets is a fact as well. 

Neither the Spitfire, P39 or P51 has great reputations for taking damage. P38 was either/or with many claiming it burned easily with hits. Wildcats, P40’s and P47’s had great reputations along with Hellcats and Corsairs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 20, 2019)

These were the Vc and VIII of 1942 +.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> As an example. To turn the Hurricane into the Sea Hurricane, you need a conversion kit. To turn the Spitfire into the Seafire, well it's a long list and it takes about 2 years to get a decent Seafire. So yes, the Spitfire was fragile, lots of bent wings and twisted tails in the BoB.



Ability to convert a land-based fighter into a carrier fighter has little to do with ability to survive combat damage. As to bent wings, was that from overstressing the airframe in combat? Perhaps a factor in the number of issues is fact that the BoB was a turning fight while the Pacific theatre wasn't (because Allied airframes typically couldn't turn with their Japanese adversaries)? 

Not entirely sure how one would twist the tail of an aircraft except when landing which, again, has nothing to do with the ability of the airframe to sustain combat damage. 

Again, can we have numbers and causes rather than unsubstantiated statements. I'm happy to be proven wrong, indeed the comments about the Spitfire's relative weakness may be entirely correct. The problem is that people often overplay relative strengths and weaknesses to justify the point they're making. We see it all the time on this forum. If the Spitfire was substantially less able to survive combat than a P-40 or Wildcat then I'd like to see evidence of that statement. The latter clearly has some advantage because of the radial engine but, even there, I feel the difference in combat survival is sometimes overstated.


----------



## slaterat (Nov 20, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?




Here's a couple of quotes from Eric Brown, source, Armoured Aircraft Carriers in World War II


*Sea Hurricane IIC Versus Zeke 22*
The Japanese fighter was superior in performance, particularly climbing and a turning circle but the Hurricane, with its better rate of roll and dive acceleration, would still be difficult to bring down. If the British fighter drew a bead on the Zeke – a large if – that would guarantee its powerful four-cannon armament an instant kill.
*Verdict*: This would be a contest of well-matched opponents, but the Zeke’s remarkable agility should ultimately prove lethal. 

Sea Hurricane IIC vs F4F-4

Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could out turn the Wildcat, and it could evade a stern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.
Verdict: This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gunshots than the Wildcat, but for neither was this an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I’m defending the Zero because it was a worthy adversary and not a piece of junk that got lucky.



No one ever said the Zero was a piece of junk, what everyone has said was it was overrated because improved tactics and continued aircraft development quickly left it behind.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 561429
> 
> This is post number 12 on this same thread.
> 
> ...






How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 20, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I believed you have posted a "tank destroyer destroys tanks" shocker. Who is stronger and weaker is for history to decide but the M 18 is historically described as a tank destroyer and it seems to have destroyed tanks.



"M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97" - "....At the time it entered service in the summer of 1944, the M18 was not capable of defeating standard tanks under normal conditions. Tank crew were obliged to perform extraordinary maneuvers to effectively engage the Panther. The M18 Hellcat had no firepower advantages over the M4 (76mm) tank which enjoyed better armor protection and a larger ammunition supply than the M18.....These design shortcomings combined with an unrealistic tactical doctrine meant that the M18 battalions *were not primarily used for tank fighting *(my bold), but were committed more often to improvised roles, usually direct fire support for infantry units. They were not ideally suited for this mission either...."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> No one ever said the Zero was a piece of junk, what everyone has said was it was overrated because improved tactics and continued aircraft development quickly left it behind.[/QUOTE[
> Apparently wasn’t overrated by Spitfire V pilots over Darwin with a 28-4 losing ratio. Wasn’t overrated by the test pilots that said “Spitfire was outclassed by Hamp under 20,000 feet”



Apparently wasn’t overrated by Spitfire V pilots over Darwin with a 28-4 losing ratio. Wasn’t overrated by the test pilots that said “Spitfire was outclassed by Hamp under 20,000 feet”

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.


Why don’t you ask the guy who posted that post whose dad was the actual test pilot flying that Spitfire that day if his dad was too stupid to notice that the airplane he was about to test against a captured enemy fighter has a 9 degree bend in the tail before he took off. Wonder if he did a preflight inspection or if he just said ‘nah, fuel and oil take care of themselves’. I understand arguing a point you disagree with, but trying to justify your favorite plane getting trounced by a plane you don’t like by suggesting they did a head to head test with a fighter whose tail was already bent 9 degrees is just beyond ridiculous.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 20, 2019)

Wes, You da maaan. If you get to fly a Zero, do let me know!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 20, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude. This would not be the case in any BoB scenario. The Zero would be up against a concentrated force of 1000, non tropicalized, radar directed, Spitfire I and IIs and Hurricane I and IIs. Everything lacking in the Pacific would be in place. Spotters, intelligence, AAA, spare parts, aircraft repairs, ample supplies of Dixon/Dewilde ammo, fuel, coolant ect.



Slaterat is right on the nail here, the BoB would still be lost by the Germans, but not specifically just for the reasons stated in his post, but because the Germans lost the Battle of Britain as much as the British won it. Poor intelligence, a lack of solid information as to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, underestimation of the enemy, a lack of appreciation of the strategic situation as the battle unfolded. These are weaknesses that the British exploited, often unknowingly, often not, but the men of Fighter Command making the decisions, in hindsight did everything right in defending the country, - relying on radar and the established detection network to detect and intercept enemy aircraft as and when required, dispersing the fighters to satellite fields, dividing the country into sectors for regional defence and not throwing everything into every fight, rotating experienced squadrons and airmen for rest... When the chips were down, these decisions, combined with the Germans' lack of appreciation of the strategic situation enabled a victory. Aircraft choice and their individual strengths and weakenesses mattered to a point on a tactical level, but it was the big strategic decisions that won and lost the battle.



PAT303 said:


> what everyone has said was it was overrated



Actually, they haven't. I think you might be the only one who has used this phrase so far (apart from me giving an example of what the Zero wasn't). The Zero was considered overrated by no-one at the time. Remember, EVERYONE, every Allied pilot, US Navy, US Marines, USAAF, Royal Navy, RNZAF, RAAF were advised right until the very end of the war not to tangle in close combat with the type. That's not overrated, that's advising that even at this late stage, you could get your a** whipped by an inferior fighter if you weren't careful.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Wes, You da maaan. If you get to fly a Zero, do let me know!


Thanks for the "attaboy", man, but if I did ever get a Zero, I'd have to hire a pilot to fly it. My flying days are over due to vision issues. Have been for awhile. But it was a fun ride while it lasted. I was lucky to have a wide variety of experiences rather than raking in the bucks for twenty five years driving the same airborne cattlecars back and forth. Had a taste of that with the commuter, which was kind of fun on a human scale, but not looking like a desirable lifestyle on a massive scale.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.


An airplane whose tail has been bent 9 degrees is too obvious to be ignored. How do I know? As a solo student pilot, I was assigned a C150 that was tied down next to one that had been destroyed in a freak mini tornado the night before. Walking toward the plane, something looked wrong, and after staring at it for a moment, realized the entire empanage was twisted slightly to the right. Our mechanic measured the displacement at 7°. If a student pilot could instantly spot that, how absurd is it to maintain a test pilot would miss 9°??
C'mon, man, your own pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in DAF, MedTO, SEATO, ANZAC, and around the world would gladly take you up on your bet and prove you wrong. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the world doesn't revolve around the Spitfire, or any other single airplane for that matter.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Apparently wasn’t overrated by Spitfire V pilots over Darwin with a 28-4 losing ratio. Wasn’t overrated by the test pilots that said “Spitfire was outclassed by Hamp under 20,000 feet”



The 1st Fighter Group wasn't trying to shoot down Japanese fighters, it was trying to shoot down Japanese bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The actual exchange rate for 1 Fighter Group is 28-28, exactly 1:1.

The Spitfire I and Hurricane had a negative exchange rate _against Luftwaffe fighters_ in the BoB for the same reason, does that mean that the Battle was lost?

Making such selective quotations is disingenuous at best.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Why don’t you ask the guy who posted that post whose dad was the actual test pilot flying that Spitfire that day if his dad was too stupid to notice that the airplane he was about to test against a captured enemy fighter has a 9 degree bend in the tail before he took off. Wonder if he did a preflight inspection or if he just said ‘nah, fuel and oil take care of themselves’. I understand arguing a point you disagree with, but trying to justify your favorite plane getting trounced by a plane you don’t like by suggesting they did a head to head test with a fighter whose tail was already bent 9 degrees is just beyond ridiculous.



Can you tell a planes tail is bent 9 degree's just by looking at it?, do pilots look for bent tails during the pre flight check?. Like I said, I bet every single plane that saw combat or was used on dirt/grass fields or flown by novice pilots who bounced them on landing would be bent to some degree.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> An airplane whose tail has been bent 9 degrees is too obvious to be ignored. How do I know? As a solo student pilot, I was assigned a C150 that was tied down next to one that had been destroyed in a freak mini tornado the night before. Walking toward the plane, something looked wrong, and after staring at it for a moment, realized the entire empanage was twisted slightly to the right. Our mechanic measured the displacement at 7°. If a student pilot could instantly spot that, how absurd is it to maintain a test pilot would miss 9°??
> C'mon, man, your own pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in DAF, MedTO, SEATO, ANZAC, and around the world would gladly take you up on your bet and prove you wrong. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the world doesn't revolve around the Spitfire, or any other single airplane for that matter.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Actually my world doesn't revolve around the Spit, I just think judging the type on what happened over Darwin considering the facts is a bit unfair, we aren't judging the Zero on what happened during the Marianas turkey shoot. I'm not a pilot but a close friend flew Cessna 310's and Fairchild Metro air ambulances and he often talked about bent and broken planes from landing on dirt strips, our Flying Doctor service uses widen sections of sealed roads because the damage to aircraft was getting excessive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 21, 2019)

stona said:


> The 1st Fighter Group wasn't trying to shoot down Japanese fighters, it was trying to shoot down Japanese bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The actual exchange rate for 1 Fighter Group is 28-28, exactly 1:1.
> 
> The Spitfire I and Hurricane had a negative exchange rate _against Luftwaffe fighters_ in the BoB for the same reason, does that mean that the Battle was lost?
> 
> Making such selective quotations is disingenuous at best.


I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can’t just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers. 

In American football, the linemen aren’t your target the quarterback is, but you have to deal with the linemen before you can get to him. 

The escort has to be delt with somehow, either you need to be fast enough to blow past them without hope of them catching up, ie Me 262, or you need to tie them up with one group of fighters as the other group deal with the bombers. You can’t simply ignore them.

The poor little underperforming Wildcat for all of 1942 had a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero according to The First Team. Many if not all of those battles were the Wildcat defending a carrier or airstrip against bomber attacks. The carrier being much more important considering you can’t sink an airstrip. Yet they still fought the Zeros to a 1 to 1 kill ratio and usually decimated Japanese bombers once they got in among them.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Can you tell a planes tail is bent 9 degree's just by looking at it?, do pilots look for bent tails during the pre flight check?. Like I said, I bet every single plane that saw combat or was used on dirt/grass fields or flown by novice pilots who bounced them on landing would be bent to some degree.


XBe02Drvr says that even a student pilot should catch a 9 degree bent tail so yes I think you should probably give this line of argument. The actual test said ‘the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp below 20,000 feet”. Please explain how the Zero is overrated when there is essentially nothing a Spitfire can do under 20,000 to escape.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> XBe02Drvr says that even a student pilot should catch a 9 degree bent tail so yes I think you should probably give this line of argument. The actual test said ‘the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp below 20,000 feet”. Please explain how the Zero is overrated when there is essentially nothing a Spitfire can do under 20,000 to escape.


Essentially, the bombers are coming in above 20,000 feet IIRC, so you need Spitfire Trop with a Merlin 46 as opposed to a Merlin 45 optimised for below 20000 where it would outclass the Hamp.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can’t just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers.
> 
> In American football, the linemen aren’t your target the quarterback is, but you have to deal with the linemen before you can get to him.
> 
> ...



The fighters weren't ignored but of 33 Spitfires, only one squadron's worth was directed to engage the Zeros, meaning the Spits were outnumbered by more than 2:1 by Japanese fighters. That may have been a tactical error by the formation leader, Caldwell.

At the end of the combat, 5 Spitfires had been shot down, another 5 force-landed due to poor fuel management and 3 had to disengage due to engine failure. All but 2 of the force-landed aircraft were repaired and returned to operations. In return, at least 6 Japanese aircraft were shot down so, even if we consider the force-landed Spits to be "combat losses", the results were still about 1:1 in that single engagement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Nov 21, 2019)

> Although the long range of the Zero would of been beneficial in the BoB, I don't believe it would change any outcomes. In the first year of the war in the Pacific the Zero almost always had the advantage of surprise , numbers and altitude.



I've been slowly reading First Team: Guadalcanal and the Wildcats at Guadalcanal had a good coast watcher and radar warning system so were at 25000ft+ height by the time the Zero's arrived. F4F4 climbed at some 1500fpm vs A6M2 at some 3000fpm so it was a critical advantage the Zero lost.

The irony is that the Zero's were forced into there own fuel limit problems from flying from Rabaul->Guadalcanal during August->November 1942, they had about 20 minutes fight time over Guadalcanal and the new A6M3.32 couldn't even make the trip! Interestingly there are no US accounts of the "Hamp" been a tougher opponent than the earlier Zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can’t just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers.
> 
> In American football, the linemen aren’t your target the quarterback is, but you have to deal with the linemen before you can get to him.
> 
> ...



The fighter interceptors were tasked with shooting down the bombers. They were defending against the bombers. It was the bombers that would destroy targets on the ground and kill the people you are trying to protect. To do this interceptors were prepared to, and often did, put themselves at a tactical disadvantage in respect to the escorting fighters. Interceptors often found themselves below the escorts but in a position to attack the bombers, any BoB pilot will tell you that. Some paid for this with their lives.

If you were on a coaster butting up the Channel, or in a suburb of London, or standing on a dock at Darwin you would be glad that your nation produced men who were prepared to do this.

You might want to look at the number of Spitfires available in NW Australia, or maybe look up the history of some of the engagements to get some kind of realistic perspective before making comparisons with US Fleet operations.

Your football analogy is, frankly, insulting. This was not a game, if those pilots failed in their job, people on the ground died. That is not the same as conceding a touch down. It might be worth thinking a little more deeply about what you are typing before you post it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I'm not a pilot but a close friend flew Cessna 310's and Fairchild Metro air ambulances and he often talked about bent and broken planes from landing on dirt strips, our Flying Doctor service now uses widened sections of sealed roads because the damage to aircraft was getting excessive.


Duh!! If you routinely fly relatively "hot" landing GA aircraft like 310s and Metros ("lawn darts"), designed for paved runways, off from dirt strips and unpaved roads, you've got to expect damage. However, a GA aircraft, even a high performance one, is not a WWII fighter bomber, and not constructed to the same standards of ruggedness. Apples and oranges.
And if you read the narrative of the Spit Vc/Hamp trial carefully, you'll read that the Spit's tail was bent 9° DURING THE MANEUVERS. How you guys translate that to "the test pilot took off with a bent airplane, and thus was bested by an inferior opponent" escapes reasonable comprehension. Some cutting edge aircraft have developed reputations for being more prone than normal to getting bent from in-flight overstresses. F86 and Spitfire come readily to mind.
I think this horse carcass needs no further abuse.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 21, 2019)

stona said:


> The fighter interceptors were tasked with shooting down the bombers. They were defending against the bombers. It was the bombers that would destroy targets on the ground and kill the people you are trying to protect. To do this interceptors were prepared to, and often did, put themselves at a tactical disadvantage in respect to the escorting fighters. Interceptors often found themselves below the escorts but in a position to attack the bombers, any BoB pilot will tell you that. Some paid for this with their lives.
> 
> If you were on a coaster butting up the Channel, or in a suburb of London, or standing on a dock at Darwin you would be glad that your nation produced men who were prepared to do this.
> 
> ...


All the men on both sides did heroic things because men in power were stupid and greedy. Making an analogy to football doesn’t take away from any of these men’s bravery.

If you only have x many planes, let’s say 50, if you only have 50 fighters than placing them in a bad tactical position so they get shot down is not a wise position. If the target is your airfield then any flyable aircraft should be scrambled, all other aircraft, fuel trucks etc should be dispersed as best they can. Holes in a runway can be repaired, if you get your 50 irreplaceable fighters shot down then you are defenseless. Defending a carrier is a different matter, if it’s sunk you have nowhere to land.

I am only defending the Zero here, but I’m having to attack the Spitfire to do it. The Spitfire was more or less equal to the Me109 until late in the war when the Spitfire really surpassed the me109. They traded spots several times but were more or less well matched opponents from 1939 to late 1943 or early 1944. After the Spitfire IX was introduced, I believe it was the same with the FW190. The problem with the Spitfire V fighting a Zero is it had no ace in the hole. If I had to fight a Zero over Darwin, I would have chosen an ME109 over a Spitfire because it could dive. Climb up to bomber altitude, make a gun run, split S and dive away. The Zero couldn’t counter that move, it is essentially what the US fighters did. Am I super biased for American planes? Well let’s see, a P39 or P40 couldnt even get to 28,000 feet, it would take an F4F-4 about 35 minutes to get to 28,000 feet (Guadalcanal pilots reported 40 minutes to 30,000 feet) and that leaves at that time, the P38 of which there were about 0 available for that area. So, looks like I’m calling it down the middle, American fighters at that time were too heavy and underpowered to even consider this interception except for the P38. The only other options to me would be F4F-3 which were out of production and probably all used up, or the P43 Lancer which needed armor (easy fix) and actual fuel tanks instead of wet wings (not really doable at all without a whole new wing).

So, in closing, do I hate the Spitfire? No. Do I respect the Zero for its abilities from introduction until mid 1943 when more powerful US fighters arrived (hellcat Corsair more P38’s)? Absolutely

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 21, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> the Germans lost the Battle of Britain as much as the British won it. Poor intelligence, a lack of solid information as to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, underestimation of the enemy, a lack of appreciation of the strategic situation as the battle unfolded.


You could take this sentence and replace "Germans" with "Japanese" and "Britain" with "Midway" and "British" with "Americans", and not change its accuracy one whit. The common denominator?...over-confidence and contempt for the enemy's capabilities, AKA, arrogance and complacency. A lesson to all warriors from Sun Tzu to Crimea and Kurdistan.(And especially US Naval Aviators: "I'll take any man from any land at any game that he can name for any amount that he can count! [In my short ranged, ordnance limited, 7G, itty bitty jet]".)
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> All the men on both sides did heroic things because men in power were stupid and greedy. Making an analogy to football doesn’t take away from any of these men’s bravery.
> 
> If you only have x many planes, let’s say 50, if you only have 50 fighters than placing them in a bad tactical position so they get shot down is not a wise position. If the target is your airfield then any flyable aircraft should be scrambled, all other aircraft, fuel trucks etc should be dispersed as best they can. Holes in a runway can be repaired, if you get your 50 irreplaceable fighters shot down then you are defenseless. Defending a carrier is a different matter, if it’s sunk you have nowhere to land.
> 
> ...



One last time, as per here http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero the Darwin MkV's and A6M's were both rated at 334 Mph, yet here Spitfire Mk.VB (Tropical) AB.320 Report a trop MkV fitted with the Merlin 45 was faster than the A6M and the Darwin MkV's at 337 Mph with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted, this spec MkV ticked every box in regards to fighting over Australia, with 4 20mm cannons this standard MkV was 40 mph faster Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report. As you can see, judging the MkV on just the Darwin battle is not a true indication of its performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 21, 2019)

And I forgot to add I'm a huge FW190 fan, particularly the Dora's and Ta152's, below 20,000ft a well piloted Anton could take on both the MkV and A6M at the same time with an even chance of winning in my opinion.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> One last time, as per here http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero the Darwin MkV's and A6M's were both rated at 334 Mph, yet here Spitfire Mk.VB (Tropical) AB.320 Report a trop MkV fitted with the Merlin 45 was faster than the A6M and the Darwin MkV's at 337 Mph with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted, this spec MkV ticked every box in regards to fighting over Australia, with 4 20mm cannons this standard MkV was 40 mph faster Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report. As you can see, judging the MkV on just the Darwin battle is not a true indication of its performance.


But the Spitfire accelerated much much slower. Top speed matters little if the bad guy drops down on your tail and stays there long enough to dump a 5 second burst of cannon and machinegun fire into your plane. A P40, for all it’s problems, if a Zero drops into your tail you immediately roll into your back, the P40 far exceeds the Zero on roll, pull back on the stick and drop like a rock (it ought to dive it couldn’t climb worth anything) by the time the Zero rolled over the P40 was gone. It doesn’t matter about how bad the P40 sucked at anything else, it had a bug out plan when things went south. The Wildcats plan was to wait until someone shot the bad guy off your back and hope it holds together (how encouraging to the poor guys flying it). The P39 was as screwed as the Spitfire, the engine was in the back so if it reviewed just a few hits it’s going down.

Do you see that I’m not just maligning the Spitfire?

Besides the P38 we didn’t have a plane that could fight a Zero on equal footing. A P36/Hawk 75 with a 2 speed P&W 1830 (which they never installed in one) might have been a good choice in my opinion (I’ll get pushback on that from several) because of its awesome maneuverability. It did well against the slower Ki43, but it’s altitude performance with a single speed P&W was awful.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> And I forgot to add I'm a huge FW190 fan, particularly the Dora's and Ta152's, below 20,000ft a well piloted Anton could take on both the MkV and A6M at the same time with an even chance of winning in my opinion.


I agree that the FW190 was beyond the Zero’s capability if flown like a P38, climb, dive through firing, extend away and zoom back up. Same for the ME109, fly it like a P40 that could actually get up to altitude, dive through firing, extend away, zoom back up. Almost any fighter that can climb to altitude and has a good dive and roll could do well against a Zero


----------



## firedup (Nov 21, 2019)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


IMO A capable pilot works wonders - everything being equal - the advantages the zero possessed were at the expense of armor protection,self sealing gas tanks,and making everything as featherweight as possible - this is what made it a good nimble dogfighter - the light weight also enabled the long range..Against earlier marks of Spit? All things equal the only real advantage i see it having is its lightweight contributing to its nimbleness - so knowing this a competent combat pilot would'nt get into a turning dogfight with one - As would probably be true for the 190 which IMO is a head and shoulders better aircraft -Its superior speed 4 20mm cannons and 2 14.7 mg's would make quick mincemeat out of the zero -


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2019)

For a good comparison between the Spitfire and the Zero we need time lines showing

1. the dates different Zeros went into operation (not prototypes) 
2. the dates different Spitfires went into operation in England (again not prototypes)
2b. the dates different boost limits were used by Spitfires 
and last
3. the dates different Spitfires reached the far east and the boost limits they operated under. 

Please note that there is a considerable difference between 2 and 3. 
The Darwin Spitfires had Merlin 46 engines (mostly) which while better over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 were often around 100hp lower in HP below 20,000ft when operated at eh same boost pressures. They were also limited to 9lbs of boost (at least that was what was used in the test?) so using similar manifold pressures to what was being used in Europe might have made considerable difference (it might also have worn out engines quicker). 

The Zero was falling behind on the world stage but then the Allies were not sending the 1st class fighters to the far east (or at least not sending the newest and best) until late 1942 or early 1943.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 21, 2019)

Elvis said:


> ….all these points you guys bring up has me wondering how the BoB would've turned out, if the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Zero's...hmmm...


The A6M would not have been ready for the BoB, seeing as it entered service in JAPAN during the same summer. If the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Japanese aircraft, they would have been stuck with A5M's or Ki-27's


----------



## GazzaS (Nov 22, 2019)

A late comer to this thread... but I'll add a thought. I played IL-2 Sturmovik online like a true addict. We had a scenario that pitted Spitfire Mk.V against the A6M3 over Burma or something. The Spitfires kicked butt. If a Spit got caught low and slow then the Zeke guys had a chance. The Zero's poor roll rate made even low and slow hard.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 22, 2019)

Greyman produced this chart, showing RAAF SpitfireV performance:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The problem with the Spitfire V fighting a Zero is it had no ace in the hole.QUOTE]
> 
> Except high speed manoeuvrability. Get above 300 kts and the Zero's controls stiffen considerably. Keep the fight at high speed and the Zero's advantages can be effectively nullified.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stig1207 (Nov 22, 2019)

> Prior to May 1943, the Spitfires defending Darwin shot down 14 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 4 aircraft. As noted previously, the 2 May engagement was pretty much a draw in terms of kills. These statistics would indicate that the Spitfire could operate successfully against the Japanese aircraft ranged against it.



Not according to http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=2-raaf-air-combats-in-nwa. 2 Ki-46's and 1 Zero lost to Spitfires prior to 2 May and their were no Japanese losses on that date. During the daylight raids I make it 11 G4M's, 3 Ki-49's, 4 Zero's and 1 Ki-43 shot down or written off. Spitfires also accounted for 7 Ki-46's, an A6M-2N, and a G4M (at night).
Three of the Spitfire losses were due to return fire and 1 crashed taking evasive action.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 22, 2019)

This from the actual test between a Spitfire mark V Tropical and a Hamp:










“Unanimous conclusion is the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet” that is from the 2 test pilots that flew the 2 planes in the test. We have the son of the Spitfire pilot that said his dad said he bent the tail of the Spitfire 9 degrees while doing this test. I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn’t in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn’t up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn’t care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft. A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England, but if your driving across a 500 mile long dirt road in the outback your probably better off in a old Jeep, Land Rover or Landcruiser.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 22, 2019)

"A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England"

I dunno, I had a 2014 Stingray and on paved roads, both it and any Ferrari were no faster than any other soccer mom SUV in bumper to bumper at rush hour...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> This from the actual test between a Spitfire mark V Tropical and a Hamp:
> View attachment 561563
> View attachment 561565
> View attachment 561566
> ...


Your Ferrari/Jeep analogy is perfect here in my opinion. It's not nescesarily that the A6M is a superior plane, it's that it was superior under those conditions. 
I think this applies to an awful lot of comparisons of ww2 aircraft. What's better, an Fw 190 or a P38? Well if the war is 100 miles away probably an Fw190. If its 500 miles away it would be a p38. Or what's better a P47 or a Hellcat? Well if you need to fly off of a carrier id go with the F6f. If not the P47 is probably the better choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> This from the actual test between a Spitfire mark V Tropical and a Hamp:
> View attachment 561563
> View attachment 561565
> View attachment 561566
> ...




Well if you're going to selectively quote from the report, then here's another "The Zero could not get into a firing position behind the Spitfire if the latter evaded in diving aileron turns at high speed". That's EXACTLY the point I was making...that the Spitfire had better high-speed manoeuverability. So where does that leave your "the Spitfire didn't have an ace in the hole" comment? 

A couple of other selective quotes "A vertically-banked climbing turn was difficult for the Zero to follow" and then there's the "up to 20,000 ft" issue. Bottom line is the Spitfire need to start high (ie above 20,000 ft) and use high-speed diving attacks. When it's already diving at speed, then the acceleration issue is moot. 

Again, I'm not arguing which aircraft was better, simply pushing back against your very definitive and absolute statements that the Spitfire had no successful tactics against the Zero compared to the P-40 and F4F. I'm afraid that's just bogus, as the above report states.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You could take this sentence and replace "Germans" with "Japanese" and "Britain" with "Midway" and "British" with "Americans", and not change its accuracy one whit. The common denominator?...over-confidence and contempt for the enemy's capabilities, AKA, arrogance and complacency. A lesson to all warriors from Sun Tzu to Crimea and Kurdistan.(And especially US Naval Aviators: "I'll take any man from any land at any game that he can name for any amount that he can count! [In my short ranged, ordnance limited, 7G, itty bitty jet]".)
> Cheers,
> Wes


I wonder if the Japanese would have done better in the Pacific War if they had some early defeats or big scares. Perhaps a major IJN defeat at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in August 1904, or even more recently, losing a carrier to RAF attacks during the April 1942 Ceylon raid. The Japanese need to be pushed to respect their enemy.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 22, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Well if you're going to selectively quote from the report, then here's another "The Zero could not get into a firing position behind the Spitfire if the latter evaded in diving aileron turns at high speed". That's EXACTLY the point I was making...that the Spitfire had better high-speed manoeuverability. So where does that leave your "the Spitfire didn't have an ace in the hole" comment?
> 
> A couple of other selective quotes "A vertically-banked climbing turn was difficult for the Zero to follow" and then there's the "up to 20,000 ft" issue. Bottom line is the Spitfire need to start high (ie above 20,000 ft) and use high-speed diving attacks. When it's already diving at speed, then the acceleration issue is moot.
> 
> Again, I'm not arguing which aircraft was better, simply pushing back against your very definitive and absolute statements that the Spitfire had no successful tactics against the Zero compared to the P-40 and F4F. I'm afraid that's just bogus, as the above report states.



I’m not sure “fly straight and jink up and down until the Zero runs out of bullets or someone shoots him off of you” is a real feather in the cap of an F4F-4. It somehow scratched out a 1 to 1 exchange with the Zero, but that wouldn’t instill a lot of confidence in me. The P40 had a legit get out of jail free card to play, the P39 didn’t, the P38 was what was needed.


Your correct, above 20,000 feet of the Spitfire started out 3,000-4,000 feet above the Zero then it dive, shoot and zoom back up with impunity. Awesome, almost any reasonably comparable 2 fighters could do that to each other. A Zero could do that to a Spitfire, P38, Hellcat or Corsair. An Me109 or FW290 could do that to any US or British fighter if they were low enough they couldn’t dive away.

Read that report: the Spitfire could climb slightly better and dive a little better, but the Spitfire could not do either well enough to evade being shot down by a Zero


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 22, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> "A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England"
> 
> I dunno, I had a 2014 Stingray and on paved roads, both it and any Ferrari were no faster than any other soccer mom SUV in bumper to bumper at rush hour...


I have a 161 mph sports saloon, average speed recorded is 19.1 mph.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> This from the actual test between a Spitfire mark V Tropical and a Hamp:
> 
> “Unanimous conclusion is the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet” that is from the 2 test pilots that flew the 2 planes in the test. We have the son of the Spitfire pilot that said his dad said he bent the tail of the Spitfire 9 degrees while doing this test. I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn’t in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn’t up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn’t care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft. A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England, but if your driving across a 500 mile long dirt road in the outback your probably better off in a old Jeep, Land Rover or Landcruiser.



The Spitfire in the above test was limited to 9lb boost, which placed a tremendous performance handicap on the Spitfire; 290 knots (at 15k ft) = 334 mph or about 32 mph slower than at 16lb boost. It's no wonder that the Spitfire put in a poor showing and showed low acceleration. *In the RAF the Merlin 46 was approved for 16lb boost by Jan 1942:*

*



http: *

*and
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg 
about a 400hp loss of power at 15k ft.*

*SEE MY POST HERE:*

*A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45*

_FOR MORE INFO ON THE TACTICAL USE OF 16LB BOOST IN MID 1942._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 22, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire in the above test was limited to 9lb boost, which placed a tremendous performance handicap on the Spitfire; 290 knots (at 15k ft) = 334 mph or about 32 mph slower than at 16lb boost. It's no wonder that the Spitfire put in a poor showing and showed low acceleration. *In the RAF the Merlin 46 was approved for 16lb boost by Jan 1942:*
> 
> *
> View attachment 561589
> ...


I understand that. I addressed that in the part where I said: post #432

“I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn’t in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn’t up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn’t care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft.”

See I addressed the higher boost. If it was that simple, why didn’t they simply turn up the boost? Apparently that was done on Russian P39’s, P40’s about everywhere and Allison engine P51’s. If I was a commander or a mechanic or another pilot watching my pilots and friends fall out of the sky right and left, I would have reset the boost regulator on the Spitfire. Does the filter keep you from running more boost? If not, why didn’t they simply adjust them to have more boost?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I understand that. I addressed that in the part where I said: post #432
> 
> “I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn’t in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn’t up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn’t care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft.”
> 
> See I addressed the higher boost. If it was that simple, why didn’t they simply turn up the boost? Apparently that was done on Russian P39’s, P40’s about everywhere and Allison engine P51’s. If I was a commander or a mechanic or another pilot watching my pilots and friends fall out of the sky right and left, I would have reset the boost regulator on the Spitfire. Does the filter keep you from running more boost? If not, why didn’t they simply adjust them to have more boost?



The data for the RAAF Spitfire performance @ 16lb boost, in Greyman's chart, came from RAAF test flights.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 22, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The data for the RAAF Spitfire performance @ 16lb boost, in Greyman's chart, came from RAAF test flights.


Wonder why they didn’t turn up the boost? Worried about engine wear at the end of a long supply line? Seems like not getting them shot down would be a priority as well but military chain of command can be pretty stupid: Germans, we don’t need winter clothes. Americans: torpedoes cost too much to test etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Wonder why they didn’t turn up the boost? Worried about engine wear at the end of a long supply line? Seems like not getting them shot down would be a priority as well but military chain of command can be pretty stupid: Germans, we don’t need winter clothes. Americans: torpedoes cost too much to test etc



I don't know and it is a bit of a mystery. It maybe that the pilot didn't have approval in that test to use 16lb boost. Here's a memo from the RAAF showing speeds at 16lb boost:



> AL794 - 6 SEPT YOUR L847 4 SEPT [1943]
> 
> SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT (.)
> 
> ...


----------



## pinsog (Nov 22, 2019)

I think a lot of times, disagreements on here wouldn’t happen in real life because people would flesh out a real conversation more than they will type. The performance of a Spitfire V in Europe was much better and should have given a Zero, pilots being equal, a lot of trouble.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 22, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The Zero could not get into a firing position behind the Spitfire if the latter evaded in diving aileron turns at high speed


But first the Spit has to *attain* high speed without being shot down by the *faster accelerating* Zero.



buffnut453 said:


> A vertically-banked climbing turn was difficult for the Zero to follow


Only if commenced with both aircraft already at high speed. If at "dogfight speed" (Zero bounces Spit) Zero's superior acceleration and initial climb allow it a lethal burst before the Spit can climb away.
Gotcha coming and going.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> If it was that simple, why didn’t they simply turn up the boost?


Less than optimum fuel? Primitive maintenance conditions? Hot, humid, dusty operating conditions? Tired airframes and engines? Poor parts availability? Any one of these would suffice, though I suspect all were present to a greater or lesser extent.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder if the Japanese would have done better in the Pacific War if they had some early defeats or big scares. Perhaps a major IJN defeat at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in August 1904, or even more recently, losing a carrier to RAF attacks during the April 1942 Ceylon raid. The Japanese need to be pushed to respect their enemy.


Like maybe a bombing raid on the home islands in April, 1942? Or the foiling of their Port Moresby invasion in May, with the loss of a carrier, and two more rendered inoperative at an especially awkward time?
They seemed to be impervious to lessons of that nature. Kind of like trying to bomb away Londoners' distaste for Naziism.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 22, 2019)

I've lost track of all of the trials somewhat -- which test said the Zero accelerated faster than the Spitfire?


----------



## pinsog (Nov 22, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I've lost track of all of the trials somewhat -- which test said the Zero accelerated faster than the Spitfire?


Look at post #432


----------



## Greyman (Nov 22, 2019)

That's an interpretation from the website author. Was superior acceleration ever indicated by any of the trials/veteran anecdotes?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But first the Spit has to *attain* high speed without being shot down by the *faster accelerating* Zero.
> 
> 
> Only if commenced with both aircraft already at high speed. If at "dogfight speed" (Zero bounces Spit) Zero's superior acceleration and initial climb allow it a lethal burst before the Spit can climb away.
> ...



The crux of the problem here is that we don't know the engagement parameters. At what speeds are the aircraft flying, and are those speeds realistic? Is either aircraft defensive or is it a neutral (ie head-on) engagement? Does either aircraft have an altitude advantage? What is the role of the Zero in the engagement: is it an escort or is it offensive counter-air (because escort missions usually involve flying a little slower so the fighter can keep pace with the bomber its supposed to be escorting)? What about the aircraft formation, because you seldom fly in formation at max speed for very long....it's an impossibility due to different performance characteristics of individual airframes within the squadron. These, and other factors, have a major impact on the outcome of the engagement.

Acceleration happens BEFORE the aircraft get within weapons range. He who spots the adversary first will accelerate first and, therefore usually, enters the engagement with more energy. This is Combat Manoeuvering 1-01 - gain all the energy you can before committing. I believe the Darwin Spits were vectored by ground-based early warning, which would suggest they have the edge in the "who spots the enemy first" race. 

If the trial involved putting the 2 aircraft in close proximity and then saying "go for it", I'm afraid that's just not a realistic test. They may have been trying to replicate conditions after the merge but, even then, entry speed, altitude and the geometry of the engagement massively impact the outcome.


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 23, 2019)

The Zeros may have seen the Spitfires first because Caldwell was a supporter of the "Big Wing" as mentioned in a blog Blog - The Battle for the Skies of Darwin - Osprey Publishing or in Anthony Cooper's book Darwin Spitfires. It must be easier to see three squadrons of Spitfires than three Zeros.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 23, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> The Zeros may have seen the Spitfires first because Caldwell was a supporter of the "Big Wing" as mention in a blog Blog - The Battle for the Skies of Darwin - Osprey Publishing or in Anthony Cooper's book Darwin Spitfires. It must be easier to see three squadrons of Spitfires than three Zeros.



That might be the case if Caldwell was tactically naive and simply flew directly towards the attacking formation. However, if he was more tactically astute and manoeuvered the Spitfire formation to come from an unexpected direction, then the odds are firmly on the side of the defenders. The sky is a big place to search with just 3 pairs of eyes, and even at 15 miles it would be hard to pick out a big wing formation. Radar would put the defenders at a significant tactical advantage knowing where the enemy is coming from, and at what altitude they are flying, to cue the Mk1 eyeballs of the pilots towards the attacking formation. It would also give the defending formation leader better situational awareness so he can place his formation in the optimal position to execute an attack.


----------



## stona (Nov 23, 2019)

Caldwell's tactics left a lot to be desired, but saying so invariably brings down the wrath of the Aussies. Great pilots, which he was, do not always make the best leaders.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 23, 2019)

Greyman said:


> *That's an interpretation from the website author.* Was superior acceleration ever indicated by any of the trials/veteran anecdotes?


Bullpucky! Post #432 is a direct quote of the source document which was referenced by link several pages earlier upthread. I followed the link and read it. Did you? It was a generally acknowledged fact that the Spit V suffered an acceleration deficit relative to other fighters of its time. Speedmongers of the armchair dogfighter variety often discount the importance of acceleration in ACM, as it's not an easily accessible statistic like top speed.
And the dynamic nature of an air combat engagement makes acceleration crucial, even if all parties engage at a high energy state to begin with, as all high G maneuvers are energy bleeders. Restoking that energy is time critical.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 23, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> That might be the case if Caldwell was tactically naive and simply flew directly towards the attacking formation.


When you've burned most of your fuel getting your formation assembled you don't have much choice than to follow the advice of Lord Nelson: "Never mind maneuvers, go straight at 'em!".
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> When you've burned most of your fuel getting your formation assembled you don't have much choice than to follow the advice of Lord Nelson: "Never mind maneuvers, go straight at 'em!".
> Cheers,
> Wes



That's absolutely true. Again, that comes down to a tactical decision about how to employ the defensive fighters. However, it doesn't change the fundamental facts regarding the relative merits of the types under discussion. The best fighter in the world employed stupidly won't win any battles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Post #432 is a direct quote of the source document which was referenced by link several pages earlier upthread. I followed the link and read it. Did you? It was a generally acknowledged fact that the Spit V suffered an acceleration deficit relative to other fighters of its time.



I did read it ( http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero ).

All references to superior acceleration in the Zero look to be the words of the website author. I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 23, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I did read it ( http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero ).
> 
> All references to superior acceleration in the Zero look to be the words of the website author. I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.


At low altitudes especially, the Zero was close on hp and weighed over a 1000 pounds less, so it would makes sense that it also had much better acceleration than that model Spitfire


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 23, 2019)

Greyman said:


> *All references to superior acceleration in the Zero look to be the words of the website author*. I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.


You're right, they are, but they're a direct paraphrase of the words of the pilots that flew the trials and regularly flew against the Zero in combat. Are you insinuating the author is cooking up a nonexistent shortcoming of the Almighty Spitfire? Does that shake the foundations of your temple? That happens to temples built on sand.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 23, 2019)

Tick....tick....tick................

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Tick....tick....tick................


INCOMING!!


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 23, 2019)

You need this.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 23, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.



Because the Spitfire did have poor acceleration. In Europe one reaction to the arrival of the Fw 190 was to increase cruising speed in contested air space, which did wonders for the Spitfire's already limited endurance. It seems that it was an issue from which the Spitfire suffered in regards to the 'Zero' too.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 23, 2019)

stona said:


> Because the Spitfire did have poor acceleration. In Europe one reaction to the arrival of the Fw 190 was to increase cruising speed in contested air space, which did wonders for the Spitfire's already limited endurance. It seems that it was an issue from which the Spitfire suffered in regards to the 'Zero' too.


I'm not so sure. If you Google hoofs warbirds then compare a Spitfire I to a A6M2 then the Spitfire is clearly superior.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm not so sure. If you Google hoofs warbirds then compare a Spitfire I to a A6M2 then the Spitfire is clearly superior.



A Spitfire 1 with fixed pitch prop superior to an A6M2 with constant speed prop and many many many times the range? In what aspect????? And in what universe other than SIMULATIONS.

Best laugh I have had in years


----------



## Greyman (Nov 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You're right, they are, but they're a direct paraphrase of the words of the pilots that flew the trials and regularly flew against the Zero in combat. Are you insinuating the author is cooking up a nonexistent shortcoming of the Almighty Spitfire? Does that shake the foundations of your temple? That happens to temples built on sand.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Looking at the report cited by darwinspitfires.com; 
Report on Trials Conducted at Eagle Farm on 14th, 17th and 18th August 1943 between Spitfire 5C and Mark 2 Zero.
(NAA A1196 1/501/505)

There is no mention of the Zero having better acceleration than the Spitfire, though it does mention: _"Spitfire initially gained speed slightly faster than Hap in a vertical dive."_


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 23, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> A Spitfire 1 with fixed pitch prop superior to an A6M2 with constant speed prop and many many many times the range? In what aspect????? And in what universe other than SIMULATIONS.
> 
> Best laugh I have had in years



Who said anything about a fixed pitch prop on the Spit MkI? By all means disagree but don't augment a post with info that it didn't contain.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I’m not sure “fly straight and jink up and down until the Zero runs out of bullets or someone shoots him off of you” is a real feather in the cap of an F4F-4. It somehow scratched out a 1 to 1 exchange with the Zero, but that wouldn’t instill a lot of confidence in me. The P40 had a legit get out of jail free card to play, the P39 didn’t, the P38 was what was needed.
> 
> 
> Your correct, above 20,000 feet of the Spitfire started out 3,000-4,000 feet above the Zero then it dive, shoot and zoom back up with impunity. Awesome, almost any reasonably comparable 2 fighters could do that to each other. A Zero could do that to a Spitfire, P38, Hellcat or Corsair. An Me109 or FW290 could do that to any US or British fighter if they were low enough they couldn’t dive away.
> ...



How often did the Spit get the opportunity to exploit that capability against the Zero? If the Spit were flying an escort mission to some distant Japanese airfield and set the terms of battle-sure, it had plenty of opportunity to reach a superior altitude, and start the battle above the it. But...the Spit lacked the range to do so. It was primarily a point defense fighter, defending it's own airfields and nearby cities. As such, when it engaged the Zero it was usually climbing to do so-the Zeke starts with the altitude advantage, with the Spit at an altitude disadvantage. At least that is what I'd speculate-please correct me if it often started the battle with an altitude advantage, I might well be wrong.

On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941? Lots has been made about it's poor high altitude capability due to the lack of a 2-speed, 2-stage supercharger. But at that time, how were it's contemporaries in that regard? (for the sake of argument throw the BF in that discussion as well). I believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that it had a good roll rate compared to other fighters, was noted as a tough fighter for a water cooled one, and dove well.

I always enjoy these fighter comparison threads and learn a lot from everyone. But one thing I see ignored when discussing the "best fighter" is "best at what mission" and at what time of the war? 

Here's a question for you. If the Germans had had Zeros instead of BF-109s during the BOB, how much of an impact would it have had? How much more flexibility and capability would the Zeros superior range and the ability to stay in the fight longer have made? How much worse would it have faired with it's high speed maneuvering limitations and fragility?


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> "M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97" - "....At the time it entered service in the summer of 1944, the M18 was not capable of defeating standard tanks under normal conditions. Tank crew were obliged to perform extraordinary maneuvers to effectively engage the Panther. The M18 Hellcat had no firepower advantages over the M4 (76mm) tank which enjoyed better armor protection and a larger ammunition supply than the M18.....These design shortcomings combined with an unrealistic tactical doctrine meant that the M18 battalions *were not primarily used for tank fighting *(my bold), but were committed more often to improvised roles, usually direct fire support for infantry units. They were not ideally suited for this mission either...."



2 points. The M4 was primarily armed with a 75mm gun for a large portion of the war. It did get a 76mm (the same as the Hellcat) in some versions-if memory serves me though they were not that widely deployed (or if so, were late, and a lot of 75mms remained in service). The long barrel and additional muzzle blast made it less suitable for its primary purpose, infantry support. In addition, IIRC a lot of them did not get the HVAP round needed to reliably knock out Panzer Vs and VIs. (high velocity, armor piercing). That was primarily focused on the M18s, at least until doctrine changed.

The M18 was designed to fulfill what was largely a failed doctrine. The US Army saw tanks as primarily a support tool for infantry, not as a tank killer. They were expected to shoot a fairly low velocity high explosive round, aimed at enemy infantry, bunkers, etc. The low velocity meant less muzzle blast to impact our troops, and the fairly short, 75mm barrel was easier to manipulate in urban areas and thick woods. The plan was that a limited group of fast, better armed tank destroyers would rush to the front and engage enemy tanks when they were encountered. An idea that worked about as well as unescorted bombers...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 23, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> If the Germans had had Zeros instead of BF-109s during the BOB, how much of an impact would it have had? How much more flexibility and capability would the Zeros superior range and the ability to stay in the fight longer have made? How much worse would it have faired with it's high speed maneuvering limitations and fragility?


Bringing the Zero over the UK puts the Spitfire, as point defence fighter, into its element.

The Zero‘s extra endurance will allow it to escort the bombers further over their targets and have the fuel to operate at higher performance as they defend these bombers. But the Zero of summer 1940 was the shorter ranged A6M2a with the less powerful 940hp engine and the earlier 60 round (520 rpm) cannons rather than the later 125 round belt, none of the later Zero’s armour and no radios to enable coordinated communication and defence amongst the escorting and the bomber crews.

Once the 6-7 seconds of cannon ammunition is exhausted, the unprotected and fragile Zeros have only two machine guns vs. the Spitfire’s eight. And once the Zero’s strengths and weaknesses are understood (likely from recovered crashed aircraft or RAF pilot reports), British radar can vector Spitfires (and Hurricanes) to high altitude intercepts, where the RAF fighters can dive down onto unsuspecting Zeros. The ROE will be for both Spits and Hurricanes to dive upon and kill the Zeros before engaging the bombers.

The BoB, with radar vectored, radio-equipped Spitfires operating close to their bases is not the ideal campaign for the Zero to shine. Now, what the Luftwaffe needs is the Bf 109F, with its much increased maximum range over the Bf 109E of 1,700 km (1,060 mi). The Bf 109F has the range, plus the armour, armament, performance and radio needed for best odds in the BoB.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 23, 2019)

If the Germans asked to have one, could Japan have flown a Zero to German occupied territory in summer 1940? Of course loading a crated Zero onto a neutral freighter or rendezvousing with a German merchant raider is easier, but let’s consider using the Zero’s epic endurance.

Lupin in Japanese held Manchuria to German-held Warsaw is about 7,000 km. Per Wikipedia, Zero ferry range is 3,102 km. So, Russian assistance or at least ambivalence is needed for three fuel stops, and likely prearranged pilot changes.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2019)

To have operational Japanese aircraft on the German side in the Battle of Britain are you proposing to ship them to Europe or build them there? You need to be proposing 1938/39 models in either case.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 23, 2019)

Greyman said:


> _"Spitfire initially gained speed slightly faster than Hamp in a dive."_


And goes on to say: "...but not fast enough to avoid getting shot down before it could pull out of range." Rather poor performance for a sleek, V12 powered fighter that weighs 1400 lbs more than its blunt nose radial powered opponent, wouldn't you say?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 23, 2019)

I‘d not heard of the Hap or Hamp.

Interesting list here World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft - Wikipedia


----------



## pinsog (Nov 23, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> How often did the Spit get the opportunity to exploit that capability against the Zero? If the Spit were flying an escort mission to some distant Japanese airfield and set the terms of battle-sure, it had plenty of opportunity to reach a superior altitude, and start the battle above the it. But...the Spit lacked the range to do so. It was primarily a point defense fighter, defending it's own airfields and nearby cities. As such, when it engaged the Zero it was usually climbing to do so-the Zeke starts with the altitude advantage, with the Spit at an altitude disadvantage. At least that is what I'd speculate-please correct me if it often started the battle with an altitude advantage, I might well be wrong.
> 
> On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941? Lots has been made about it's poor high altitude capability due to the lack of a 2-speed, 2-stage supercharger. But at that time, how were it's contemporaries in that regard? (for the sake of argument throw the FW and BF in that discussion as well). I believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that it had a good roll rate compared to other fighters, was noted as a tough fighter for a water cooled one, and dove well.
> 
> ...


I agree with all you said. In the quoted post I was responding to someone else. Starting from equal positions the Spitfire had very few cards to play against a Zero. 

Here is an RAAF test of Spitfire V vs P40. It’s an eye opener:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 23, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Who said anything about a fixed pitch prop on the Spit MkI? By all means disagree but don't augment a post with info that it didn't contain.



Sorry Buffnut, you are right. I was wrong as on all photos I have seen and identified as a Mk 1 it has a two blade wooden fixed pitch prop and I was not aware that a two pitch was later fitted. 

Looking at the June 1940 Pilots notes that shows that by then the Mk 1 had a two pitch 3 blade dH prop so obviously that was mod that came sometime in between early production and mid 1940.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And goes on to say: "...but not fast enough to avoid getting shot down before it could pull out of range." Rather poor performance for a sleek, V12 powered fighter that weighs 1400 lbs more than its blunt nose radial powered opponent, wouldn't you say?
> Cheers,
> Wes



So we're in agreement then? Nowhere does it say the Zero accelerates faster than the Spitfire?


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 24, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> How often did the Spit get the opportunity to exploit that capability against the Zero? If the Spit were flying an escort mission to some distant Japanese airfield and set the terms of battle-sure, it had plenty of opportunity to reach a superior altitude, and start the battle above the it. But...the Spit lacked the range to do so. It was primarily a point defense fighter, defending it's own airfields and nearby cities. As such, when it engaged the Zero it was usually climbing to do so-the Zeke starts with the altitude advantage, with the Spit at an altitude disadvantage. At least that is what I'd speculate-please correct me if it often started the battle with an altitude advantage, I might well be wrong.
> 
> On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941? Lots has been made about it's poor high altitude capability due to the lack of a 2-speed, 2-stage supercharger. But at that time, how were it's contemporaries in that regard? (for the sake of argument throw the FW and BF in that discussion as well). I believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that it had a good roll rate compared to other fighters, was noted as a tough fighter for a water cooled one, and dove well.
> 
> ...


With the part about what if the Luftwaffe had A6ms I think you will find a wide range of opinions on weather that would materially affect the outcome of the BOB here.
For whatever its worth I tend to be of the opinion that while unlikely to change the ultamit outcome for a variety of reasons, ssome related to air power and some not, it would have made things much tougher for the Brits if for no other reason than time on station. If each hypothetical German A6m can spend half an our or more fighting over Britain insead of 5 or 10 minutes as was often the case with the Bf109 that is a huge force multiplier independent of the realative merits of the two aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 24, 2019)

stona said:


> Caldwell's tactics left a lot to be desired, but saying so invariably brings down the wrath of the Aussies. Great pilots, which he was, do not always make the best leaders.



I have previously mentioned this before, many pilots of 1 wing complained of wasting time flying around in circles waiting for Caldwell to get his big wing organised, only to then run out of fuel tail chasing the rapidly departing betty's.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> With the part about what if the Luftwaffe had A6ms I think you will find a wide range of opinions on weather that would materially affect the outcome of the BOB here.
> For whatever its worth I tend to be of the opinion that while unlikely to change the ultamit outcome for a variety of reasons, ssome related to air power and some not, it would have made things much tougher for the Brits if for no other reason than time on station. If each hypothetical German A6m can spend half an our or more fighting over Britain insead of 5 or 10 minutes as was often the case with the Bf109 that is a huge force multiplier independent of the realative merits of the two aircraft.



Staying over British territory for an extra 30 minutes means the RAF has 30 more minutes to also attack you, or flying deeper into Britain brings you into range of more fighter groups and also allows the coastal groups to land rearm and refuel and bounce you on the way back out. Staying over enemy airspace controlled by an efficient integrated air defence network for longer than necessary is probably not the greatest idea, and lets not forget both the Luftwaffe and RAF loaded their planes with armour and self sealing tanks after analyzing their losses during the battle of France, the A6M had neither, and you wouldn't be facing worn out MkV's but new build Mk1/11's.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 24, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Staying over British territory for an extra 30 minutes means the RAF has 30 more minutes to also attack you, or flying deeper into Britain brings you into range of more fighter groups and also allows the coastal groups to land rearm and refuel and bounce you on the way back out. Staying over enemy airspace controlled by an efficient integrated air defence network for longer than necessary is probably not the greatest idea, and lets not forget both the Luftwaffe and RAF loaded their planes with armour and self sealing tanks after analyzing their losses during the battle of France, the A6M had neither, and you wouldn't be facing worn out MkV's but new build Mk1/11's.


Let me guess, 2 squadrons of A6M2's are available in 1940/41? Do they duke it out with our 2 squadrons of Whirlwinds?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Let me guess, 2 squadrons of A6M2's are available in 1940/41? Do they duke it out with our 2 squadrons of Whirlwinds?


3 A6M 1939, 98 A6M 1940, so enough for 2 squadrons over the English Channel for 6 months. First squadron operational August 1940, second in November based on historic production rates.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 24, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> A Spitfire 1 with fixed pitch prop superior to an A6M2 with constant speed prop and many many many times the range?



Well, there were only about 80 or so Spit MK Is with wooden props and not all of those kept the wooden props.

so 

1938 (late) Spit MK I with wooden prop vs ??????paper airplane? requirement ? 
1939 (early) Spit MK I with wooden prop vs Zero Prototype (first flight April) with Zuisei engine
1939 (late) Spit MK I with 2 pitch prop vs Zero prototypes with Zuisei engines. 
1940 (early) Spit MK I testing constant speed prop and being fitted with armor and partial self sealing tanks. Zero is still undergoing flight tests with many small problems.
1940 (late) Spit MK II constant speed prop, Merlin XII engine (SPit IS are leaving the factories with constant speed props and planes in the field have been converted. . Zero sees 100th plane delivered by year end, single speed supercharger. Zero gets folding wing tips
1941, (early) Spitfire MK Vs with Merlin 45s. 8LMGs. Zero still has single speed engine.
1941 (late) Spit MK Vs get cannon and finally belt feeds. Zero Prototypes with 2 speed engines are flying. 
1942 (early) Spitfires are operating with increased boost, two stage engines are being introduced slowly. Zeros with 2 speed engines and clipped wing go into production in April of 1942. 
1942 (late) More Spitfire models, increased production of two stage versions. Zeros with 2 speed engines go into service in the Solomons, Zero gets 100 round magazines for the 20mm cannon. 

The Australians did not get the latest and best Spitfires. any talk of Zeros in the BoB means the early Zero with single speed supercharger, lower diving speed than the Hap/Hamp (thinner wing skin, longer wing tips, less effective ailerons. 

Using Hap/Hamp Zeke 32 as a basis of comparison to the Spit MK I is about like comparing the A6M2 model 11 to a Spitfire MK IX or wondering how the Bf 109E would have fared against the Spit MK IX.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, there were only about 80 or so Spit MK Is with wooden props and not all of those kept the wooden props.
> 
> so
> 
> ...


I did that comparison because a Vb with a tropical filter has about the same performance as a I.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 24, 2019)

Greyman said:


> So we're in agreement then? Nowhere does it say the Zero accelerates faster than the Spitfire?















A Seafire IIC racing a 6 Gun Martlet/Wildcat and barely out accelerating it might give some insight on a Spitfire V Tropical vs a Zero on acceleration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 24, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Staying over British territory for an extra 30 minutes means the RAF has 30 more minutes to also attack you, or flying deeper into Britain brings you into range of more fighter groups and also allows the coastal groups to land rearm and refuel and bounce you on the way back out. Staying over enemy airspace controlled by an efficient integrated air defence network for longer than necessary is probably not the greatest idea, and lets not forget both the Luftwaffe and RAF loaded their planes with armour and self sealing tanks after analyzing their losses during the battle of France, the A6M had neither, and you wouldn't be facing worn out MkV's but new build Mk1/11's.


Agreed that staying over Britain longer is not going to be without additional losses for the Luftwaffe but it would be a force multiplier in that it would allow many more targets to be within range of bombers escorted by A6ms instead of Me110s which would also reduce Luftwaffe atrition to a certain extent. Would also mean no place in Britain would be safe from Luftwaffe raids. 
Whether the Luftwaffe would use this hypothetical capability in an effective manner or just continue to do things like bomb London is a different matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Would also mean no place in Britain would be safe from Luftwaffe raids.
> Whether the Luftwaffe would use this hypothetical capability in an effective manner or just continue to do things like bomb London is a different matter.



Even in daylight, which is what you mean, the Luftwaffe could theoretically bomb anywhere at night, the targets have to be identified and found. 

The Germans only managed to bomb 11 Group's sector stations as part of a wider campaign. They never understood their importance or function. 

Ineffectively bombing wider ranging targets just means fewer bombs fall on the ones that actually matter. _The Luftwaffe doesn't have a larger available bomb lift because it has a long(er) ranged escort. _The same weight of bombs simply gets more widely distributed.

It would certainly be inconvenient for Bomber, Coastal, Training Commands and the RN to have their airfields bombed (as it was historically) but it was doing nothing to win the air campaign for the Germans.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, there were only about 80 or so Spit MK Is with wooden props and not all of those kept the wooden props.
> 
> so ........ Using Hap/Hamp Zeke 32 as a basis of comparison to the Spit MK I is about like comparing the A6M2 model 11 to a Spitfire MK IX or wondering how the Bf 109E would have fared against the Spit MK IX.



I'll pay that


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 24, 2019)

QUOTE="stona, post: 1515023, member: 26138"]The Germans only managed to bomb 11 Group's sector stations as part of a wider campaign. They never understood their importance or function.[/QUOTE]

This calls to mind a passage from post #406 upthread:


nuuumannn said:


> the Germans lost the Battle of Britain as much as the British won it. Poor intelligence, a lack of solid information as to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, underestimation of the enemy, a lack of appreciation of the strategic situation as the battle unfolded.


Which leads to:




stona said:


> _The Luftwaffe doesn't have a larger available bomb lift because it has a long(er) ranged escort. _The same weight of bombs simply gets more widely distributed.


And:


stona said:


> It would certainly be inconvenient for Bomber, Coastal, Training Commands and the RN to have their airfields bombed (as it was historically) but it was doing nothing to win the air campaign for the Germans


Superior escort fighters and longer ranged bombing raids still would not have prevailed without better strategic vision and focus on the part of the Germans. Kinda like the flawed protagonist in a Greek tragedy.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 24, 2019)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 561740
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The above account is highly suspect and does not accord at all with flight test data conducted by the UK on the Martlet and Seafire. Here's another look at similar aircraft:



> All the Fine Young Eagles by David L. Bashow
> 
> 
> Page 248-9.
> ...



The Sea Hurricane and Seafire have greatly superior power to weight ratios and lower wing loading than the F4F/Martlet and the above results are predicted by the data.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 24, 2019)

Interesting question: Why would a Spitfire, with its thin wing and sleek wind cheating shape, have an acceleration problem vis a vis its contemporaries, even in a dive? It has a thin, elliptical wing, which theoretically should give it just about optimum L/D for its aspect ratio at pretty much all useful angles of attack, thereby minimising induced drag. Parasite drag from its highly streamlined fuselage is about as low as it can practically go, leaving the radiator as a potential culprit. But then why aren't other contemporary liquid cooled fighters similarly handicapped?
Just speculating, I wonder if the wing angle of incidence relative to the thrust line would have anything to do with it. The Spit was designed in an era when fighter dromes were small with obstacles around them, and relatively short takeoffs and landings the norm. It would make sense in that case to mount the wing with its high speed airfoil at a slight positive angle of incidence relative to thrust line and fuselage centerline. Unfortunately, this means that when the pilot "unloads" (zeros the AOA) in order to maximise acceleration, the plane develops a desire to "tuck under" because of the downward canted thrust line relative to the chord line. So the pilot has to maintain a slight positive AOA to counter the "tuck" thereby incurring an induced drag penalty. The A4 Skyhawk was similarly afflicted, and for the same reason.
The other possibility is a thrust penalty incurred during the "unload", but weren't Spits V and above equipped with pressure carbs or fuel injection? Or at least the infamous orifice?
Any engineers out there want to jump in?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 24, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The above account is highly suspect and does not accord at all with flight test data conducted by the UK on the Martlet and Seafire. Here's another look at similar aircraft:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sea Hurricane and Seafire have greatly superior power to weight ratios and lower wing loading than the F4F/Martlet and the above results are predicted by the data.


I’m aware of that story as it has been discussed on this board. The carrier named in the story was in the Pacific at the time, according to people smarter than me. Also, Hurricanes carrying depth charges and still outturning a Wildcat sounds like it’s made up as well. Captain Eric Brown said the Wildcat and Hurricane were very close, although in a mock dogfight the Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera pics of the Wildcat. (That sounds like the Me109/Spitfire combats of the early war period when they would trade spots on performance every few months) Neither of those examples sound like the kind of superiority where one could carry depth charges and still out perform your opponent. The Wildcat/FM2 was the best turning US fighter of the war with the exception of the P36. I do agree a Hurricane has better performance than a Wildcat on speed, climb (especially climb) and probably turned a bit tighter.

Edit: something else that lends credibility to the Wildcat Spitfire story, at least to me, is the humbleness of the Wildcat pilot. He says the Spitfire pilot was MUCH better than he was but he was still able to turn a smaller circle. Not the way fighter pilots normally act.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 24, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941?


Poorly, seeing as how the P-40 wasn't operational until 1941


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 24, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I’m aware of that story as it has been discussed on this board. The carrier named in the story was in the Pacific at the time, according to people smarter than me. Also, Hurricanes carrying depth charges and still outturning a Wildcat sounds like it’s made up as well. Captain Eric Brown said the Wildcat and Hurricane were very close, although in a mock dogfight the Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera pics of the Wildcat. (That sounds like the Me109/Spitfire combats of the early war period when they would trade spots on performance every few months) Neither of those examples sound like the kind of superiority where one could carry depth charges and still out perform your opponent. The Wildcat/FM2 was the best turning US fighter of the war with the exception of the P36. I do agree a Hurricane has better performance than a Wildcat on speed, climb (especially climb) and probably turned a bit tighter.
> 
> Edit: something else that lends credibility to the Wildcat Spitfire story, at least to me, is the humbleness of the Wildcat pilot. He says the Spitfire pilot was MUCH better than he was but he was still able to turn a smaller circle. Not the way fighter pilots normally act.



The story related to USS Wasp (CV18) in July 1943, and she was completing trials while based at Boston in late 1943/early 1944. Many of the Essex class carriers had similar workup routines and the author may have gotten the ship and/or dates wrong. USS Ranger was moored at Placentia Bay Nfld in early July 1943 and seems the most likely candidate. While Wasp (CV-7) was in Nfld in early 1942.

A loaded F4F-4 weighs 7975lb ( Martlet II/IV= ~7700lb) and has 260ft2 wing area. A Hurricane Mk X weighs about 6850-7000lb and and even with two x 250lb DCs would still have lower wing loading than an F4F-4. A Seafire 2C weighs about 7150lb and has 242ft2 of wing area.

Eric Brown was probably remembering early fixed wing Martlets that weighed in at ~7200lb. The folding wing F4F-4 Wildcat and Martlet II/IV was a unmanoeuvrable fighter compared to a Hurricane and/or a Spitfire and was further handicapped by a low performance engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 24, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The story related to USS Wasp (CV18) in July 1943, and she was completing trials while based at Boston in late 1943/early 1944. Many of the Essex class carriers had similar workup routines and the author may have gotten the ship and/or dates wrong. USS Ranger was moored at Placentia Bay Nfld in early July 1943 and seems the most likely candidate. While Wasp (CV-7) was in Nfld in early 1942.
> 
> A loaded F4F-4 weighs 7975lb ( Martlet II/IV= ~7700lb) and has 260ft2 wing area. A Hurricane Mk X weighs about 6850-7000lb and and even with two x 250lb DCs would still have lower wing loading than an F4F-4. A Seafire 2C weighs about 7150lb and has 242ft2 of wing area.
> 
> Eric Brown was probably remembering early fixed wing Martlets that weighed in at ~7200lb. The folding wing F4F-4 Wildcat and Martlet II/IV was a unmanoeuvrable fighter compared to a Hurricane and/or a Spitfire and was further handicapped by a low performance engine.


The F4F-4 could outmaneuver a P40 at any altitude and at wars end the Wildcat was still the most maneuverable plane in the US inventory. Wildcats were not unmaneuverable, they could turn inside any US fighter after the P36 was gone. The F4F-4 couldn’t climb worth a hoot, but they turned just fine.

But I guess the gist of all of this is no matter what 2 RAAF pilots flying a Spitfire V head to head with a Hamp said, no matter that the score was 28 Spitfires shot down against 4 Japanese fighters, no matter that the Japanese flew 500 miles one way and ran Spitfires out of gas over their own territory, none of that means a thing, the only thing that’s matters is the Spitfire could not and was not ever bested by any obsolete pile of junk called a Zero, Hamp or KI43.

The Spitfire cannot be defeated by any mortal weapons. Any test stating otherwise should be destroyed.

Here are some more RAAF tests to make excuses for where a P40 doesn’t immediately succumb to the mere presence of the mighty Spitfire












Love the part where the P40 OUTTURNED the Spitfire and scissored in behind him. OH MY!!! The mighty Spitfire was outturned by the lowly P40... HURRY EVERYONE!!! Say it didn’t happen or make an excuse for the Spitfire, you know, pilot was new, blind, quadriplegic, something....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 24, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The F4F-4 could outmaneuver a P40 at any altitude and at wars end the Wildcat was still the most maneuverable plane in the US inventory. Wildcats were not unmaneuverable, they could turn inside any US fighter after the P36 was gone. The F4F-4 couldn’t climb worth a hoot, but they turned just fine.
> 
> But I guess the gist of all of this is no matter what 2 RAAF pilots flying a Spitfire V head to head with a Hamp said, no matter that the score was 28 Spitfires shot down against 4 Japanese fighters, no matter that the Japanese flew 500 miles one way and ran Spitfires out of gas over their own territory, none of that means a thing, the only thing that’s matters is the Spitfire could not and was not ever bested by any obsolete pile of junk called a Zero, Hamp or KI43.
> 
> ...


The F4F-4 had lower wing loading than a P40. Compared to the Hurricane or Spitfire the F4F-4 was a poorly performing, unmanoeuvrable aircraft. The P40 has better performance than the F4F-4 but had a very poor turn radius.

Again, in the above test the Spitfire was denied the use of overboost.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 24, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The F4F-4 had lower wing loading than a P40. Compared to the Hurricane or Spitfire the F4F-4 was a poorly performing, unmanoeuvrable aircraft. The P40 has better performance than the F4F-4 but had a very poor turn radius.
> 
> Again, in the above test the Spitfire was denied the use of overboost.


Obviously a conspiracy on the part of the RAAF to discount the Spitfire as the greatest weapon of all time. It is why those 28 RAAF pilots let themselves get shot down by the barely able to fly Hamps and only shooting down 4 in return.

How did the P40 outturn the Spitfire? Blind pilot? No arms?


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 24, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The F4F-4 had lower wing loading than a P40. Compared to the Hurricane or Spitfire the F4F-4 was a poorly performing, unmanoeuvrable aircraft. The P40 has better performance than the F4F-4 but had a very poor turn radius.
> 
> Again, in the above test the Spitfire was denied the use of overboost.


I've never heard of the p40 discribed as having a poor turning radius except by those using the A6m as a yardstick to measure it by. Have read many times they outurned 109s in the desert and I don't think anyone would refer to the Bf109 as having a poor turning radius.
P40s certainly had their issues, largely high altitude performance but was turning radius really one of them?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 24, 2019)

pinsog said:


> How did the P40 outturn the Spitfire? Blind pilot? No arms?




Uh, where does it say the P-40 out turned the Spitfire?

Maybe my reading comprehension has gone to pot as I get older but my take on the 4 combats listed in that report is that essentially the P-40 managed a draw on two of them and got the hell out of Dodge on two of them. This hardly proof the P-40 was superior. It may be proof the P-40 wasn't_ as bad_ as some people think. 

It doesn't matter how many times this report is posted or how big you make the letters. 

combat 1 the fight was practically a stalemate and after both planes descended 9,000ft in 5-7 minutes the KittyHawk pilot _dives away breaking contact._ 

combat 2. after two minutes in which the Spitfire cannot be shaken by the P-40 the P-40 _breaks contact by diving away_.

combat 3. Kittyhawk starts with height advantage. (how much?) and after 14 minutes the fight had descended by 7,000ft, neither plane could gain the advantage, in other words a stalemate or draw. 

Combat 4, Spit starts with the height advantage. in 11 minutes the fight descends 9,000ft, neither plane can really get an advantage, _P-40 uses superior speed to break away_. 

and we are to conclude that the P-40 was the better plane? 

I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time. I do know the Merlin 46 made around 70-90 less hp at any altitude up to over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 which sure didn't help the RAAF Spitfire Vs. compared to the "book" tests in England of Spitfire Vs using Merlin 45s. Merlin 46 did make rated power several thsousnad feet higher than the Merlin 45 so a combat started at 22,000-24,000 would have gone the Spitfires way. 

FTH for the Kittyhawk was around 12,000ft and in level flight it was 14,000ft or better. the Merlin 46 had an FTH of 22,000ft and in level flight was even higher. 
At 13,000ft the Merlin 46 gave about 1020hp at 9lbs boost if I am reading the chart right.


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 24, 2019)

For whatever it's worth I think each of these planes Spitfire, A6m, p40, and Wildcat could be the"best" depending on the situation. I wouldn't want to replace Spitfires with p40s in the BOB but on the other hand for missions that reqired more range be it in the desert or CBI you would dead in the water with a Spitfire.
They all had their nich where they were" best" Imho.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Bataan Jerry (Nov 24, 2019)

Nowhere in these posts regarding the performances statistics of the Zero and Spitfire do I hear an accounting for the QUALITY OF THE PILOTS. Japanese aviation, paticularly the navy had the very best trained, experienced pilots in the Pacific War in December 1941. Their standards were not in direct comparison with the best of the RAF or Luftwaffe pilots at this time so purely giving numbers of planes lost is a very inexact method. Just sayin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've never heard of the p40 discribed as having a poor turning radius except by those using the A6m as a yardstick to measure it by. Have read many times they outurned 109s in the desert and I don't think anyone would refer to the Bf109 as having a poor turning radius.
> P40s certainly had their issues, largely high altitude performance but was turning radius really one of them?



The 109 was a light aircraft (~6400lb for the 109F) but still only had 173 ft2 wing area but a P40 was typically at ~8500lb TO weight but with 236ft2 of wing area. Compared to a Hurricane or a Spitfire the P40 turn radius was terrible as would be expected for an aircraft with such high wing loading. The P40's high roll rate allowed it to enter a turn quickly, but it was terribly handicapped in terms of actual sustained turn radius. 

A 109 that got into a turning fight with Hurricane or Spitfire would soon be trouble and not surprisingly the 109 pilots much preferred to fight in the vertical.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 24, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Love the part where the P40 OUTTURNED the Spitfire and scissored in behind him.


Just to call a spade a spade, this is NOT the same as out turning the opponent in a max G constant radius level turn. This is a "cheat" that allows a wider turning aircraft to pull lead on a tighter turning opponent if executed and timed correctly. For those of you unfamiliar, here's ACM101: When committing to a turning fight with a tighter turning opponent, a wider turning aircraft may, if energy level allows, pull up into a hard climbing turn in the direction the target is turning. As speed bleeds off, turning radius decreases until the fighter is perched above the target in a steep bank and making a higher rate of turn than the target. Then the fighter can, when the moment is right, pitch down in a diving turn onto the target's tail with a comfortable lead for a rear quarter deflection shot.
This is not a maneuver for novices, as it requires superb situational awareness, and a feel for extracting maximum performance on the hairy edge of an accelerated stall through a wide range of speeds, as well as impeccable timing. Novices would be better off to stick with a boom and zoom.
Semantics, I know, but this is not really "out-turning" the enemy in the classical sense.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 25, 2019)

Hey guys,

It is hard for me to discern which particular "scissors" and/or "roll" maneuver the P-40 pilot used do get on the tail of the Spitfire, but as Wes said, it was probably some variant of the Lag Roll he described above. Today it is usually called a Displacement Roll or Lag-Scissors Turn. The aircraft executing this maneuver does not need a superior turn ability to use it, but instead needs superior roll rate and usually higher initial energy (Ps). Also as Wes said, it requires either an advantage in start position, superior timing, superior situational awareness, or any combination of the three.







Re the Martlet vs Seafire dogfight, in WWII the term "steep turn" meant a climbing turn, where the Martlet would trade energy (Ps) for increased turn rate. If the Martlet started the maneuver at a higher speed, or if both aircraft started out at the same speed, the heavier Martlet would have higher initial energy and be able to briefly out turn the Seafire, until the Martlet energy drops to the same as the Seafires.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 25, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The P40's high roll rate allowed it to enter a turn quickly, but it was terribly handicapped in terms of actual sustained turn radius.


A perfect candidate for the lag scissors described above. High roll rate coupled with high energy due to its weight and acceleration and "hell for stout" so unlikely to be "bent" in high G maneuvering. Now all it needed was pilots with the training and experience to use it properly.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 25, 2019)

I must say I've enjoyed reading much of this thread, quite a hotly contested subject it seems but lots of good... debate? Hopefully all are still friends here after this.

I've also refrained from butting in and getting the discussion to the REAL meat and potatoes of aerial combat in WWII because I've been interested in reading about how the second string machines (you know, Spitfire, A6M etc.) mentioned in this thread were faring.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh, where does it say the P-40 out turned the Spitfire?
> 
> Maybe my reading comprehension has gone to pot as I get older but my take on the 4 combats listed in that report is that essentially the P-40 managed a draw on two of them and got the hell out of Dodge on two of them. This hardly proof the P-40 was superior. It may be proof the P-40 wasn't_ as bad_ as some people think.
> 
> ...


Combat 4: P40 uses superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire

I used generic term “outturn” for the rolling scissors, although I am well aware of the difference

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 25, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Combat 4: P40 uses superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire


And the Spitfire, with its savvy veteran pilot uses its superior zoom climb to escape that trap.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 25, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And the Spitfire, with its savvy veteran pilot uses its superior zoom climb to escape that trap.


Correct. And I did use the generic term ‘outturn’ for the rolling scissors, and I do know the difference between turn circle and roll rate, but you were correct to call that out, some newer folks may not know the difference and it would be confusing


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 25, 2019)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


It's noteworthy, just how poorly the Zero compares as the years go by. Take a Zero produced in late 1944 or early 1945 to a Spitfire or FW 190 of the same year. The Germans kept updating the Fw 190, keeping it competitive with anything the Allies had. The Spitfire was a 1935 design, first flown in 1936, three years before the Zero, but the latter was soon surpassed. And that's where the Zero design seems to lose in this comparison, in that it could not be upgraded to remain competitive.

Spitfire Mk 21 vs. A6M7?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2019)

A Spitfire 21 vs A7M would be a better comparison.
The Spitfire seems to have been something of an outlier as far as "upgrade-ability" goes.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 25, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> A Spitfire 21 vs A7M would be a better comparison.


No, Spitfire 21 entered service during WW2, A7M never got past the prototype stage. 

But really you can pick any of the Griffon Spits and the Zero is outclassed. 

Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon-powered variants) - Wikipedia


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2019)

From this thread, if would seem that ANY CONTEMPORARY Spitfire, should outclass a A6M. A Mk.V with the normal boost settings, and no silly carb filter should be a step ahead of an A6M2 or 3. The oft cited Darwin example, which is a worst case scenario as far as Spitfires is concerned, ended up about even as far as total aircraft destroyed. 
The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2019)

Zero development basically stalled for several years. At least engine wise. The water injection for some reason didn't give the improvement promised and they used pretty much the same powerplant/engine power for several years while increased armament and operational equipment added weight . 
There is little doubt the Kinsei engine could have been fitted much sooner, but it would have meant taking out the cowl gun/s and probably less endurance/shorter range.
I am not saying a 1500hp Zero would have dominated the allied planes but it's performance would have been a lot closer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> From this thread, if would seem that ANY CONTEMPORARY Spitfire, should outclass a A6M. A Mk.V with the normal boost settings, and no silly carb filter should be a step ahead of an A6M2 or 3. The oft cited Darwin example, which is a worst case scenario as far as Spitfires is concerned, ended up about even as far as total aircraft destroyed.
> The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.


I have forgotten the actual numbers. How many RAAF Spitfires were shot down by the Japanese and how many were _lost. _(out of fuel or mechanical failure)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 25, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line


...not to mention, ETO and DAF experienced pilots who persisted in using inappropriate tactics against the Zero...


Clayton Magnet said:


> is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.


Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not saying a 1500hp Zero would have dominated the allied planes


With the pilots of December 1941, quite likely; with mid 1943 pilots, not so much.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There is little doubt the Kinsei engine could have been fitted much sooner, but it would have meant taking out the cowl gun/s and probably less endurance/shorter range.
> I am not saying a 1500hp Zero would have dominated the allied planes but it's performance would have been a lot closer.



Is there any performance data from the A6M8 prototypes? It might have been a little rocket ship
The Ki-100 is certainly highly regarded with the same engine. And the A6M would probably (I am guessing) have been lighter


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time. I do know the Merlin 46 made around 70-90 less hp at any altitude up to over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 which sure didn't help the RAAF Spitfire Vs. compared to the "book" tests in England of Spitfire Vs using Merlin 45s. Merlin 46 did make rated power several thsousnad feet higher than the Merlin 45 so a combat started at 22,000-24,000 would have gone the Spitfires way.
> 
> FTH for the Kittyhawk was around 12,000ft and in level flight it was 14,000ft or better. the Merlin 46 had an FTH of 22,000ft and in level flight was even higher.
> At 13,000ft the Merlin 46 gave about 1020hp at 9lbs boost if I am reading the chart right.



This part seems to be ignored, the Spit was optimised to fight over 20,000ft, it will always be at a disadvantage to the Kittyhawk in the dogfight scenario posted earlier. Change to the clipped LF version and the outcome would be very different.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I have forgotten the actual numbers. How many RAAF Spitfires were shot down by the Japanese and how many were _lost. _(out of fuel or mechanical failure)



http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=7-spitfire-csu-failures
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=shortages-of-drop-tanks-spares-and-spitfires
1 wing did what they could as best they could in the situation they were dealt with, just posting up the 28-4 loss rate over and over doesn't do those guys justice.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 25, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> This part seems to be ignored, the Spit was optimised to fight over 20,000ft, it will always be at a disadvantage to the Kittyhawk in the dogfight scenario posted earlier. Change to the clipped LF version and the outcome would be very different.



In a single stage engine, the only way to lower the engine's FTH is to use overboost. Allowing 16lb boost increases speed by ~45mph at SL. Climb rate would increase by ~40-50%. The clipped wing MkV would indeed do better at low altitude but logically it would only be fitted with a Merlin 45.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time


Do you suppose maybe the RAAF was looking for a "one size fits all" safe boost limit for all altitudes? IIRC, these were not factory new Spits, but hand me downs that had already cut their teeth in North Africa and similar garden spots. With the available fuel, they may have felt the Merlin was robust enough to withstand the next increment of boost at lower altitudes, but that in the thinner air above FTH the cooling and intercooling systems might be overtaxed. Make sense?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 25, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> It is hard for me to discern which particular "scissors" and/or "roll" maneuver the P-40 pilot used do get on the tail of the Spitfire, but as Wes said, it was probably some variant of the Lag Roll he described above. Today it is usually called a Displacement Roll or Lag-Scissors Turn. The aircraft executing this maneuver does not need a superior turn ability to use it, but instead needs superior roll rate and usually higher initial energy (Ps). Also as Wes said, it requires either an advantage in start position, superior timing, superior situational awareness, or any combination of the three.
> 
> ...



ThomasP,

The scissors or roll maneuvers are a done to force your opponent to spit or flush out in front of you. They start with two opponents almost or near equal along each other’s 3 or 9 o’clock. 

The picture you attached shows a high yo-yo. If you look at the inset or Gods eye view (upper right in your attachment) you will see two fighters depicted with a thick and or thin line. The offensive plane is thin, the defensive is thick. Each line has three segments, representing equal times. The offender starts at the 7 o’clock of his adversary, cuts across his turn circle, and pulls up (represented by the “w” in his second segment of line). He then pulls his nose back down below the horizon as seen in his third segment and represented by the three slash marks. The high yo-yo would allow a lessor turning a/c to “out turn” a better turning a/c in theory. Reality is he doesn’t out turn but uses the vertical in an uncontested manner. This maneuver today is easily defeated or neutralized and has been since the F15, F16, F18 arrived. It could have been defeated back in the day had the defender understood what was happening and countered it properly.

As for the Martlet Seafire fight, please understand that a steep climbing turn isn’t trading energy/ speed for better rate, but trading it for altitude in which to attempt a high yo-yo or to negate an opponent attempting to high yo-yo on himself. Going up will lower your turn rate but in certain situations allow you to decrease your turn radius at the top of the maneuver (in the initial pull up you actually increase your turn radius). 

A plane has one speed at which it generates its best rate (degrees per second of turn) or its best radius (smallest turn circle). These are not the same speed. The F-16 and F22 don’t adhere to these last two rules.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Do you suppose maybe the RAAF was looking for a "one size fits all" safe boost limit for all altitudes? IIRC, these were not factory new Spits, but hand me downs that had already cut their teeth in North Africa and similar garden spots. With the available fuel, they may have felt the Merlin was robust enough to withstand the next increment of boost at lower altitudes, but that in the thinner air above FTH the cooling and intercooling systems might be overtaxed. Make sense?
> Cheers,
> Wes


It doesn't make sense, at least to me. AT FTH the supercharger can only deliver 9lbs of boost. There is no more boost to be had since the throttle is wide open and the supercharger impeller is turning at max rpm (if the engine is turning max rpm). The Merlin 46 didn't use an intercooler, it was a single speed, single stage supercharger that used an impeller of 10.85in diameter instead of the Merlin 45s 10.25in impeller, and a few other tweaks to the supercharger. 
Perhaps you are right and they were trying to preserve engine life? 

At 16lbs boost the Merlin 45 was good for 1470hp at 9250ft while the Merlin 46 was good for 1410hp at 14,000ft. above which the boost dropped in a near linear fashion until it was 9lbs at 22,000ft (in a temperate climate)) 

see:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 25, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> In a single stage engine, the only way to lower the engine's FTH is to use overboost. Allowing 16lb boost increases speed by ~45mph at SL. Climb rate would increase by ~40-50%. The clipped wing MkV would indeed do better at low altitude but logically it would only be fitted with a Merlin 45.




Low level Spitfire V vs late war German Fighters
Post 24 of this thread has a good read on the performance difference between a HF/LF MkV.


----------



## Stig1207 (Nov 26, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action
> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=7-spitfire-csu-failures
> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=shortages-of-drop-tanks-spares-and-spitfires
> 1 wing did what they could as best they could in the situation they were dealt with, just posting up the 28-4 loss rate over and over doesn't do those guys justice.



OTOH, if the scenario had been Spitfires achieving a 28-4 exchange rate against enemy fighters, would anyone be pointing out that the enemy overall was doing well going 1-1 against all types?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 26, 2019)

People are smart


Stig1207 said:


> OTOH, if the scenario had been Spitfires achieving a 28-4 exchange rate against enemy fighters, would anyone be pointing out that the enemy overall was doing well going 1-1 against all types?



If the roles were reversed and 28 clapped out A6M's were lost trying to attack bombers coming in at over 25,000ft I'd be on the Zero's side of the argument.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 26, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> From this thread, if would seem that ANY CONTEMPORARY Spitfire, should outclass a A6M. A Mk.V with the normal boost settings, and no silly carb filter should be a step ahead of an A6M2 or 3. The oft cited Darwin example, which is a worst case scenario as far as Spitfires is concerned, ended up about even as far as total aircraft destroyed.
> The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.


I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.


----------



## Stig1207 (Nov 26, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> People are smart
> 
> 
> If the roles were reversed and 28 clapped out A6M's were lost trying to attack bombers coming in at over 25,000ft I'd be on the Zero's side of the argument.



Well. it was more a rhetorical question; but my guess is that most people would be extolling the virtues of the Spitfires and the pilots flying them.

Specifically in the Darwin case, it's not just the Spitfire (clapped out or otherwise) , all the other variables have to be applied, such as pilot quality and experience, tactics, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 26, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Well. it was more a rhetorical question; but my guess is that most people would be extolling the virtues of the Spitfires and the pilots flying them.
> 
> Specifically in the Darwin case, it's not just the Spitfire (clapped out or otherwise) , all the other variables have to be applied, such as pilot quality and experience, tactics, etc.


IIRC it was a Wirraway that shot down a clapped out Ki-43-I.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 26, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.


Take your pick...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 26, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Take your pick...
> 
> View attachment 562074
> View attachment 562075
> View attachment 562076


I meant as a Japanese replacement for the Zero. Nakajima Kikka perhaps?


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 26, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.


If you are wiling to wait a little, the EE Lightning might offer a good contender if the correct tactics were used. I quote from the Telegraph obituary of Sir John Nicholls Air Marshal Sir John Nicholls

"In 1963 Nicholls instigated an interesting trial when he flew a Spitfire against the supersonic Lightning in mock combat. At the time Commonwealth forces were involved in action against Indonesia and Nicholls decided to identify tactics to fight the Indonesian Air Force P-51 Mustang, a fighter that had a similar performance to the Spitfire XIX.
After a series of flights, he decided that a high performance jet fighter should attack from below in a climb, thus avoiding the risk of becoming involved in a turning fight at slower speed where the manoeuvrable piston-engine aircraft had the advantage."

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 26, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.







Apparently it looks like this, but maybe a different color

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 26, 2019)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 562083
> 
> Apparently it looks like this, but maybe a different color


No, and that's my point. The Zero design is several years newer than the Spitfire, but was quickly outclassed by the Brit. Take a Spitfire from 1944 and a Zero from 1944, both with good pilots, equally aware of their opponent aircraft's capabilities. The Zero has much less chance. The Zero, like the Spitfire should have been continuously upgraded.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 26, 2019)

The late model Spitfires, especially after they installed the Griffon, were among the best prop fighters ever built. I don’t think ANY prop plane could have been labeled a ‘Spitfire killer’ after the Griffon was installed. An F8F-2 Bearcat might compete with it down below 10,000 feet, an XP72 might do ok, but I don’t think ‘Spitfire killer’ would be applied to any prop plane


----------



## taly01 (Nov 26, 2019)

> The Zero, like the Spitfire should have been continuously upgraded.



The Spitfire (except Griffon versions) and Zero were both around 28L, and started with ~1000hp, however the Spitfire improved to some 1700hp due to supercharger, intercooling and high octane quality fuel, while the Zero plateaued at ~1100hp. Everyone here would have already heard the Japanese fuel was only ever around 92 octane, and perhaps its conjecture why the British freaked out about been 20mph slower than Fw190 and rushed the new Merlin 60 series (1700hp) in for it. While the Japanese were some 60mph slower than P-38 and Corsairs but never really boosted power to counter them.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2019)

Spitfire killer? see below

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 26, 2019)

The two stage Merlin powered versions weren't that shabby either, allowable boost going from 16lbs to 18lbs and eventually to 25lbs with the 150 PN fuel.

Two Stage Merlin's being the bulk of the planes built even in 1944. 

The low altitude cropped impeller MK Vs were capable of good performance in a limited altitude band. 
We are told repeatedly how good the P-40 was at low altitude using high boost. A Spit V with the cropped impeller was within a few mph of a P-40 using 57in of boost (14lbs?) at around 3,000ft. The Spit was using 18lbs. but the Spit could climb around 1000ft/sec faster at low level. 

The Merlin Spitfire was a bit of an oddball in that it never got a single stage two speed supercharger, it either had a single stage, single speed optimized for either high altitude or low altitude or it got the two speed two stage supercharger. The single speed versions were hard to beat in their designed altitude bands (at the time of introduction or shortly after) but if operating outside that band they could be at at a disadvantage. The two speed two stage engines offered a lot more flexibility. 

Please remember that these are general statements and cover a period of 4-5 years (not counting 1945).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Nov 26, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Spitfire killer? see below
> 
> View attachment 562085


Bingo!


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 26, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Well. it was more a rhetorical question; but my guess is that most people would be extolling the virtues of the Spitfires and the pilots flying them.
> 
> Specifically in the Darwin case, it's not just the Spitfire (clapped out or otherwise) , all the other variables have to be applied, such as pilot quality and experience, tactics, etc.




If we were having this conversation down the pub or at a BBQ with people with no idea most likely we would be glamourising the Spit, but smart people look at all the information available and understand how different factors affect the overall outcome. A good example, Heinrich Baer fought throughout the war right across Europe but ended the war with a lower score than those who fought just in Russia, even though he finished with a lower score he is still held in very high regard because the kills he did make were against a much stronger better organised opposition.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 26, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Spitfire killer? see below
> 
> View attachment 562085



No way, I'd have to take the hood off and have my ugly mug poking out above the seat armour, and the top bar on the windscreen would be straight across my eye line, great photo showing just how small the 109 actually is.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 26, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> No way, I'd have to take the hood off and have my ugly mug poking out above the seat armour, and the top bar on the windscreen would be straight across my eye line, great photo showing just how small the 109 actually is.


Fw190


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 26, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Fw190

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 26, 2019)

Thank you Malcom Hood.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 26, 2019)

?


----------



## Airframes (Nov 26, 2019)

???


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 27, 2019)

Hello Gentlemen,

I am kind of late in on this discussion but am a bit surprised that no one has actually pointed out the major flaw in the test of Spitfire Vc against A6M3 Model 32.
This report is not new to me and I was surprised that it was quoted here and that no one has yet disputed its results.

First of all, I won't even try to argue whether the Spitfire V in the test should have been running +9 pounds or +16 pounds boost.
That has been beaten to death with no clear result.

The important factors to consider from this test IMHO are:
1. The J-fighter being tested was a A6M3 Model 32 or Type Zero Mark II.
This is a bit different from the A6M2 Model 21 or Type Zero Mark I that was encountered over Darwin.
The A6M2 had more wingspan and wing area and was a lighter and more agile aircraft.
2. The A6M3-32 at Eagle Farm was rebuilt from wrecks. It was flyable but hardly representative of a properly performing aircraft
as can be seen by its maximum speed and critical altitudes.
The Japanese manual lists a speed of 290 Knots at 6150 meters for the Model 32.
The same manual lists a speed of 275 Knots at 4400 meters for the Model 21 and
294 Knots at 5900 meters for the Model 52, but these are not "maximum speeds" as we understand them.

Note that the A6M5 model 52 in good condition is generally listed at capable of 351 MPH.
Note that the test against the Spitfire only showed a maximum speed that was 2 MPH faster than the "accepted" value from the Akutan A6M2 tested in the US and THAT aircraft also was not flown at "overboost" for those tests.

In looking over other information listed in my copy of the test of the Eagle Farm A6M3-32, they apparently ran the engine at no more than 2600 RPM and 40 inches Hg (about +256 mm Boost) which is quite a bit under the Take-Off / Emergency Rating of 2750 RPM and +300 mm Boost.
Those differences might have also made a difference.

With these factors in mind, I suspect that the actual A6M2 that fought over Darwin were a bit more capable than the A6M3-32 that was tested.

Thoughts?

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 28, 2019)

They were rebuilt aircraft -- but apparently with the fuel used in the US it made up the difference and them some.

From the Bunrin-Do Co Ltd. 'Famous Airplanes of the World' series (as translated by Shinpachi):

_In general, these performance values tested by the US are higher than those by IJA or Nakajima._
_Maximum speed, above all, indicates incredibly superior values that the Japanese were unable to achieve at all._
_That would have been because they used high octane gasoline._

This was in reference to Ki-43 data, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to other types.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 28, 2019)

Higher octane gas does not have more energy per gallon, it allows for higher power by allowing extra boost, unless the test pilots were using higher than normal boost as used by the Japanese there should be no extra performance. 

If at less that full throttle height even running the engine 100-200rpm under max rpm might not have much effect on power as depending on the throttle linkage and boost limit mechanism the same boost or higher boost can be achieved as at the slightly higher rpm. With more boost the engine may make more power at lower altitudes than at full rpm, lower boost at near the full throttle height. 

Some non engine differences between the Hamp and the earlier Zeros are the clipped wing, it was not just the wing tip left off but the ailerons were modified. and actually made smaller. However since they ran practically to the tip (and the control forces were less) they may have been more effective than the A6M2 and allowed a higher roll rate (which might still have been poor). between the clipped tips and heavier skinning in places the A6M3 was allowed a dive speed about 20kts higher than the earlier Zeros, not a dramatic change but against less than stellar diving allied planes it may have tipped the balance in a few combats. 

The loss of about 9sq ft of wing and the increase of 240-280lbs of weight may have had a minor change to the handling of the Hamp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 28, 2019)

Greyman said:


> They were rebuilt aircraft -- but apparently with the fuel used in the US it made up the difference and them some.
> 
> From the Bunrin-Do Co Ltd. 'Famous Airplanes of the World' series (as translated by Shinpachi):
> 
> ...



Hello Greyman,

Although I trust that Shinpachi translated the FAOTW excerpt correctly, I do not believe the excerpt itself is correct.
Here is why:
The Allies knew the grade of fuel that was used by the Japanese services. They were interested in the level of performance that they were likely to encounter when meeting these aircraft in combat. It would make no sense and be a waste of resources to try to "hot-rod" a captured fighter in less than pristine condition to see what the Japanese were not doing.
This can be seen by the test of the Ki-84 and its engine that was done at Middletown, PA after the war: Japanese Aircraft Performance

Claims have been made that this aircraft was tested with higher grade US fuel, but the test account clearly shows that 92 octane fuel was used along with anti detonant as was normal practice for the Japanese Army.

As Shortround6 stated, it would not make a difference anyway unless the boost pressure were raised beyond what the Japanese were using. This is clearly NOT the case and in fact the boost and RPM are below what the Sakae 21 engine were capable of and the critical altitude is also below even what the manual states.

My suspicion in reading over the TAIC testing summaries is that although the manuals and Japanese testing used typically "Normal" or "Rated" power, the Allied testing used Take-Off ratings as the equivalent of War Emergency which is never listed in the Japanese manual. (Their Normal power seems to be very similar to what we would consider the max continuous rating.)

In the case of this particular "Hamp", I believe it was not representative in performance because according to the manual it should have been capable of 290 Knots at 6150 meters (333.5 MPH) at normal power.
Normal Power is 2500 RPM and +75 mm boost.
Take-Off Power is 2750 RPM and +300 mm boost.

Eagle Farm testing was at 2600 RPM and +256 mm (40 inches Hg) and gave just one knot more speed. Seeing these numbers, one would have to wonder, "WHY did they pick these numbers?".....

Now back to the A6M2 that fought over Darwin..... (We will come back to the Mark II fighter in a bit.)

The manual lists a maximum speed of 275 Knots at 4400 meters (316 MPH)
This is at Normal Power which is 2350 RPM and +50 mm boost.
Take-Off Power is 2550 RPM and +250 mm boost.

The 316 MPH is clearly NOT a maximum speed if a captured and repaired example in the US in about 98% condition is capable of achieving 332 MPH. If you go through the list of repairs, it is obvious that this aircraft though repairable was hardly in "as new" condition when tested. As an example, the automatic mixture control did not work, and the gear doors were not quite flush.

The next part is from an article by Richard Dunn and seems somewhat plausible. According to Saburo Sakai who was intimately familiar with the A6M2, when asked about the maximum speed, stated 345 MPH on overboost.
An overboost setting was noted but not used in US testing.
What is the actual maximum speed of A6M2? I can say *I* am not really sure.

Now back to the A6M3 at Eagle Farm.
I suspect that the people working on the new Mark II Zero were not really familiar with the changes and did not have a manual to know how to operate it.
That is why they used settings that were pretty similar to the maximums for the Mark I Zero: 2550 RPM and +250 mm boost.
They didn't realise that the RPM and boost limits were much higher than the earlier engine and the critical altitude in high blower was also much higher.

Here is something I found to be quite odd when looking for differences between the Mark I and Mark II Zero:
Look at the Manifold Pressure gauge that is to the right of the stick. Note the part that is in Red.
This panel is from the A6M5 (Mark II) but the interesting thing is that this gauge apparently is unchanged from the one used on the A6M2 (Mark I) that only allowed up to +250 mm boost.
That might be another reason why the folks at Eagle Farm thought the maximum boost was no different between the two engines.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Some non engine differences between the Hamp and the earlier Zeros are the clipped wing, it was not just the wing tip left off but the ailerons were modified. and actually made smaller. However since they ran practically to the tip (and the control forces were less) they may have been more effective than the A6M2 and allowed a higher roll rate (which might still have been poor). between the clipped tips and heavier skinning in places the A6M3 was allowed a dive speed about 20kts higher than the earlier Zeros, not a dramatic change but against less than stellar diving allied planes it may have tipped the balance in a few combats.



Hello Shortround6,
Although people don't mention it much, the A6M actually had a pretty high roll rate at low to medium speeds. This can be confirmed by video interviews of current A6M pilots and also by timing the roll performance of modern aircraft with a stopwatch.
It's at high speed that life got a bit ugly.
I am sure you already know this, but the later A6M didn't just lose aileron span at the wing tip. It also had the inboard edge of the aileron moved one wing station outboard.

Regarding diving speed:
Although the diving speed of A6M3-32 is 20 Knots higher than A6M2-21, I believe this was because of the difference in load due to the reduced wing span. The reason for this conclusion is because the A6M3-22 which came after the Model 32 has the same diving speed limitation as the older Model 21.

In comparing the Mark I and Mark II Zero, it can also be noted that the Japanese themselves considered the Mark I to have greater fighting ability below 20,000 feet and even made that statement in their manual. That would be a bit discouraging to a fellow about to climb into a brand new Mark II fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 28, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Interesting question: Why would a Spitfire, with its thin wing and sleek wind cheating shape, have an acceleration problem vis a vis its contemporaries, even in a dive? It has a thin, elliptical wing, which theoretically should give it just about optimum L/D for its aspect ratio at pretty much all useful angles of attack, thereby minimising induced drag.



Hello XBe02Drvr,

There are a couple issues with this evaluation. First of all, the elliptical planform would be optimal if there were no aerodynamic twist built into the wing, but there actually is, so the lift distribution isn't quite what it would be with a simple elliptical wing.
The Spitfire (David Lednicer)



XBe02Drvr said:


> Parasite drag from its highly streamlined fuselage is about as low as it can practically go, leaving the radiator as a potential culprit. But then why aren't other contemporary liquid cooled fighters similarly handicapped?



Although the Spitfire appears very nicely streamlined, the appearance may be deceptive. At one point, there was a question about how much drag resulted from normal domed rivets as opposed to flush rivets. (The famous split pea test) Eventually it was determined that domed rivets were worse (no surprise) but could be tolerated with very little penalty in fuselage construction.
The twin underwing radiators were not really the optimal choice but many aircraft had the same design issue. Note that the successor design, the Spiteful / Seafang went with a single radiator under the aft fuselage and was a much faster aircraft for the same installed power.



XBe02Drvr said:


> Just speculating, I wonder if the wing angle of incidence relative to the thrust line would have anything to do with it. The Spit was designed in an era when fighter dromes were small with obstacles around them, and relatively short takeoffs and landings the norm. It would make sense in that case to mount the wing with its high speed airfoil at a slight positive angle of incidence relative to thrust line and fuselage centerline. Unfortunately, this means that when the pilot "unloads" (zeros the AOA) in order to maximise acceleration, the plane develops a desire to "tuck under" because of the downward canted thrust line relative to the chord line. So the pilot has to maintain a slight positive AOA to counter the "tuck" thereby incurring an induced drag penalty. The A4 Skyhawk was similarly afflicted, and for the same reason.



I believe you and I are thinking the same thing here. The wing and fuselage may be at an optimal relative angle for parasitic drag in a high AoA condition such as when maneuvering but in a low AoA attitude such as in level flight or zero G for maximum acceleration in a dive, the fuselage may not be at the optimum angle for low parasitic drag even though the wing is an an optimum angle.



XBe02Drvr said:


> The other possibility is a thrust penalty incurred during the "unload", but weren't Spits V and above equipped with pressure carbs or fuel injection? Or at least the infamous orifice?
> Any engineers out there want to jump in?



I am not an engineer but as I understand the issue, without a restriction into the bowl of the carburetor, under negative G the float goes up and the carb floods and the engine cuts. With the restrictor, the float still goes up, but the bowl cannot flood as quickly and although there is a loss of power, there isn't flooding unless the negative G is sustained.
I don't believe the Merlin Spitfires had fuel injection at least up through the Mk. IX and contemporaries but perhaps later ones did.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I don't believe the Merlin Spitfires had fuel injection at least up through the Mk. IX and contemporaries but perhaps later ones did.


I think you're right there, but didn't they go through an intermediate step of pressure carb between the float bowls and the full-on fuel injections? I know from personal experience there's no negative G penalty with a pressure carb.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 28, 2019)

[QUOTE="



I am not an engineer but as I understand the issue, without a restriction into the bowl of the carburetor, under negative G the float goes up and the carb floods and the engine cuts. With the restrictor, the float still goes up, but the bowl cannot flood as quickly and although there is a loss of power, there isn't flooding unless the negative G is sustained.
I don't believe the Merlin Spitfires had fuel injection at least up through the Mk. IX and contemporaries but perhaps later ones did.

- Ivan.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a engineer either, but I do know that when the float goes up in a carburetor, it shuts off the fuel flow to the float bowl in the carb., the engine cuts out because it's starved for fuel, not flooded.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 28, 2019)

tyrodtom said:


> [QUOTE="
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not a engineer either, but I do know that when the float goes up in a carburetor, it shuts off the fuel flow to the float bowl in the carb., the engine cuts out because it's starved for fuel, not flooded.[/QUOTE]

Hello Tyrptom,

You are absolutely correct. 
Thanks for the reminder.
Perhaps it is an issue of what happens to the fuel that is already in the bowl. We don't run into a lot of negative G situations when tuning automotive carbs. 

- Ivan.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello XBe02Drvr,
> 
> There are a couple issues with this evaluation. First of all, the elliptical planform would be optimal if there were no aerodynamic twist built into the wing, but there actually is, so the lift distribution isn't quite what it would be with a simple elliptical wing.
> The Spitfire (David Lednicer)
> ...


The Spitful radiators were under each wing, not the back of the fuselage. The gain in speed was due to the laminar flow wing.
The vast majority of Spitfire Mk 8s and 9s were equipped with Merlin 66s or 70s which had Bendix injection carbs. Before that the internals of the SU float chamber had been modified to mitigate g effects in which case the flow restriction office was deleted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 28, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Spitful radiators were under each wing, not the back of the fuselage. The gain in speed was due to the laminar flow wing.
> The vast majority of Spitfire Mk 8s and 9s were equipped with Merlin 66s or 70s which had Bendix injection carbs. Before that the internals of the SU float chamber had been modified to mitigate g effects in which case the flow restriction office was deleted.



Hello Reluctant Poster,

Thanks for the correction. I was just looking over some photographs of the Spiteful / Seafang and found the same thing about the radiators and was wondering which aircraft I was confusing it with.
Do you happen to know when the SU carbs were modified?

- Ivan.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Reluctant Poster,
> 
> Thanks for the correction. I was just looking over some photographs of the Spiteful / Seafang and found the same thing about the radiators and was wondering which aircraft I was confusing it with.
> Do you happen to know when the SU carbs were modified?
> ...


I am unable to find an exact date.
The Martin Baker MB5 had a P51 style radiator.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 29, 2019)

tyrodtom said:


> without a restriction into the bowl of the carburetor, under negative G the float goes up and the carb floods and the engine cuts.





tyrodtom said:


> when the float goes up in a carburetor, it shuts off the fuel flow to the float bowl in the carb., the engine cuts out because it's starved for fuel, not flooded





Ivan1GFP said:


> Perhaps it is an issue of what happens to the fuel that is already in the bowl.


This stuff gets confusing, doesn't it? According to my engines instructor in mech school, who was an 8thAF mechanic in Britain, originally on the first Mustangs, then shunted off to a B17 outfit, and also worked on some American PR Spits, the float carb thing worked like this:
The pickup tube rose from near the bottom of the float bowl and exited the top before bending forward and terminating in the throat of the carburetor venturi. It was fairly large diameter with a smooth bend for minimum flow restriction, thus containing a significant volume of fuel. When negative G was applied, everything went up; fuel in the bowl (uncovering pickup tube), floats and needle valve (shutting off inflow), and all the fuel in the pickup tube squirted into the venturi in one liquid slug rather than a metered aerosol flow. So the engine was subjected to a flood followed by starvation.
So Miss Schilling's fix was to put a calibrated orifice in the venturi end of the pickup tube designed to restrict flow to the maximum the engine could ever legitimately demand. Thus under the intense pressure from a negative G bunt, the fuel would come out in an atomized spray that wouldn't exceed the engine's rich limit.
Mr. Hamm said as he shook his head and clucked his tongue he just couldn't understand why the Brits would build such an elegant airplane and then put such a rinky- fuel system in it. Everyone else had gone to pressure carbs or fuel injection long ago.
Cheers,
Wes
PS: How do you get Android to stop substituting smiley faces for random words? Can't make it go away.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 29, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Mr. Hamm said as he shook his head and clucked his tongue he just couldn't understand why the Brits would build such an elegant airplane and then put such a rinky- fuel system in it. Everyone else had gone to pressure carbs or fuel injection long ago.
> Cheers,
> Wes



It comes back to *the right way, the wrong way, and the British way* of building aircraft as the chief instructor where I started used to say

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 29, 2019)

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf 

Here is a good read on the Spitfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 29, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I am unable to find an exact date.
> The Martin Baker MB5 had a P51 style radiator.



Found an old post on this site that quoted Morgan and Shacklady’s Spitfire.
”On 12 May MAP issued a notice to the effect that all new production Merlin 46 and 47 engines would be fitted the new Rolls Royce negative G carburettor. 
The Merlin 61 and 63 used this carb

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 29, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> It comes back to *the right way, the wrong way, and the British way* of building aircraft as the chief instructor where I started used to say


The anti g carb was in production before the 8th AF dropped it first bomb.


----------



## Barrett (Nov 29, 2019)

Ref. Spits v. Zeros:

Joe Foss told the story a couple of times. Between Guadalcanal tours he got R&R in Australia and met Caldwell & Co. Joe was immediately struck by the Spit pilots' attitude of extreme confidence. So he told them: "I understand that a lot of you guys are aces. Well, congratulations. And I know what you're thinking. You think that if a stiff-necked American can get 20 Japs in an 8000-lb airplane, you're gonna clean up in your 6,000-lb airplane. But I'm here to tell you: if you try dogfighting a Zero he's gonna eat your lunch."

I don't think Joe had the chance to say I Told You So.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 29, 2019)

Barrett said:


> You think that if a stiff-necked American can get 20 Japs in an 8000-lb airplane, you're gonna clean up in your 6,000-lb airplane. But I'm here to tell you: if you try dogfighting a Zero he's gonna eat your lunch."
> I don't think Joe had the chance to say I Told You So.


IIRC, a tail gunner in an F1M2 biplane ate JOE'S lunch and sent him for a swim.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 1, 2019)

Sorry BiffF15,

re your post#524

All of the info I posted relative to air combat maneuvering is straight out of the current USN Basic ACM (Air Combat Maneuvers) manual. 

The diagram I posted is from the manual and is labeled as I stated. The shaded area of the aircraft executing the maneuver is the aircraft rolling so that the bottom of the aircraft is facing you, it then continues the roll so that the top pf the aircraft is once again facing you.

As to the rest of your post, although some of it is correct, none of what you posted that contradicts what I stated is correct.

Again I refer you to the USN Basic ACM manual, and to the basic (for the most part) laws of physics, both available online.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Again I refer you to the USN Basic ACM manual, and to the basic (for the most part) laws of physics, both available online.


Hoo boy, here we go again! The American civil war: USN vs USAF and the eternal contest of semantics and terminology. The laws of physics apply equally to all aircraft, whether they wear a tailhook or not, but you wouldn't think it to hear us talk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 1, 2019)

Hey XBe02Drvr,

I do not think that semantics is the issue in this case. The USN and USAF have been using the same basic terminology and diagraming method for ~35-40 years. The High Yo-Yo is as BiffF15 described, he simply did not recognize the roll aspect of the diagram I posted.

P.S. My apologies, I just reread my post#568 and realized it sounds kind of snarky. It is not meant to be snarky.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> P.S. My apologies, I just reread my post#568 and realized it sounds kind of snarky. It is not meant to be snarky.


And Biff is not the man to snark at. He spent years practicing and teaching ACM in the Eagle, and more than many here, he knows where of he speaks. My exposure to ACM was nearly fifty years ago, shortly after Top Gun was established.
Fifty years ago today, I received a message that my birthdate was 55 out of 365 in the draft lottery, and I could expect orders to the induction center in March. The Air Force recruiter was out of town, so I trotted right down to the Navy guy and signed on the line.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey XBe02Drvr,
> 
> I do not think that semantics is the issue in this case. The USN and USAF have been using the same basic terminology and diagraming method for ~35-40 years. The High Yo-Yo is as BiffF15 described, he simply did not recognize the roll aspect of the diagram I posted.
> 
> P.S. My apologies, I just reread my post#568 and realized it sounds kind of snarky. It is not meant to be snarky.



BiffF-15 is an actual fighter pilot. Not a keyboard and Cessna warrior like the rest of us...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 1, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Sorry BiffF15,
> 
> re your post#524
> 
> ...



ThomasP,

No disrespect taken.

Without having access to your reference source I will attempt to bring a bit more perspective to this convo.

The first time I saw the clip art / picture in your post it was of an offensive F4 against a Mig-21 while going through a program in AT-38s, called Lead In Fighter Training (LIFT) in 1989. It was used to describe an actual or theoretical encounter and how to handle it. Yes, in those days (Vietnam era) Phantom Drivers, and probably F8 guys as well, called it and used the Lag Scissors or Displacement Roll. If you watch the Dogfight Series on the History Channel it is shown at least once between a Mig and Phantom, I believe at low altitude over North Vietnam ending in a victory if I remember correctly. If you notice the offender is in lag (outside) the turn circle of the defender and about 1200-1500 in lag. The AIM-9 variant used in WWNam needed those parameters to work, and that is what the drawing was initially designed to show. However those terms are not in use by the USAF today and I never once encountered them by my USN/USMC brethren.

The maneuver depicted in your drawing now has what appears to be T-45s, but regardless depicts a shallow version of what I would call a Hi Yo-Yo. Scissors are a maneuver to get on or move towards your opponents 6. A drawing of it from Gods eye would look like a string of 8s stretched out in the shape of a footballs. Guys will cross each other’s flight path once or numerous times depending on the entry set up, energy, a/c types, and skill of the pilots. It usually ends after a leaf or two.

In your commentary below the picture you mention a Martlet pulling up to trade energy for an increased turn rate. In actuality you trade energy for altitude and a smaller turn circle when you go over the top (transition from goin up to going down). Imagine you pull up to 45 degrees nose up with the intent of a split S but instead of rolling completely over you roll to something less and pull your nose back down. As seen from a God’s Eye view your turn circle appears much smaller than an identical aircraft that does a hard turn starting just beneath you at the same time. This is the benefit of the Hi Yo-Yo and it’s done for the most part only while on the offensive. If the manual says turn rate instead of turn radius it’s incorrect in the example you gave.

I also recognize the roll aspect of the diagram. When maneuvering in relation to an opponent you must keep him in sight. Also very few pilots like extended negative G and will therefore roll to keep sight and maintain positive G on the plane.

Please have another look at what it says, and if able post in a scan.

Semantics between the branches have long been different, even including basics such as “aspect” angles. The USAF measures it from the tail of the opponents a/c while my anchor wing wearing friends measure it from the nose.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 1, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> BiffF-15 is an actual fighter pilot. Not a keyboard and Cessna warrior like the rest of us...



Some of us aren't even Cessna pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 1, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Some of us aren't even Cessna pilots.


I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one time but my friends tell me I’m still kinda stupid.

I can vouch for Biff15 being a real fighter pilot. He and I had a private chat on here a long time ago and turns out a retired F15 pilot at my church was an instructor of his when he was in training. What a small world.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Some of us aren't even Cessna pilots.


I don't even have a keyboard.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I don't even have a keyboard.


Here, everyone's a warrior, whether they have a touchscreen, a keyboard, a Cessna yoke or an Eagle joystick in their hand. Brothers of the sky.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 1, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one time but my friends tell me I’m still kinda stupid.
> 
> I can vouch for Biff15 being a real fighter pilot. He and I had a private chat on here a long time ago and turns out a retired F15 pilot at my church was an instructor of his when he was in training. What a small world.



Talk about a small world. My son and I fly to Honolulu for a few days before Turkey Day. Land, get our rental car and it turns out the kid who is handing the keys over grew up in my home town (New Smyrna Beach, FL) and I went to high school with his dad.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 1, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Talk about a small world. My son and I fly to Honolulu for a few days before Turkey Day. Land, get our rental car and it turns out the kid who is handing the keys over grew up in my home town (New Smyrna Beach, FL) and I went to high school with his dad.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Years ago I went to a consular event in PNG and instead of the small town (250-300 people) I grew up in I had a nearby city on my name badge.
There were two others from that town there and I knew both of them from school. They had the towns name on their tags

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 2, 2019)

Hey BiffF15,

The Martlet vs Seafire part of my post was not referring to the diagram I posted.

I have been assuming that the "steep turn" referred to in the previous posts was started from similar velocity as in the rest of the maneuver comparisons (ie first one aircraft starting in trail then again with the other in trail). The lead aircraft begins a climbing turn (approximately a helix) and the trailer tries to follow and get in position for a shot.

Apparently the Martlet was better than the Seafire at this maneuver.

The only way I can figure this could work is if the Martlet trades excess Ps to increase turn rate and/or decrease turn radius depending on the aircraft velocity, while climbing (or should it be phrased the other way around?).


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 2, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey BiffF15,
> 
> The Martlet vs Seafire part of my post was not referring to the diagram I posted.
> 
> ...



ThomasP,

The size of an aircrafts turn circle and his rate will vary / breathe in and out depending on where his nose is pointed, where the throttle is, and how hard the stick actuator is pulling. 

If an aircraft is 10 degrees nose up, in a 60 degree bank and the pilot pulls hard on the stick, yes his turn circle will shrink (temporarily) and his rate will increase (temporarily). Once the pilot scrubs off enough airspeed (and he will as he is cashing in airspeed to obtain his greater rate and or his smaller radius of turn). Eventually his radius will open and his rate will drop as he doesn’t have unlimited energy.

If an identical plane / pilot did the same maneuver as the above guy and he was level his radius would stay smaller and rate higher for a longer. Same set up with the nose 10 below the horizon at the start will hold his smaller radius / increased rate the longest, hence the reason even with new super thrusty jets the fights go downhill.

There is a saying called “go up blow up”, and while not always applicable is when you are defensive and a guy is trying to gun you. 

Going down allows Gods G to be brought to bear to help you sustain your max performance of your a/c.

Another way to look at it is imagine a long bolt, standing vertically complete with threads. Your a/c is inside the bolt and its nose will follow the threads as you go down in a tight spiral. However, as you go down the a/c will perform better due to the denser air and the threads will get closer together. Starting high the threads are further apart, descending into thicker air allows them to be much closer together. That’s not to say you will jump into a defensive spiral and stay there, as your opponent will or can do other maneuvers to force you to react or change what it is you are doing.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

Wawny said:


> He also flew Kittyhawks in 76 Sq RAAF in Milne Bay during the Battle for Australia 1942



Did your grand father have anything to say about the Kittyhawk?


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> But really you can pick any of the Griffon Spits and the Zero is outclassed.



Completely. The Griffon engined Spit was in a class of its own. There is a story involving Spitfire test pilot Jeffrey Quill and a Spitfire ("any Spitfire"), Arnim Faber's captured Fw 190 and a Typhoon, where the Fw 190 was to be pitted against the two Brits in a fly-off. Hawker expected the Typhoon to outperform the two, but Joe Smith of Supermarine had other ideas, having just fitted a Griffon to the Mk.III prototype, so off he sent Quill in the Spit against the other two, where he promptly trounced them both in performance. This got Griffon engined Mk.XIIs into service and eventually the 'stop gap' XIV, which had supreme performance and gave the Spit the edge against its opponents again.

As for the poor Zero, Horikoshi had pushed for the fitting of the more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine from early on, but the navy heads stifled this plan and it never really evolved to the same extent performance wise as the Spitfire did through the installation of firstly the two-speed, two-stage Merlins, then the Griffon. Then again, it was never intended that the Zero remain in service for as long as it did and its designers knew this, the programe to build what eventually became the A7M was begun in April 1942.

There is also the issue of the philosophy behind the aircraft itself; once it became apparent that its replacements were not going to enter service sooner than they did, the designers were keen to keep the Zero as light as possible, resisting all and any attempts at introducing too much weight, which would have crippled the principal advantage the aircraft had over its superior enemy fighters, its low speed manoeuvrability. In subsequent variants from the A6M5, the wing skins increased in thickness and reluctantly and belatedly, survival innovations such as self sealing tanks and armour plating were introduced. Horikoshi knew the Zero couldn't keep up with advanced fighters such as the Hellcat and Corsair performance wise, so modifications were made sparingly to enable its advantages to remain.

People who believe the light construction and lack of self protection was a fatal weakness fail to grasp this, but there was active resistance to the introduction of these features by the designers, not because the Japanese were heartless, but because in order to maintain an edge - any edge against superior opponents, the aircraft had to continue to play to its strengths. Remarkably, in this the designers succeeded, as the wee tale about the US airman and the Aussie Spit pilots attests to.

The defining A6M5 and sub variants was brought in because the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, which was to suppliment the Zero as a land based interceptor was lagging in development and efforts had to be made to compensate time wise in getting it into service. The Zero 52b and 52c variants introduced the self protection and heavy firepower to counter the Hellcat, and the 53c, A6M6 had the water-meth injected Sakae, which proved troublesome in a vain attempt to extract more performance, although again, Horikoshi pressed the navy to release the Kinsei for installation. This didn't come until the A6M8, which was, to all intents and purposes too late, but offered more power in the Kinsei, an armoured windscreen and the removal of self sealing tanks (! - those who state it had a fatal flaw would be astonished!) and their replacement with an extinguishing system. Its first flight and introduction into service was delayed by US bombing raids.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Is there any performance data from the A6M8 prototypes? It might have been a little rocket ship



According to Bob Mikesh in Zero Fighter (Zokeisha Publications, 1981);

"The Navy accepted the first prototype of the A6M8c on 25 May 1945, and one month later took delivery of the second. maximum level speed was recorded at 308kts (355mph) at 6,000m (19,700ft) along with the ability to climb to that altitude in 6 min 50 secs. Although this maximum level speed was 48kts (55mph) slower than the F4U-1D at that altitude, it showed a halt in the trend toward deteriorating performance which had prevailed since the spring or summer of 1944 in all Japanese aircraft. test pilots who flew the Model 54c overwhelmingly agreed that this was the best model of the Zero yet produced."


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Then again, it was never intended that the Zero remain in service for as long as it did and its designers knew this, the programe to build what eventually became the A7M was begun in April 1942.


That's a fair timeline, had they stuck to it. The Grumman Wildcat first flew in Sept 1937, with its replacement the Hellcat not flying until nearly five years later in June 1942.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> That's a fair timeline, had they stuck to it.



The problem they had not sticking to it was manifold. The navy had a big say in the course of the Zero's career and arguably stifled its and the A7M's development due to lack of foresight, such as the decision to incorporate a less powerful engine in the Zero until it was too late to make a difference, for example, as well as inevitable development delays, not least of which was bombing raids on aircraft factories. the Reppu mock up and thousands of drawings were destroyed in one raid in March 1945.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Short list of Zero's faults:
> - IJN has no radars worth speaking about in 1942
> - USA is reading a lot of Japanese mail
> - USN was expected to behave like Japanese admirals want, not like US admirals want
> ...



Point well taken!

Another:

- no significant air-sea rescue system in place despite available assets to do it

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Point well taken!
> 
> Another:
> 
> - no significant air-sea rescue system in place despite available assets to do it


Which is nuts, considering Japan's sizable investment on long range flying boats, like the Kawanishi H6K and H8K. The shorter ranged Aichi E11A is essentially an IJN Supermarine Walrus, the latter of which picked up many a downed RAF and FAA aviator. 

When you have a limited supply of trained pilots and a very limited means of replacing them, why wouldn't you focus on keeping the pilots you have alive?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The problem they had not sticking to it was manifold. The navy had a big say in the course of the Zero's career and arguably stifled its and the A7M's development due to lack of foresight, such as the decision to incorporate a less powerful engine in the Zero until it was too late to make a difference,


Which is also nuts. When the 940hp Zero first flew in April 1939 there were several fighters with well more than 1,000 hp in service or flying in prototype form, such as 1,150 hp the Mk II Spitfire, 1,529 hp Fw 190, etc.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> All aircraft have the potential to be fatally flawed. It's just a case of when the circumstances of the moment happen to coincide with one of that plane's weaknesses. Early on, the performance and firepower of the Zero, largely due to its lack of protection, kept that lack from causing crippling losses. But as soon as it started to encounter planes with equivalent firepower and superior survivability, even if with somewhat lesser performance, that lack became a critical flaw.



The point is really that all military aircraft designs did have flaws. The notion that every fighter should be able to fly 400 mph at 30,000 ft and have an initial climb rate 4,000 feet per minute, four cannons with plenty of rounds _and _armor _and_ self-sealing tanks, _and_ in spite of all that stuff also a 1,000 mile range.... is ridiculous. Many successful combat aircraft in WW2 had one or more elements of the above, but some of the most successful had very few of them. In the early war especially, before combat engines were achieving their utmost in power, it was always a matter of which elements did you want to sacrifice for others that you wanted more.

For England that meant sacrifice everything not needed (especially range / endurance) for an excellent point defense interceptor to defend the Island from an enemy with bases 30-50 miles away. For Japan, it meant to sacrifice everything for long range to defeat enemies across the wide Pacific, with a main opponent 5,000 miles away - and the overwhelming advantage in agility to win carrier battles where high lethality 'pwnage' and winning the one crucial air battle without regard for attrition, is what mattered most (at least initially). I.e. to protect your aircraft carriers.



> Any warplane is a package deal; in modern parlance, a "weapon system", consisting of the plane, the aircrew training and proficiency, and the operational doctrine and tactics.
> Given that perspective, the A6M2 was the best possible fit for the IJNAF in 1941. The only other potential contenders, IMHO P40 and F4F, were each incompatible with the other 2/3 of the IJNAF "package".
> The biggest mistake of the Japanese was the failure to trade a little of the Zero's awesome agility advantage for self sealing tanks and pilot armor to bring a 1940 fighter to 1942 standards.
> Cheers,
> Wes


 
And it's something we know was possible because they did eventually do just that with the A6M5, but it was just done too late to matter.

They also needed to do the organizational changes Juha mentioned and things like an air-sea rescue program. All of which may have been a bridge too far.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> A flaw is only "fatal" if it results in an unacceptable loss rate. The planes (of all combatants) that made it back to base "full of holes" are the ones that weren't hit in an unprotected vital spot. I'm sure they all engendered faith and gratitude in their pilots. But when your long range fuel tanks and your cockpit and your lubrication system are unprotected, there's a lot less area left to punch "harmless" holes in.
> As long as your performance and tactics are sufficiently superior to keep enough formidably armed opponents from getting a good shot at you, you're able to dominate. But when their tactics and performance catch up, and it's your turn to take a beating, your vulnerability to fire becomes a fatal flaw IMHO.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Another strategic consideration - blitzkrieg vs. attrition war


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Which is nuts, considering Japan's sizable investment on long range flying boats, like the Kawanishi H6K and H8K. The shorter ranged Aichi E11A is essentially an IJN Supermarine Walrus, the latter of which picked up many a downed RAF and FAA aviator.
> 
> When you have a limited supply of trained pilots and a very limited means of replacing them, why wouldn't you focus on keeping the pilots you have alive?



I've said that this all along, the fatal flaw of the Zero was its inability to protect the IJN's most valuable assets, their pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

Glider said:


> A couple of points
> a) 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG was quite a decent amount of firepower for a good part of the war
> b) Another reason for the Japanese loss of pilots was the reluctance to use parachutes in the early part of the war. I have read a number of stories where they either didn't carry them, or had to be ordered to wear them. Remember the greatest fear of a Japanese combatant was to be captured, and the use of a parachute significantly increases those chances.
> c) Whilst your observation that the Japanese aircraft tended to be less well protected is true, to rely on gun footage to prove the case is 'flakey'. I have seen a number of footage films of British, German and American aircraft catching fire.



It's worth keeping in mind, there was nothing magical about aircraft armor. Armor and self-sealing fuel tanks were no guarantee of survival. They certainly helped, but even very well protected planes like Fw 190s certainly caught fire and exploded (as you can see in gun camera footage), and their pilots often died - in fact while I don't know the precise percentage a large proportion of FW 190 pilots, probably most of them, did in fact die. Arguably the most heavily protected aircraft in the war, the Soviet Il-2 bomber, had one of the lowest crew survival rates of any plane in the war. Probably lower than the A6M. Some aircrew bailed out repeatedly but surviving bailouts was also not guaranteed, it took a certain amount of skill and / or luck to survive bailing out of a damaged aircraft. Then landing in your chute was another crap shoot, as was evading captivity in many cases (or surviving long enough in a little rubber dinghy - if you were lucky- to be found and picked up by that Sub or PT boat).

When you look at sustained heavy engagements during WW2 in fact, especially in the hot period of the mid war, the odds were against combat pilots in general with or without armor. _Most_ pilots were eventually getting killed, captured or maimed on all sides - by enemy pilots, enemy defensive gunners, by flak / AAA, and quite a bit by accidents. The armor, protected fuel tanks, parachutes, air-sea rescue systems and so forth just improved the odds a little bit. But if you go through the day by day air histories, front line fighter pilots had a fairly high attrition rate and probably a majority of them died in most Theaters during the more intense periods of combat. I'd guess from Shores MAW probably 1/3 to 1/2 of shoot downs of the well protected aircraft resulted in a fatality. Prior to the more modern types coming into Theater maybe it was more like 2/3. 

But if you bailed out and somehow made it back to base, you didn't get to go home - unless you were too injured to fly you went back into another fighter and went back up again. So eventually the odds were against you. Of course all this made a difference to your unit. If the Japanese lost 4 planes per week and the US lost 8 but recovered half of the pilots (and could replace their aircraft), they are still basically on an equal footing. Over time and many iterations that makes a big difference in attrition. But for the individual pilot the situation is still pretty grim.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I believe the problem is the initial acceleration. The Spitfire accelerated slowly in the dive at the beginning allowing a pursuing Zero to get in a really good burst. Spitfires aren’t as durable as many other allied fighters, P39 had the same issue with the rear mounted engine. A P40 has a great roll rate, so a Zero drops on your tail, you can easily out roll him, so in an instant your on your back, it also accelerated quickly in a dive, so by the time the Zero finished its roll and was on its back, the P40 was safely out of range. P40’s and Wildcats were also extremely tough, both being able to absorb quite a few hits before they make their escape, the Spitfire, while tougher than a Zero, did not enjoy that reputation.




P-40 pilots developed two "escape maneuvers" which were critical in their survival, and later success against Zeros and Ki-43s. The first was the simple Split-S into a vertical dive downward, good but not 100% safe. Often combined with side-slipping and that sometimes led to a spin which itself could be intentionally or otherwise used as an escape maneuver (though it seems nuts to me).

The second escape manuever was some kind of outside loop or roll which led then to a dive, this was apparently much harder to aim at and much safer if the enemy aircraft was close. A6Ms were not slow.

Against A6Ms specifically they would also continue to roll right in the dive because the torque of the Zero prevented them from rolling right much at high speed. Thus in the pull-out they go in a different direction. But this didn't work against Ki-43s. Both major Japanese fighter types though had speed limitations around 400 mph, particularly the K-43, so they would be left behind as the P-40 approached 480-500 mph.

However it was tricky and dangerous to attempt a high speed dive escape. You had to keep track of your instruments to make sure you were diving fast enough but not too fast, your RPMs were in the right range and in the P-40 you had to make trim adjustments as the speed changed to maintain control. During pull out they often found themselves still being chased as pursuing zeros cut the chord so to speak. Quite often they



By the end of 1943 the 'outside loop' escape seemed to be pretty standard, US, RAAF, and RNZAF pilots mention it all the way from New Guinea to India. The more familiar they became with the process the more safely and reliably they could pull it off. But it took some experience getting to that point.

EDIT: corrected the direction of the roll / torque after my being pointed out by *XBe02Drvr*


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Interesting question: *Why would a Spitfire, with its thin wing and sleek wind cheating shape, have an acceleration problem vis a vis its contemporaries, even in a dive?* It has a thin, elliptical wing, which theoretically should give it just about optimum L/D for its aspect ratio at pretty much all useful angles of attack, thereby minimising induced drag. Parasite drag from its highly streamlined fuselage is about as low as it can practically go, leaving the radiator as a potential culprit. But then why aren't other contemporary liquid cooled fighters similarly handicapped?
> Just speculating, I wonder if the wing angle of incidence relative to the thrust line would have anything to do with it. The Spit was designed in an era when fighter dromes were small with obstacles around them, and relatively short takeoffs and landings the norm. It would make sense in that case to mount the wing with its high speed airfoil at a slight positive angle of incidence relative to thrust line and fuselage centerline. Unfortunately, this means that when the pilot "unloads" (zeros the AOA) in order to maximise acceleration, the plane develops a desire to "tuck under" because of the downward canted thrust line relative to the chord line. So the pilot has to maintain a slight positive AOA to counter the "tuck" thereby incurring an induced drag penalty. The A4 Skyhawk was similarly afflicted, and for the same reason.
> The other possibility is a thrust penalty incurred during the "unload", but weren't Spits V and above equipped with pressure carbs or fuel injection? Or at least the infamous orifice?
> Any engineers out there want to jump in?
> ...



Very interesting, I've been wondering about that for years. Could be the answer.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The 109 was a light aircraft (~6400lb for the 109F) but still only had 173 ft2 wing area but a P40 was typically at ~8500lb TO weight but with 236ft2 of wing area. Compared to a Hurricane or a Spitfire the P40 turn radius was terrible as would be expected for an aircraft with such high wing loading. The P40's high roll rate allowed it to enter a turn quickly, but it was terribly handicapped in terms of actual sustained turn radius.



That is an incorrect statement. The wing loading of the P-40 (between 31-35 lbs / sq ft depending on model and weight) was better than most other Allied fighter aircraft - the Spit and the Hurricane were the best of the bunch in that regard, but the Hurricane in particular was hampered by it's sluggish roll performance and high drag.

The Spitfire was the most maneuverable Allied monoplane fighter of the war (considering turn, roll and vertical maneuverability together) so few other types could match it.

No Allied fighter in large scale prduction could out-turn an A6M or Ki-43, including the Spitfire, the Hurricane or the P-40, but the turn rate or 'horizontal maneuverability' of the P-40 was considered one of it's main virtues, along with roll rate and dive speed / acceleration.

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> ThomasP,
> 
> The scissors or roll maneuvers are a done to force your opponent to spit or flush out in front of you. They start with two opponents almost or near equal along each other’s 3 or 9 o’clock.
> 
> ...



The rolling scissors was one of the main tactics used by _experten_ Bf 109F and (early) G model fighters against Spit V's, P-40s, & Hurricanes in the Western Desert whenever they either decided or were forced to enter close maneuvering combat (as opposed to bouncing their targets which was the preferred method). If course like any technique it could be countered but it could also be quite effective especially when suddenly deployed. It was also a good way to set your pursuing opponent up to be hit by your wingman.

Conversely the Yo Yo, but specifically the low-Yo-Yo, was the technique most favored by experienced US P-40 pilots in the PTO and CBI to out-turn A6Ms and Ki-43s while keeping their speed up. It was described in detail by a couple of Aces including Robert DeHaven.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The low altitude cropped impeller MK Vs were capable of good performance in a limited altitude band.
> We are told repeatedly how good the P-40 was at low altitude using high boost. A Spit V with the cropped impeller was within a few mph of a P-40 using 57in of boost (14lbs?) at around 3,000ft. The Spit was using 18lbs. but the Spit could climb around 1000ft/sec faster at low level.



Do you have those exact speed numbers at 3,000 ft? How much does 60" Hg work out to in boost again?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The problem they had not sticking to it was manifold. The navy had a big say in the course of the Zero's career and arguably stifled its and the A7M's development due to lack of foresight, such as the decision to incorporate a less powerful engine in the Zero until it was too late to make a difference, for example, as well as inevitable development delays, not least of which was bombing raids on aircraft factories. the Reppu mock up and thousands of drawings were destroyed in one raid in March 1945.



Hello Nuuumannn,

I suspect that the Navy's choice not to switch the engine from Sakae 21 to Kinsei was made because of its experience going from Sakae 12 to Sakae 21.
When this was first done on the new and improved A6M3 Model 32 "Hamp", the fuselage fuel tank had to be reduced in size and because the Sakae 21 burned more fuel, the range was drastically reduced. This resulted in the brand new Type 0 Mark II being completely out of the fight at Guadalcanal and resulted in the creation of the Model 22 with restored wings and additional fuel tanks. The Kinsei in the A6M would have given even shorter range and also in 1942-1943 wasn't giving 1500 HP but more like 1300 HP.
The eventual installation of the Kinsei in A6M8 also resulted in the complete removal of all nose armament which in the A6M5c still left 2 x 20 mm cannon and 2 x HMG. With the earlier aircraft, the only armament left would have been those two 20 mm with about 100 rounds each which was hardly sufficient. At a cyclic rate of 480-500 rounds per minute, that works out to about 12 seconds of ammunition.

Note also that although the N1K-J and J2M were better performers and made great interceptors, neither had the range to perform the escort missions that the A6M could.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I suspect that the Navy's choice not to switch the engine from Sakae 21 to Kinsei was made because of its experience going from Sakae 12 to Sakae 21.



It would have been interesting to find out whether that was the case or not. Horikoshi wanted the 1,000hp Kinsei over the 950hp Sakai 12 right from the start, but was advised to take the Sakai, so had the Zero been built with the Kinsei, perhaps its career might have been different from the outset. The Sakai enabled the Zero to be a formidable fighter, but perhaps the navy should have placed the Kinsei in a Zero variant sooner, rather than leaving it so late and allowing Horikoshi and his team to produce the fighter around it, particularly when attempts to get the Sakai more power with firstly turbosupercharging in the A6M4, then water meth in the Sakai 31a in the A6M6c was not entirely successful... That ole would'a should'a could'a. With the A6M8 the drive was still to maintain some modicum of performance against superior fighters, so something had to give, regarding weight. It also had an extra fuel tank to make up for the higher consumption of the Kinsei.

Yes, the Kawasaki fighters were certainly excellent, but in the long run the other issue was that neither were carrier capable, so that aspect of the Zero's capability was not met either. The only true replacement for the Zero was the Reppu and the J2M and N1K1, which had its own fair share of issues with its extended landing gear until the better N1K2 meant that the Zero again was kept around for longer than necessary.

One thing puzzles me, I've read a few books on the Zero and I've never seen reference to this 'Type 0 Mk.II'. it's certainly not of Japanese origin that I'm aware of. Yes, the A6M3 differed from the earlier A6M2, with the Sakai 21 and the clipped wings, but does it warrant a "Mk.II" designation over and above "A6M3 Model 32"? The official Japanese designation translated to English was _Mitsubishi A6M3 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 32_. No mention of a "Zero Mk.II" Someone else on this thread has done the same, but I've never seen it before. The fact is, the Zero changed little throughout its career, certainly not to the same degree as the Spitfire and Bf 109 for example and major changes were reflected in the change in numerical designation after "A6M".


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Against A6Ms specifically they would also continue to roll *left* in the dive because the torque of the Zero prevented them from rolling much at high speed.


HUH?? Left? That was the Zero's strong suit. What the testing of the Akutan Zero revealed was a greater difficulty turning *right* rather than left at high speed. Remember Sakai Saburo escaping clouds of Hellcats with repeated hard aileron rolls to the left in his aging Zero?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 4, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> It would have been interesting to find out whether that was the case or not. Horikoshi wanted the 1,000hp Kinsei over the 950hp Sakai 12 right from the start, but was advised to take the Sakai, so had the Zero been built with the Kinsei, perhaps its career might have been different from the outset.



Hello Nuuumannn,

My understanding was that the original intention was to use the Zuisei engine but that the Sakae was substituted because the speed requirement was not met. In "Eagles of Mitsubishi", I believe there was a discussion of the choice between using the Zuisei versus the Kinsei which would have resulted in a larger aircraft.



nuuumannn said:


> The Sakai enabled the Zero to be a formidable fighter, but perhaps the navy should have placed the Kinsei in a Zero variant sooner, rather than leaving it so late and allowing Horikoshi and his team to produce the fighter around it, particularly when attempts to get the Sakai more power with firstly turbosupercharging in the A6M4, then water meth in the Sakai 31a in the A6M6c was not entirely successful... That ole would'a should'a could'a. With the A6M8 the drive was still to maintain some modicum of performance against superior fighters, so something had to give, regarding weight. It also had an extra fuel tank to make up for the higher consumption of the Kinsei.



First of all, replacing it in 1940 would not have worked except to REDUCE the performance. Everyone here keeps quoting Sea Level and Take-Off HP ratings, but that is not the full story.

The Sakae 12 as installed in A6M2 was making
940 HP Take-Off
830 HP at Sea Level
950 HP at 4200 meters

The Kinsei 43 as installed in the D3A1 was making
1000 HP at Sea Level
1080 HP at 2000 meters
990 HP at 2800 meters
(from Война В Воздухе 25)

So what would result is perhaps a LITTLE better speed at low altitude but an overall loss in critical altitude.
60 HP may or may not offset the additional weight for climb performance but a loss of 1400 meters in critical altitude is probably going to cost some maximum speed.
The Kinsei got better, but this was what was available in 1940.
As for Water/Methanol injection, one has to wonder why the Navy never got a proper system working on the Sakae engine.
The Army certainly did with their version of the same engine and Water/Methanol was used on most of the other higher horsepower engines.



nuuumannn said:


> Yes, the Kawasaki fighters were certainly excellent, but in the long run the other issue was that neither were carrier capable....



Towards the end of the war, the Shiden-Kai was being developed into a N1K2-A carrier capable variant. I don't know how far that got but I don't think there were enough carriers left to bother at that point.



nuuumannn said:


> One thing puzzles me, I've read a few books on the Zero and I've never seen reference to this 'Type 0 Mk.II'. it's certainly not of Japanese origin that I'm aware of. Yes, the A6M3 differed from the earlier A6M2, with the Sakai 21 and the clipped wings, but does it warrant a "Mk.II" designation over and above "A6M3 Model 32"? The official Japanese designation translated to English was _Mitsubishi A6M3 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 32_. No mention of a "Zero Mk.II" Someone else on this thread has done the same, but I've never seen it before. The fact is, the Zero changed little throughout its career, certainly not to the same degree as the Spitfire and Bf 109 for example and major changes were reflected in the change in numerical designation after "A6M".



I first saw this in the test report of Hamp at Eagle Farm. I have also seen this in an excerpt from a translation of a captured Japanese manual. I don't have the original in Japanese and couldn't read it anyway.... My translator (Wife) happens to be in Tokyo at the moment. 
That "someone else" who has used the same terms might be me....
Apparently the Model 32, 22, and 52 were all considered "Mark II".

You are right about the changes being much less than with other fighters. The 1130 HP versus 940 HP at Take-Off sounds like a substantial increase, but that is not the really important part. At altitude there really wasn't much increase at all. The only thing significantly different was the critical altitude.
950 HP @ 4200 meters 
versus
980 HP @ 6000 meters

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's worth keeping in mind, there was nothing magical about aircraft armor. Armor and self-sealing fuel tanks were no guarantee of survival.



Lets agree to disagree, there are hundreds of accounts of pilots surviving because of armour protection,





this is a good example, the only injuries the pilot sustained were splinters in his feet, the only part of him not protected by armour.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's worth keeping in mind, there was nothing magical about aircraft armor. Armor and self-sealing fuel tanks were no guarantee of survival. They certainly helped, but even very well protected planes like Fw 190s certainly caught fire and exploded





PAT303 said:


> Lets agree to disagree, there are hundreds of accounts of pilots surviving because of armour protection



Survival anecdotes are not guarantees, merely improved probabilities. It's the survival vs attrition rates that count in the long run. Armor usually does pay off.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> _Most_ pilots were eventually getting killed, captured or maimed on all sides - by enemy pilots, enemy defensive gunners, by flak / AAA, and quite a bit by accidents. The armor, protected fuel tanks, parachutes, air-sea rescue systems and so forth just improved the odds a little bit. But if you go through the day by day air histories, front line fighter pilots had a fairly high attrition rate and probably a majority of them died in most Theaters during the more intense periods of combat.


Except among the western allies, whose pilots had specified tours of duty rather than "fly 'til you die" as the Axis and Soviets did. Thus their valuable experience could be plowed back into the new trainees coming up through the replacement system, improving future survival rates.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> First of all, replacing it in 1940 would not have worked except to REDUCE the performance.



So, why was Horikoshi convinced that the Zero should have had this engine? To answer my own question, Horikoshi was keen on the Kinsei because it was from his own firm, rather than the competitor's engine. I don't know if comparing performance of the Aichi D3A is going to give adequate figures for the Zero with the Kinsei in 1939, nevertheless, you are probably right regarding the figures, but surely the designer of the thing would know what he was doing in insisting on the engine throughout the aircraft's long career.



> I first saw this in the test report of Hamp at Eagle Farm. I have also seen this in an excerpt from a translation of a captured Japanese manual.



I have just looked through a copy of a Technical Air Intelligence document dated 24 September 1945 and on page 2 it states the following: "Manufacturer: Mitsubishi. Japanese designation: Type 0 Mark 2 Carrier Borne Fighter." So there it is. It would be interesting to find out the origin of this, especially since it hasn't come into common use and no references are made to it in books on the Zero. Looking forward to seeing a Japanese translation (hint hint...) Of interest is this page, which is copied from a US aviation magazine, which is about the A6M3 and there is no reference to Mk.2 here. It does give an excellent technical description of the type.

Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3)



> Towards the end of the war, the Shiden-Kai was being developed into a N1K2-A carrier capable variant.



Actually the N1K4a Shiden Kai 4, of which only the one prototype was built in the Spring on 1945, although another source I stumbled onto on the internet states that two prototypes were built in 1944, which were trialled on the carrier Shinano. Too little too late, and with the Reppu having been settled on, the aircraft that was designed to replace the Zero at any rate, the N1K4A appears to have been a knee jerk reaction to the fact the Zero was still in service, rather than an intended development. The N1K series were designed from the outset as land based interceptors.

Kawanishi was drawing up a carrier based interceptor called the A8K by the war's end, which was never built, although work had begun on a mock up of the land based J6K Jinpu, from which the A8K was derived. The A8K was developed for the 20-Shi competition. Mitsubishi, with its hands very full by this time produced the paper A8M Rikufu, from what I have found.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> HUH?? Left? That was the Zero's strong suit. What the testing of the Akutan Zero revealed was a greater difficulty turning *right* rather than left at high speed. Remember Sakai Saburo escaping clouds of Hellcats with repeated hard aileron rolls to the left in his aging Zero?
> Cheers,
> Wes



You are right, I got it backward. I always forget which direction the torque pulls on different fighters - same basic idea though.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Lets agree to disagree, there are hundreds of accounts of pilots surviving because of armour protection,
> View attachment 562724
> 
> this is a good example, the only injuries the pilot sustained were splinters in his feet, the only part of him not protected by armour.



Of course there are thousands of Allied pilots saved by their aircraft armor, but a concentrated burst of 20mm cannon shells, including by a zero, will tear an aircraft like that Spitfire apart, as it will sturdier and / or better protected fighters like a Fw 190 or an Il-2.

The effects of armor and self sealing tanks, and carbon dioxide in the tanks etc., was effectively incremental. It was not a magic cure to being shot down nor killed.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Except among the western allies, whose pilots had specified tours of duty rather than "fly 'til you die" as the Axis and Soviets did. Thus their valuable experience could be plowed back into the new trainees coming up through the replacement system, improving future survival rates.
> Cheers,
> Wes



True but in the early battles, quite often precious few survived to rotate back home to train new pilots. USAAF in Java, Philippines, RAF in Malaysia, and USMC and USN the early days in the Solomons and both USAAF and RAF units at New Guinea are good examples in the Pacific Theater.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 4, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> So, why was Horikoshi convinced that the Zero should have had this engine? To answer my own question, Horikoshi was keen on the Kinsei because it was from his own firm, rather than the competitor's engine. I don't know if comparing performance of the Aichi D3A is going to give adequate figures for the Zero with the Kinsei in 1939, nevertheless, you are probably right regarding the figures, but surely the designer of the thing would know what he was doing in insisting on the engine throughout the aircraft's long career.



Hello Nuuumannn,

When the A6M was first designed, the selection was between the Zuisei and Kinsei and Zuisei won. The Sakae was simply a better engine for the EARLY A6M so it made sense to switch, but as you suggest, that could not have made Mitsubishi happy to install a competitor's engine in their brand new fighter. The numbers I listed were for a Kinsei of 1940. Perhaps the D3A1 installation isn't a great example but I could not find another variant of the same time period.
Switching to Kinsei that early would not have made sense in any case. They had already failed to meet the speed requirement with Zuisei. With Kinsei, I don't see how they would meet the range requirement that the light construction was paying for.

The Kinsei rapidly got more powerful. The Sakae really did not. By 1943 when A6M5 came out, the Kinsei still wasn't a 1500 HP engine but it was still much better than the 980 HP Sakae 21 that was being used and the strategic situation was changing.

Regarding A6M3 Model 32, I do wonder why the design analysis was done on this aircraft. It was the least produced variant and generally regarded as an unsuccessful design.



nuuumannn said:


> The N1K series were designed from the outset as land based interceptors.



You know better than that! N is a Floatplane Fighter.



nuuumannn said:


> Kawanishi was drawing up a carrier based interceptor called the A8K by the war's end, which was never built, although work had begun on a mock up of the land based J6K Jinpu, from which the A8K was derived. The A8K was developed for the 20-Shi competition. Mitsubishi, with its hands very full by this time produced the paper A8M Rikufu, from what I have found.



That sounds like a serious waste of time when both companies had much better things to be doing. Do you happen to know what engines were these aircraft intended to use?

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

*Regarding the Spit V *
It seems to have been an aircraft with a lot of potential, and a lot of bugs to iron out. Early Spit V, VB and VC had several disappointing combat engagements - over the Channel Front against Fw 190s but also against Bf 109Fs; in Soviet use in the Caucasus in 1943; and at Darwin they were basically defeated. In the MTO from mid 1942 - early 1943 they held their own but suffered heavy casualties and certainly did not dominate the Axis fighters (and they did not face a lot of Fw 190s in that Theater). There may have been numerous specific reasons for this in different Theaters but the engine boost ratings have been mentioned (contingent in part on the availability of high-octane fuel), as has the Vokes filter. There was also apparently a pretty severe problem with gun stoppages with their Hispano cannon. And there was the lingering issue with the carburetor as well.

The effectiveness of the Spit V improved dramatically as gun mountings were changed reducing the rate of stoppages and increasing ammunition, new tropical filters were developed. the use of finger - four / pairs formations was adopted beyond England, boost settings were increased from +9 to +16, and specialized low and high altitude variants were created optimizing performance for different missions. So as has been pointed out in the thread, and early configuration Spitfire V flying at low boost with the Vokes filter, at a maximum of +9 boost and jam prone cannons with 60 rounds per gun, was a very different aircraft from a Spit V flying at +16, with the Aboukir filter (or no filter), and more reliable cannons with 120 rounds per gun.

*Regarding the Spit V in Darwin*
At Darwin, there were several highly specific reasons for the debacle. First and I think foremost, maintenance and configuration problems. In a nutshell, the aircraft sent to Australia had some major problems flying and fighting especially above 20,000 ft where their performance edge was supposed to be most pronounced. Gun heaters either weren't installed or had been disconnected and guns repeatedly froze. The glycol had not been drained out when the fighters were shipped and there was a major (and largely unknown) problem with the coolant systems being corroded, and the constant speed propellers had major problems as well. If you read about the various engagements at Darwin you'll note that large numbers of Spitfires were being forced to break off due to mechanical problems.

As far as the tactics, the 'big wing' strategy adopted by Caldwell and embraced some of the other DAF Aces was a very hard won lesson from the MTO. In that Theater, Axis fighters, including Bf 109F and G, and Macchi 202s, consistently had an altitude and speed advantage against all the Allied fighters* (including the Spit Vs) so that the only safe way to prevent being repeatedly bounced from above was to form up into large units of 8-12 fighters and turn into all attacks from above, guns blazing, until the enemy fighters either broke off or lost sufficient energy to be engaged. The Zero was supposed to also have an advantage in climb, according to the legends extant at the time, and Caldwell expected similar problems. His skepticism of the American advice was also somewhat understandable as the Americans were still somewhat in a panic about A6M performance and were very much the students rather than the teachers in the MTO.

In reality - in theory - the Spitfires had superior performance at altitude and a higher critical altitude. But with all the mechanical problems above 20,000 ft the Spitfires were struggling up high. Add to this poor coordination of ground support in terms of early warning, weather forecasting and radio beacons, and the Spitfire pilots were really in a bad situation.

Finally at Darwin Caldwell was also contending with an extremely severe problem with their locally manufactured 20mm ammunition. Shells were coming out of the factories of different lengths, with numerous duds, some dangerous (at risk of exploding), and often tainted with sand or dust on them. He was forced to set up a pre-sorting system for cannon shells. This only exascerbated the already severe problems with gun stoppages and specifically at Darwin, freezing guns which took a while to discover and remedy.

*Regarding the Spitfire more generally and the Fw 190*
Nearly all the problems with the Spit V however were remedied by putting the merlin 60 series engine on it with the Spit IX, and the Spit IX was the solution to the Fw 190 problem. Once you had an aircraft which was just as fast but also vastly more maneuverable, the entire boom and zoom strategy of the 190 was hopelessly outmatched. You couldn't out run it, you couldn't out maneuver it, so what did you do? It was really the older and smaller Bf 109 that bore the burden of keeping up with Allied fighters.

The Spitfire went through many different iterations - for it's time, the Spit I was arguably the best fighter, certainly the best interceptor in the world. The Germans and yes the Japanese as well, proved challenging to the next generation, the Spit V in the early, days of it's deployments (and later deployments of older configurations in remote Theaters). But the Spit IX closed that gap and it never really opened again.

Spit IX, and the longer ranged and more sophisticated VIII, and the XIV etc. which came after, kept the Spitfire ahead of the Axis opposition and, barring jets, capable of enforcing air superiority until the end of the war. So in that sense the Spitfire was superior to the Fw 190.

S


* except for the P-38 - in theory - but they too were suffering from teething problems at altitude


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

More broadly, I wanted to say I really enjoyed reading this thread, it is one of the classics of this forum in my book and I'm glad it was resurrected. Here is my $.02 overall.

There seems to be two schools here - the "conventional wisdom" school that the faster and higher flying planes with armor and heavy guns were always better, and therefore the zero was a dead end design. And the "revisionist" school which points out that the Zero was actually an excellent fighter which, despite a lack of timely upgrades, remained a major threat through 1943.

I tend to lean toward the latter argument but i have a different perspective. I think the Zero was the best overall fighter from 1941-1943 in the Pacific Theater. And the Ki-43 was no slouch either. In the West, the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Fw 190 vied for superiority, with the British winning the Battle of Britain but the Axis in ascendance for much of the period from 1941 - mid 1942, then being pushed back into an inexorable decline by 1943.

The Spitfire was the most important Allied fighter in the European Theater. But it never really had a major impact in the PTO or the CBI. This was in part because it took so long to send any, but it also had to do with the characteristics of the aircraft. It's range and suitability for rough and filthy tropical conditions being major problems.

The A6M had the superb range needed for the PTO, and proved capable of operating from rough airfields. I think it was indeed one of the great fighters of the war, even if it was not as much of a threat in 1944 or 1945 as it was in 1942 or 43. However I don't think it would have done well in Europe. Forget the enemy fighters, just operating over the heavy flak and integrated air defenses would have taken too much of a toll. 

As I've pointed out before, I also think that ultimately, the best Allied aircraft on the Russian Front were the Russian Yak 9 and La 5 / 5FN series fighters. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 proved effective in NW Europe, over Russia, and the MTO, and ultimately in the doomed home defense of Germany. But they, like the Yak and the La 5, would have been near useless in the PTO or Burma.

Each Theater had it's own specific requirements, and in each Theater, the dominant aircraft rose up to meet them. The Americans made the anti-Zero in the F6F, and I do think that was a worthwhile addition to their force, as was the F4U. It's important to have those advantages over the enemy even if it does cause a lot of disruption for a significant period. Same reason the British needed the Spitfire and not just the Hurricane, even though the latter probably shot down more planes in the Battle of Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

*Regarding the P-40 in the PTO*

Of course I'm going to chime in on that. In all the discussion about Darwin in this thread, though the P-40 was mentioned, there was little review of the basic fact that prior to the Spitfires arrival there, the US 49th Fighter group had done essentially the same mission with ostensibly highly inferior fighters, and did a better job - from March to September 1942.

This is probably an ideal summary of the whole tour:

The USAAF 49th Fighter Group over Darwin: a forgotten campaign | The Strategist

But in a nutshell, they had an experienced commander Lieutenant Colonel Paul Wurtsmith (like Caldwell), but they only had a handful of experienced pilots to fly their 60 brand new P-40Es. To put in perspective: "_out of its initial strength of 102 pilots, 95 had never flown the P-40 before. _"

As with the later raids against the Spitfires, the Japanese came in mostly at high altitude, above 25 - 27,000 ft, in their attacks. P-40Es did not fly well at this height, which was 9,000 ft above their critical altitude and basically right at their service ceiling. Wurtsmith and his XO Don Hutchinson heeded the advice of the few combat veterans in their unit who had faced Japanese planes at Java and in the Philippines, and devised a strategy to win the battle.

They knew by then that the P-40 could escape Japanese fighters by diving away. They had (luckily) already adopted the finger-four system with two pairs, making this quartet a viable flying unit. So they would send groups of four fighters at a time to attack the Japanese formations. Their mission was to shoot at the bombers (usually G4M "Bettys") and then if attacked by fighters, immediately dive away. Then another group of four fighters would attack. You could call this the 'small wing' strategy. If they were chased to below 16,000 ft, they could engage the Japanese fighters. Otherwise they would fly away, extend, then zoom back up as high as they could, claw their way back up to 26,000 ft and do the whole thing all over again.

Meanwhile, if the Japanese pursued the P-40s, they left the bombers vulnerable. They could also become isolated and get bounced while chasing US fighters.

Ultimately, in spite of severe maintenance problems of their own, the difficult tropical conditions, lack of adequate warning, and the extreme inexperience of their pilots, the 49th FG was successful in their mission. They did not dominate the A6M, but they did manage to knock down enough bombers to slow down the raids and stop them for a while. And they didn't lose as many fighters as the Spitfires did. From the article I linked above:

_"Over the period March to August 1942, Japanese records reveal nineteen Japanese aircraft were lost in the raids on Darwin. Losses comprised one reconnaissance aircraft, seven fighters and twelve bombers, plus several more damaged. In turn, the 49th Fighter Group lost nineteen fighters, including four pilots, with another eight pilots lost in non-combat-related accidents."_

This to me was the role of the P-40 in many Theaters. It was not the ideal fighter for the PTO, for the MTO, for the Russian Front or even the CBI where it did best. But due to in large part to the ability to disengage, as well as reasonably good range / endurance and a knack for causing serious damage to enemy aircraft - and yes toughness and ruggedness (though they too had major mechanical problems in the early days) it proved capable of engaging enemy fighters sufficiently well to put a dent in enemy air activity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

One other point - it wasn't just the AVG which did well against Japanese Army fighters (and later Zeros) in the CBI- they were taken over by the 23rd FG etc. , also equipped with P-40s well into 1944, and continued to manage an uneven record against the IJA forces in Theater.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> P-40Es did not fly well at this height, which was 9,000 ft above their critical altitude and basically right at their service ceiling. Wurtsmith and his XO Don Hutchinson heeded the advice of the few combat veterans in their unit who had faced Japanese planes at Java and in the Philippines, and devised a strategy to win the battle.


This modification of tactics to suit your adversary's limitations makes me wonder if the IJN could have used a few European and US fighters in their pre-war training. Was there an opportunity pre-Pacific War for the Japanese to capture and restore any P-40s, Hurricanes or Spitfires? Would the Germans have any? The IJAAF bought five Bf 109. It just seems from an intelligence and know your enemy POV, Japan was woefully unprepared for the war they started.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

The Japanese did have some, the Germans did as well of course.






I think the efficacy of these Allied tactics took a while to solidify. 49th FG was certainly one of the best US units in the PTO (they had numerous aces including Thomas McGuire, Richard Bong, and Robert DeHaven). For such tactics to work took proficiency of the pilots, good leadership and a significant amount of discipline, which was unevenly distributed in Allied units. It also didn't work as well with all aircraft (P-39 squadrons had a considerably less stellar record). There was a lot of give and take and the Japanese did adapt their tactics in various ways. In 1942 and much of 1943 they were still inflicting heavy losses on Allied aircraft.

But gradually the shift from 'Blitzkrieg' to attrition war took their toll. In the example above of the 49th FG at Darwin, the Japanese and Americans both lost 19 aircraft. But the Japanese probably lost 20 pilots and a total of 94 aircrew (12 bomber pilots plus 72 additional bomber crew, 7 fighter pilots and 1 recon aircraft pilot plus 2 crew) whereas the Americans lost 4 pilots in combat, plus another 8 in accidents for a total of 12 pilots. That 94-12 ratio was unsustainable for the Japanese who had a smaller population, far fewer resources and a much slower training output.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

It's also worth noting, from what I've been reading lately, it seems like the greatest number of losses on Japanese aircraft in the PTO in 1942 and 1943 _by far_, was due to low level bombing raids by US light and medium bombers such as the B-26, B-25, and A-20, as well as fighter-bomber attacks and also heavy bomber raids from B-17s and B-24s. Large numbers of Japanese fighters and bombers were smashed up on the ground while parked on cramped jungle airfields during swift hit and run air raids.

This is incidentally the same pattern which seems to emerge in the MTO against the Luftwaffe in 1943, per Shores.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Dec 4, 2019)

Gentlemen,

The Japanese did more with the P-40 than capture them and evaluate them. Please see:

Captured P-40

FYI

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

That's pretty interesting, active in defense of Rangoon and friendly fire incidents...


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Do you have those exact speed numbers at 3,000 ft? How much does 60" Hg work out to in boost again?




Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Of course there are thousands of Allied pilots saved by their aircraft armor, but a concentrated burst of 20mm cannon shells, including by a zero, will tear an aircraft like that Spitfire apart, as it will sturdier and / or better protected fighters like a Fw 190 or an Il-2.



Again I'm in disagreement, both the British and German designers went to great lengths to protect their pilots, the British used equipment such as the radio and oxygen system in front of the armour to create spaced armour, it worked the same as the hollow wedges fitted to mantlet of the Leo2




There is a very strong view that the RAF should have fitted .50 cals to the Hurri and Spit but when both the .303 and .50 calibre were tested, the .50 offered no penetration advantage over the smaller round, a result many refuse to believe. The reason the .50 did not provide better performance was the bullets were knocked of axis after entering the rear fuselage and cutting through the equipment in front of the armour plate at oblique angles, I had a copy of the test somewhere that showed that a majority of the .50 strikes on the armour plate were sideways, when we get to the Spitfire 20 series they had armour that was proofed against all German 20mm AP shells, I don't know the distance unfortunately. Both the Allies and Germany went to great lengths to harden their aircraft to the detriment of performance, that would not have been done if they thought a quick burst would still knock the plane from the sky, or the need to move to ever bigger cannons and/or more effective ammunition.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 4, 2019)

60 inches Hg ==
2.07 ATA
+764 mm (Japanese)
1524 mm (Russian)
+14.77 pounds (British)
29.47 psi (absolute)

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Again I'm in disagreement, both the British and German designers went to great lengths to protect their pilots, the British used equipment such as the radio and oxygen system in front of the armour to create spaced armour, it worked the same as the hollow wedges fitted to mantlet of the Leo2



Hello Pat303,

I don't think spaced armour on Tanks is really for the same reason unless you are expecting to be attacked by shaped charges (Monroe Effect) such as from a PIAT or Bazooka or HESH rounds. Regardless of armour, the majority of an aircraft's structure is a soft target. Note that the Germans eventually equipped their cannons with thin case "Mine shells" which had no AP capability but carried more explosive.



PAT303 said:


> There is a very strong view that the RAF should have fitted .50 cals to the Hurri and Spit but when both the .303 and .50 calibre were tested, the .50 offered no penetration advantage over the smaller round, a result many refuse to believe. The reason the .50 did not provide better performance was the bullets were knocked of axis after entering the rear fuselage and cutting through the equipment in front of the armour plate at oblique angles, I had a copy of the test somewhere that showed that a majority of the .50 strikes on the armour plate were sideways, when we get to the Spitfire 20 series they had armour that was proofed against all German 20mm AP shells, I don't know the distance unfortunately. Both the Allies and Germany went to great lengths to harden their aircraft to the detriment of performance, that would not have been done if they thought a quick burst would still knock the plane from the sky, or the need to move to ever bigger cannons and/or more effective ammunition.



The first question would be WHICH .50 caliber HMG was tested against the .303? If it was the British .50 cal, that was not a powerful gun. You do realize that the Spitfire eventually did substitute 2 x .50 BMG in the inboard cannon bays for the 4 x .303 in the outer wings.

There must be more to this test than what is described here. I can't imagine armour penetration from a single angle is the only deciding factor. If this is the .50 BMG, it has advantages in initial and retained velocity, about 4 times the bullet mass and even moving sideways is going to tear up some soft structure of an aircraft.

You also might want to note that German statistics on the number of hits to make a kill suggest that the end result of all this "hardening" didn't really make a difference.

- Ivan.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 4, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> You know better than that! N is a Floatplane Fighter.



Ah, yes! You got me there, Ivan. Indeed it was. I should have put N1K1, but you know what I meant.



Ivan1GFP said:


> That sounds like a serious waste of time when both companies had much better things to be doing. Do you happen to know what engines were these aircraft intended to use?



The A8K was to have a Nakajima Homare 21. Here is a picture of the J6K1 mock up, the type that the A8K was to be based on, with appropriate data:

日本の名機（陣風） 

This is the instrument panel for the Jinpu:

CG　日本海軍　18試甲試作戦闘機「陣風」

The J6K was derived from the projected J3K (17-Shi Fighter) fitted with a two-stage supercharged Mitsubishi HA-43, originally Kawanishi wanted the Homare, but the navy ordered the Mitsi engine, but the HA-43 was troublesome in development and because Kawanishi was working on improving the N1K1 into the N1K2, the J3K quietly disappeared and was resurrected as the J6K with the supercharged Nakajima Homare 42.



Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding A6M3 Model 32, I do wonder why the design analysis was done on this aircraft. It was the least produced variant and generally regarded as an unsuccessful design.



Hm, not sure. Perhaps it was the first publicly released in-depth information on the type? Although the Aleutian Zero, an A6M2 Zero 21 had been analysed and test flown against US types, its recovery and subsequent tests were kept secret for some time after the fact.

I have a clue regarding the use of the Zero Mk 2 appelation, on the dataplates, of which I have seen of an A6M2 and '3, the second line down from the top stipulates the aircraft name. The A6M2 is as follows: "Reishiki Type No.1 Carrier-borne Fighter Plane , design 2" and I reckon that the A6M3 is likely to read "Reishiki Type No.2 Carrier-borne Fighter Plane, design 3" See below:

https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/a6m3/3018/dataplate/dataplate3018.jpg

In Japanese, the Zero was Reishiki Sento Ki, or Type Zero Fighter, shortened to Rei-sen - apparently the A6M designation was not frquently used by the Japanese and Zero-sen became the common use name for the type, which we know already.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Again I'm in disagreement, both the British and German designers went to great lengths to protect their pilots, the British used equipment such as the radio and oxygen system in front of the armour to create spaced armour, it worked the same as the hollow wedges fitted to mantlet of the Leo2
> View attachment 562759
> There is a very strong view that the RAF should have fitted .50 cals to the Hurri and Spit but when both the .303 and .50 calibre were tested, the .50 offered no penetration advantage over the smaller round, a result many refuse to believe. The reason the .50 did not provide better performance was the bullets were knocked of axis after entering the rear fuselage and cutting through the equipment in front of the armour plate at oblique angles, I had a copy of the test somewhere that showed that a majority of the .50 strikes on the armour plate were sideways, when we get to the Spitfire 20 series they had armour that was proofed against all German 20mm AP shells, I don't know the distance unfortunately. Both the Allies and Germany went to great lengths to harden their aircraft to the detriment of performance, that would not have been done if they thought a quick burst would still knock the plane from the sky, or the need to move to ever bigger cannons and/or more effective ammunition.



Without getting into the specific armor panoplies of each major aircraft type, which were not, lets just say, always ideal, let alone the notion that .30 caliber bullets had equivalent armor penetration to .50 caliber (if this was really the conclusion of an RAF study, why did they start putting .50 cals on RAF fighters late in the war?), how many rounds of 20mm cannon shells do you think a given fighter aircraft can absorb without going down? Ten? Twenty? Thirty?

The armor only protects certain vital area. You put 5 or 10 cannon shells in the wing root or tail of most WW2 fighters and they are going to break apart. The same will happen with enough .50 cal or equivalent HMG, or even (at closer range) enough LMG bullets.

Nor is 5 or 10 or even 15mm of armor necessarily going to even stop a heavy caliber bullet, especially armor piercing bullets or shells.






Yes the armor helped, no it was no guarantee.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

Even tanks routinely blew up and caught on fire. Aircraft were a lot less heavily armored than tanks.


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 4, 2019)

On the subject of fitting the Kinsei to the A6M, the Kinsei 50 series was in production in 1941 and was fitted to the H6K5 flying boat, which was ordered into production in case the H8K was seriously delayed and delivered over 1941 and early in 1942 with production stopped once the H8K was seen to be a success. They were also used by the G3M3, the last G3Ms produced.

Using data from q‹ó‹@ƒGƒ“ƒWƒ“ˆê——E“ú–{ŒR (Goodwin and Starkings agrees but leave some numbers as question marks), for take off we have 1300 ps at 2600 rpm for the Kinsei 51 and 1130 ps at 2750 rpm for the Sakae 21. At 6200 metres, the Kinsei 51 gave 1100 ps at 2500 rpm while at 6000 metres the Sakae 21 gave 980 ps at 2700 rpm (both translated as military power). The Kinsei weighed 640 kg compared to 590 kg for the Sakae.

Thus a 1941 A6M8 would have lost the two 7.7 mm machine guns, increased in weight and probably in fuel consumption but benefited from an extra 120 ps at altitude. The Kinsei 60 series was first used in December 1942 for the Ki-46 III prototype. The variant powering the real A6M8 gave 1250 ps at 5800 metres and 2600 rpm (probably with an extra bearing to allow higher rpm but with an increase in weight to 675 kg). The A6M8's quoted max speed of 356 mph suggests that we would see about 341 mph with a Kinsei 50 series engine ignoring the slight difference in weight. However, the A6M8 was able to dive significantly faster than a 1941 Zero due to thicker skinning and carried a heavier armament.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Without getting into the specific armor panoplies of each major aircraft type, which were not, lets just say, always ideal, let alone the notion that .30 caliber bullets had equivalent armor penetration to .50 caliber (if this was really the conclusion of an RAF study, why did they start putting .50 cals on RAF fighters late in the war?), how many rounds of 20mm cannon shells do you think a given fighter aircraft can absorb without going down? Ten? Twenty? Thirty?
> 
> The armor only protects certain vital area. You put 5 or 10 cannon shells in the wing root or tail of most WW2 fighters and they are going to break apart. The same will happen with enough .50 cal or equivalent HMG, or even (at closer range) enough LMG bullets.
> 
> Nor is 5 or 10 or even 15mm of armor necessarily going to even stop a heavy caliber bullet, especially armor piercing bullets or shells.



If you are shooting bare armor (armour with nothing in front of it) the .50 has a tremendous advantage over the rifle caliber machine guns. however what the British found with their tests was that the .50 cal bullets yawed/tipped more than the smaller caliber bullets after penetrating skin/light structure, especially if the impact angle was low. AP bullets that hit armor while going sideways don't penetrate very well. 

We are also confusing things here with the British use of the .50 in the Spitfire. The British started fitting the .50 cal guns once they had gone to gyro gunsights, The .50s extra striking power was no longer balanced against the much greater hit probability of the four .303s. The Gyro gun sight raising the hit probability of the 20mm and .50 cal guns substantially

Most fighters were NOT going to stand up to very many 20mm hits (like 4-5) as shown by the Spitfire in the photos earlier in the thread. 3 hits and the plane never flew again, Note buckling of rear fuselage in photos although I don't know if it happened in flight or upon landing. Germans figured about 20 rounds of 20mm ammo to take out a B-17 on average. Chances of any single engine fighter surviving more hits than a B-17 are pretty slim. 

Armour penetration depends an awful lot on "clean" hits and high angles of impact (near 90 degrees) 

I would note that the British and Germans both used "spaced" armor on tanks long before shaped charges became common. The spaced armor again worked by causing the projectile to tip and not hit the main armor square and by sometimes causing the cap of capped projectiles to come loose before hitting the main armor. 
This last "trick" was sometimes used on ships and a thin armour bulkhead or deck was referred to as a decapping bulkhead or deck in the path before the main armor was hit. There was some controversy on this and not all naval architects thought that was a better use of weight than one thick piece of armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That is an incorrect statement. The wing loading of the P-40 (between 31-35 lbs / sq ft depending on model and weight) was better than most other Allied fighter aircraft - the Spit and the Hurricane were the best of the bunch in that regard, but the Hurricane in particular was hampered by it's sluggish roll performance and high drag.
> 
> The Spitfire was the most maneuverable Allied monoplane fighter of the war (considering turn, roll and vertical maneuverability together) so few other types could match it.
> 
> ...




The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate:

A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45


----------



## Greyman (Dec 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We are also confusing things here with the British use of the .50 in the Spitfire. The British started fitting the .50 cal guns once they had gone to gyro gunsights, The .50s extra striking power was no longer balanced against the much greater hit probability of the four .303s. The Gyro gun sight raising the hit probability of the 20mm and .50 cal guns substantially



Not to mention the .50-in trajectory being a far better match with the 20-mm throughout the effective range of the Gyro sight. Whereas with the relatively short-ranged capabilities of a regular sight the .303-in / 20-mm discrepancy wasn't much of an issue.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 4, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate:
> 
> A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45



We've been over that before in great depth - no it didn't.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Most fighters were NOT going to stand up to very many 20mm hits (like 4-5) as shown by the Spitfire in the photos earlier in the thread. (snip). Germans figured about 20 rounds of 20mm ammo to take out a B-17 on average. Chances of any single engine fighter surviving more hits than a B-17 are pretty slim.



I'm going to leave the other (to me ridiculous) debate about LMG vs. HMG alone, _this_ is the point I was making. I might put the threshold slightly higher depending on the fighter but that was the same point I was making - a short burst of 20mm cannon could knock out just about any fighter. Armor helped and it's also possible the fighter might survive but it's no guarantee.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 562787​


Some surprising info in that chart. Most notably the later model p38s outroll anything( save one model of the p40) if you really keep it moving. Not what I would have expected to see.


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 5, 2019)

The Air Ministry tests of .50 cal Browning vs .5" Vickers vs .303 cal MG (various makers) took place from 1932-1935.

At the time the .50 cal Browning had a MV of 2500 ft/sec max for the longer barreled version, and around 2350-2400 ft/sec for the aircraft version. ROF was in the 500-600 rpm range max. The .5" Vickers had a MV of 2500 ft/sec and a ROF of about 650 rpm in the aircraft variant. The .50 cal Browning had a heavier projectile.

The various .303 cal MGs tested had ROFs of from 900-1200 rpm.

Although the armour penetration of the .50 cal and .5" was a little higher than that of the .303 cal it was not considered a significant difference.

The Air Ministry concluded that for use against fighter aircraft (none of which had armour or SSFT at the time) the higher ROF and greater number of guns that could be carried were more important than the size of round. This was not considered ideal against larger aircraft (ie bombers) but was acceptable until the preferred 20 mm cannon became available.

Fans of the .50 cal Browning might like to know that ammunition with MVs of 2700-2900 ft/sec only began entering service in any significant volume in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm going to leave the other (to me ridiculous) debate about LMG vs. HMG alone, _this_ is the point I was making. I might put the threshold slightly higher depending on the fighter but that was the same point I was making - a short burst of 20mm cannon could knock out just about any fighter. Armor helped and it's also possible the fighter might survive but it's no guarantee.



If the plane saves the pilots life, either by letting him land like the Spitfire did in my earlier post or by allowing him to get out before it burns it's done it's job, bothe the RAF and Luftwaffe fitted protection to all their planes before the commencement of the BoB after what they learnt over France. The total lack of protection the A6M gave it's pilot is a flawed idea.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 5, 2019)

The first question would be WHICH .50 caliber HMG was tested against the .303? If it was the British .50 cal, that was not a powerful gun. You do realize that the Spitfire eventually did substitute 2 x .50 BMG in the inboard cannon bays for the 4 x .303 in the outer wings.

There must be more to this test than what is described here. I can't imagine armour penetration from a single angle is the only deciding factor. If this is the .50 BMG, it has advantages in initial and retained velocity, about 4 times the bullet mass and even moving sideways is going to tear up some soft structure of an aircraft.

You also might want to note that German statistics on the number of hits to make a kill suggest that the end result of all this "hardening" didn't really make a difference.

- Ivan.[/QUOTE]

Watch from around 55 seconds,  the bullet keyholes and deviates off target shooting through thin steel sheet, the same thing happened during the RAF testing, the bullets tumbled after entering the rear fuselage and hit the seat armour sideways giving no penetration advantage over the 303 guns.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 5, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> the bullet keyholes and deviates off target shooting through thin steel sheet, the same thing happened during the RAF testing, the bullets tumbled after entering the rear fuselage and hit the seat armour sideways giving no penetration advantage over the 303 guns.


Again, was that RAF test conducted with Browning or Vickers .50s? The different cartridges are apt to give different terminal ballistics. I don't know if the cartridge in the video was Browning M2 or not, but I did notice it went through 6 sheets of 18 gauge steel before it started to keyhole, which is a lot more than the 1 or 2 pieces of aluminum it would encounter in the aft fuselage of a WWII fighter before it hit the armor.
Our old weapons instructor in ROTC, Sergeant Garland, said the Browning .50 M2 was a stand out in its class due to a heavier projectile, higher muzzle velocity, and gain twist rifling which imparted a faster spin to the projectile, giving it more stability and greater effective range. He should know, as he was a .50 cal gunner in Korea. He said he could take out a NK 12.7 mm team before they could get close enough to use theirs. "The gooks learned to respect a 50."
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 5, 2019)

The British tested both the Browning and Vickers .50, the reason the .50 BMG out ranged other guns was also the reason it tumbled, the sleek ballistic shape of the bullet made it base heavy causing it to be knocked off axis and tumble with minimal effort, the exact design feature of the Mk7 303 round and the reason for its effectiveness on men, furthermore, the British found that the bullets tumbled after entering the rear fuselage because of the oblique angle they impacted on, notice on the video that the bullet tumbled after only six sheets set at 90 degree's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2019)

As Pat303 has said. to simulate the aircraft scenario put a sheet of metal (even aluminium) at about 10 degrees or less to the flight path of the bullet a number of feet from the armor. 


As a side note, the Americans started getting the high velocity .50 cal ammo in 1940, how quickly it replace the low velocity ammo is subject to question in 1940/41. HUndreds of thousands of rounds of the low velocity ammo were sold to the British as surplus before lend lease and to get around other neutrality laws. 
The British were placing orders for the low velocity ammo in 1940-41 and delivers took place when? Please note British .50 cal ammo (as opposed to .5in) was supplied by both a British company and one (Remington) or more ( surplus? American ammo through a loop hole before lendlease). 
I don't know when or if the British ever changed their specifications on .50 cal ammo or simply took lend lease American ammo.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 5, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Lets agree to disagree, there are hundreds of accounts of pilots surviving because of armour protection,
> View attachment 562724
> 
> this is a good example, the only injuries the pilot sustained were splinters in his feet, the only part of him not protected by armour.



Great picture, now was that damage sustained in flight or a strafing attack, the pic is a little small to see but it looks to me that the canopy glass is shattered as well.


----------



## rochie (Dec 5, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Great picture, now was that damage sustained in flight or a strafing attack, the pic is a little small to see but it looks to me that the canopy glass is shattered as well.


that happened in the air.

the Spitfire was delivered to the Sqn that day and almost immediately scrambled on an intercept, (they didnt even have time to paint on its Sqn and Aircraft codes ).
the spitfire returned very shortly after and was written off, its operational life was something like 16 minutes if i remember correctly (going from memory here  )

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 5, 2019)

rochie said:


> that happened in the air.
> 
> the Spitfire was delivered to the Sqn that day and almost immediately scrambled on an intercept, (they didnt even have time to paint on its Sqn and Aircraft codes ).
> the spitfire returned very shortly after and was written off, its operational life was something like 16 minutes if i remember correctly (going from memory here  )



Awesome, thanks for the info, man, that looks like one lucky pilot there. I realize some say the Spit was a bit on the fragile side (I don't know and don't have an opinion) but I'd say that one was pretty tough.


----------



## rochie (Dec 5, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Awesome, thanks for the info, man, that looks like one lucky pilot there. I realize some say the Spit was a bit on the fragile side (I don't know and don't have an opinion) but I'd say that one was pretty tough.


my pleasure.

i have it in a book somewhere, there's a small passage on it with details of pilot, Sqn etc, i will post it if i can find it


----------



## pbehn (Dec 5, 2019)

rochie said:


> my pleasure.
> 
> i have it in a book somewhere, there's a small passage on it with details of pilot, Sqn etc, i will post it if i can find it


Arent there two pictures, showing both sides? The other side cannot be described as a metal skinned monoplane, it is blown out like a balloon.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 5, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

If that's s/n X4118/9 I wonder why its missing.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 5, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Watch from around 55 seconds,  the bullet keyholes and deviates off target shooting through thin steel sheet, the same thing happened during the RAF testing, the bullets tumbled after entering the rear fuselage and hit the seat armour sideways giving no penetration advantage over the 303 guns.




Hello Pat303,

There are a few serious problems with coming to ANY conclusions from this test.
First of all, please note the incendiary burst that was noted on plates 3,4 which also show much larger holes before which there was no noticeable yawing.
Note also that the projectile was never actually stopped by the 18 gauge plates but simply started missing them when it veered off enough.

I won't argue that a .50 cal won't tumble because it obviously will, especially in a shallow angle hit against the aft fuselage of a Spitfire. One has to wonder though, if this is what happens with a 750 grain (? I don't know what the API weighs) bullet, what would happen with a 174 grain bullet moving even slower?
Note that the .50 cal is still ripping through all the 18 gauge steel until it missed the last plates. How much aircraft structure is as strong as 18 gauge steel?
What happens if we back up a couple hundred yards to actual aerial engagement distances? The heavier projectile gets relatively better because it retains velocity better.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Some surprising info in that chart. Most notably the later model p38s outroll anything( save one model of the p40) if you really keep it moving. Not what I would have expected to see.



Hello Michael Rauls,

The late model P-38 had hydraulic boost on ailerons. From what I have read and watched in descriptions, there was a noticeable lag in response before the aircraft began to roll, but the rate was VERY high once it got moving.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> If that's s/n X4118/9 I wonder why its missing.
> 
> View attachment 562852​


It's X4110 with 602 Squadron, F/t Lt D. Urie - 18 August 1940 (602 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, Sandy Johnstone's Spitfire into War, various Alfred Price Spitfire Books).


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the British and Germans both used "spaced" armor on tanks long before shaped charges became common. The spaced armor again worked by causing the projectile to tip and not hit the main armor square and by sometimes causing the cap of capped projectiles to come loose before hitting the main armor.
> This last "trick" was sometimes used on ships and a thin armour bulkhead or deck was referred to as a decapping bulkhead or deck in the path before the main armor was hit. There was some controversy on this and not all naval architects thought that was a better use of weight than one thick piece of armor.



Hello Shortround6,

At the risk of going way off topic, I believe the reason that those tanks used spaced armor was a bit different.
First of all, note that except for Pz VI (Tiger) and the frontal armor of Pz V (Panther), German tanks of WW2 tended to be relatively lightly armored overall.
The initial application of supplemental armor was typically on the turret and glacis especially on the Pz III which was getting outmatched in about every way possible.
The skirts and screens didn't come until a bit later.

I believe the British use of supplemental armor was also on their less well protected Cruiser tanks and not on their "Infantry" tanks.

I am not really a tank enthusiast but another observation is that German tanks except for Tiger and possibly Panther didn't tend to be particularly well armored. Even the post-war Leopard I was relatively lightly armored for a MBT.

- Ivan.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

The clip I posted says the aircraft, X4110 was shot down by a 109 and abandoned. The last number is either an 8 or a 9; notice how the number is almost closed at the top of the hatch.


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The clip I posted says the aircraft, X4110 was shot down by a 109 and abandoned. The last number is either an 8 or a 9; notice how the number is almost closed at the top of the hatch.
> 
> View attachment 562874​


I'm aware of all that. Check 602 Squadron's Operations Record Book or if you really want to get in the weeds go to the Imperial War Museum and pull X4110's Form 78.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

Why?


----------



## Sturzkampfflugzeug (Dec 5, 2019)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


The Zero had little advantage over the Pacific really until the Battle over the Phillipines. But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 5, 2019)

Königstiger Ausf. B said:


> The Zero had little advantage over the Pacific really until the Battle over the Phillipines. But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.



I would recommend reading the preceding 33 pages of posts

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 5, 2019)

Königstiger Ausf. B said:


> But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.


Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater. 
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 5, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 5, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.


The Spitfire V was deliberately limited to the actual conditions that Spitfires were flying combat under at the time. There would be no value in doing a test that "artificially" elevated the Spit's performance above those actually flying combat. Now if that exercise was an effort to "lobby" for an increase in boost limits, it makes sense, and apparently it worked, as the limit was raised from 9 to 16 pounds.
The "rated" horsepower derived in the UK in ideal conditions has no meaning to tired airplanes operating with tropical filters at tropical temperatures with less than optimum fuel and forced to fight at altitudes not optimum for its supercharger setup.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 5, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.



Do you happen to have a link to that report again? I know I have it somewhere but can't seem to find it at the moment. I can find the result of tactical trials and the flight testing of HAP though.

- Ivan.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pat303,
> 
> There are a few serious problems with coming to ANY conclusions from this test.
> First of all, please note the incendiary burst that was noted on plates 3,4 which also show much larger holes before which there was no noticeable yawing.
> ...



The whole point was to show how bullets react when hitting a target, if you read any discussion on the effectiveness of the .50 BMG you will find people saying it can penetrate 25mm of plate at 500m etc which it will if it hits at 90 degree's, trouble is shooting at a plane the angles are not 90 degree's and the bullets have to go through numerous objects before they reach the rear seat plate, you must also remember the BoB was in 1940, the Browning .50 and it's ammunition of that time was a very different animal to what was used in 1944-5.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2019)

This might be of interest

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 5, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The whole point was to show how bullets react when hitting a target, if you read any discussion on the effectiveness of the .50 BMG you will find people saying it can penetrate 25mm of plate at 500m etc which it will if it hits at 90 degree's, trouble is shooting at a plane the angles are not 90 degree's and the bullets have to go through numerous objects before they reach the rear seat plate, you must also remember the BoB was in 1940, the Browning .50 and it's ammunition of that time was a very different animal to what was used in 1944-5.



Hello Pat303,

I was really trying to point out that when your projectile detonates as it clearly did at plate 3 and 4, I would not expect it to penetrate much further and for it to yaw would be pretty reasonable. That is why I commented that this wasn't really a good example of anything.
If you were REALLY trying to see what kind of anti-armor performance this round had, you would be using simple AP rounds instead of API rounds.
The ammunition differences are something I was already aware of. It is one of the things one has to keep track of when calculating disposable loads. The earlier rounds for the .50 cal BMG are a bit heavier than the later rounds.
IIRC, the early war stuff averages about 5.0 ounces while the later ones are about 4.8 ounces.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> 
> The late model P-38 had hydraulic boost on ailerons. From what I have read and watched in descriptions, there was a noticeable lag in response before the aircraft began to roll, but the rate was VERY high once it got moving.
> 
> - Ivan.


I believe I read somewhere that the P38's aileron boost was not proportional; it was all or nothing with no halfway measures in its repertoire. I believe there was a pilot account of being unable to make a moderate banked turn in routine maneuvering with the system turned on. With it turned off, the ailerons were apparently very heavy and not at all harmonized with elevator and rudder effort/response. Made for seriously challenging formation flying.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pat303,
> 
> I was really trying to point out that when your projectile detonates as it clearly did at plate 3 and 4, I would not expect it to penetrate much further and for it to yaw would be pretty reasonable. That is why I commented that this wasn't really a good example of anything.
> If you were REALLY trying to see what kind of anti-armor performance this round had, you would be using simple AP rounds instead of API rounds.
> ...




Diagrams of some .50 cal bullets





The M2 ball and M2 AP are the high velocity rounds (compared to the M1) please note the only difference is that the steel core may be different alloy and _is_ hardened in the AP round. 

Please note the API, M8 round (most common aircraft ammo after some point in 1943?) replaces the lead-antimony point filler with incendiary material and not a lot of it. This round's color coding seems to match the round used in the video. 

Now please note that all three rounds (and the M20)* IF* penetrating armor (or heavy structure) are going have the jacket at the nose and the nose filler stripped away as the core penetrates the actual armor. Also note that the incendiary material does not "detonate", it ignites and is not going to blow the core backwards (or retard velocity) or cause any more disruption to the path of the core that stripping away the jacket and nose filler would. 
The Incendiary M23 is a very late WW II bullet that was undergoing combat trails and was not general issue in WW II although it was a standard bullet in Korea.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sturzkampfflugzeug (Dec 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Hm.Mustve missed that


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 6, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Do you happen to have a link to that report again? I know I have it somewhere but can't seem to find it at the moment. I can find the result of tactical trials and the flight testing of HAP though.
> 
> - Ivan.


This is a summary of the report:

http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 6, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> This is a summary of the report:
> 
> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero



Thanks RCAFson,

I actually have a scanned copy of the actual tactical trials. I was hoping for a engine boost settings versus altitude of the actual Spitfire used in these tests. In other words, I am curious as to the "speed advantage" that Hap had over the Spitfire at lower altitudes and what might have been expected if this were the A6M2 instead.

EDIT
I just went back to re-read the article at the link you posted. From what I can tell, the author of the article probably never actually read the test report of HAP because many of the details don't match what is in the report and also doesn't seem to know much about the A6M series either from the report or from the manual to give a fair comparison.

- Ivan.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The Spitfire V was deliberately limited to the actual conditions that Spitfires were flying combat under at the time. There would be no value in doing a test that "artificially" elevated the Spit's performance above those actually flying combat. Now if that exercise was an effort to "lobby" for an increase in boost limits, it makes sense, and apparently it worked, as the limit was raised from 9 to 16 pounds.
> The "rated" horsepower derived in the UK in ideal conditions has no meaning to tired airplanes operating with tropical filters at tropical temperatures with less than optimum fuel and forced to fight at altitudes not optimum for its supercharger setup.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The trials were done in Aug 1943. Approval for Merlin46/16lb boost was given by the RAF in Jan 1942. If the RAAF decided not to allow 16lb boost then they deliberately crippled the performance of their Spitfires. Another example of this was Caldwell's decision not to use the supplied 30IG drop tanks in the initial, disastrous engagements. I beg to differ on the UK test data, as most test data is converted to standard conditions, and we have the results of RAAF SpitfireV/Merlin46 tests using 16lb boost (in the fall of 1943) and they are a close match to UK data.


----------



## taly01 (Dec 6, 2019)

Thanks Glider for the aircraft gun penetration tests, they are dated July 1942 so pretty much destroys the "myth" that the .303" had similar penetration to the 0.50". 
The tests actually show the 0.50" has about the same penetration as the 20mm! Which may be how the earlier myth somehow got twisted with the Spitfire .303" -> 0.5" changeover.

Actually one of the faults with the Zero was it had low velocity 20mm (60-100 rounds) and 7.7mm (500-680 rounds) until mid '43. 7.7mm(.303") may work vs Me109's but were quite useless vs P-38 and Corsairs!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 6, 2019)

While I agree 100% about the HMG vs. LMG issue, I don't think we should push the pendulum too far the other way either. If you were at close enough range LMG's could definitely do serious damage, as in removing wings, tails, killing pilots etc. I can't say for sure about P-38s or Corsairs but plenty of pretty tough P-40s, P-39s and Wildcats, not to mention SBDs and TBFs were shot down with just the light machine guns on Zeros and Ki-43s (and Ki-27s). The main difference in terms of how HMGs were used compared to LMGs was that HMGs could kill with fewer rounds and from farther away (if you could hit the target which was always a big "if").

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 6, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> If the RAAF decided not to allow 16lb boost then they deliberately crippled the performance of their Spitfires.


This makes no sense. If this is in fact what happened, then there's got to be a reason.
I say again:


XBe02Drvr said:


> The "rated" horsepower has no meaning to tired airplanes operating with tropical filters at tropical temperatures with less than optimum fuel and forced to fight at altitudes not optimum for its supercharger setup.


The setting of boost limits is always going to be a tug of war between the engineer types who are concerned about overhaul times, and reliability and longevity, and operational types who are concerned about keeping their hides unperforated and their victory tallies growing. I'm speculating that the operating conditions precluded operating at 16 boost with any degree of reliability given the condition of the available aircraft. The only other plausible scenario I see is that they were so cocky that they thought they could "nip the Nips with one hand tied behind, mate!" Despite his questionable wisdom, I don't think even Caldwell could stoop to that level of silliness.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Schweik (Dec 6, 2019)

There is no doubt they were having a host of serious maintenance problems with the Spits at Darwin...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> There is no doubt they were having a host of serious maintenance problems with the Spits at Darwin...



No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> There is no doubt they were having a host of serious maintenance problems with the Spits at Darwin...


Even the Mighty Merlin can't withstand detonation indefinitely.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 6, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?


Humider than N Africa and hotter and dirtier than Malta, not to mention the inconsistent fuel quality and the worn condition of most of the aircraft. I know from my experience as an aircraft mechanic that a worn turbo or supercharged engine is more susceptible to detonation, despite its reduced compression due to cylinder wear. They tend to develop hot spots in the cylinders that trigger pre-ignition.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Humider than N Africa and hotter and dirtier than Malta, not to mention the inconsistent fuel quality and the worn condition of most of the aircraft. I know from my experience as an aircraft mechanic that a worn turbo or supercharged engine is more susceptible to detonation, despite its reduced compression due to cylinder wear. They tend to develop hot spots in the cylinders that trigger pre-ignition.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The RAAF spitfires were new when they arrived in Australia. Mean summer humidity and temps in Malta differ little from Darwin summer and most of the engagements were during Darwin winter, which is cooler and lower humidity than Malta summer:

*



The dry season (May – October)

Click to expand...

*


> The dry season, from May until October, is characterised by warm, dry sunny days and cool nights. Temperatures typically range from 21.6– 31.8°C (70.9 - 89.2°F), and humidity levels are much lower: around 60 – 65 per cent.
> Relatively cool weather arrives in May, and until July, nights are crisp with temperatures ranging from 17 - 23 °C (62.6 - 73.4°F). It is also the perfect time to explore the more remote areas of the region that can be off-limits during the wet season.
> Average monthly humidity in Malta, Malta



Malta weather:
Climate and average monthly weather in Malta, Malta


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 6, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The RAAF spitfires were new when they arrived in Australia.


Upthread a few pages it was reported they were hand-me-downs from N Africa. What's your documentation?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> While I agree 100% about the HMG vs. LMG issue, I don't think we should push the pendulum too far the other way either. If you were at close enough range LMG's could definitely do serious damage, as in removing wings, tails, killing pilots etc. I can't say for sure about P-38s or Corsairs but plenty of pretty tough P-40s, P-39s and Wildcats, not to mention SBDs and TBFs were shot down with just the light machine guns on Zeros and Ki-43s (and Ki-27s). The main difference in terms of how HMGs were used compared to LMGs was that HMGs could kill with fewer rounds and from farther away (if you could hit the target which was always a big "if").



Hello Schweik,

I remember reading that when the Wildcat fought A6M2, they figured that one on one, the Wildcat really had no chance, but in many versus many, it was a reasonably sound tactic for the Wildcats to ignore the Zero that was on their tail and just concentrate on killing the ones chasing their squadron mates.
The principle was that unless the Zero on your tail hit your oil coolers, they really could not do much damage to you.
Of course they could in time, but the point was that they would never live long enough to get that time assuming your squadron mates were doing their part.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Upthread a few pages it was reported they were hand-me-downs from N Africa. What's your documentation?
> Cheers,
> Wes




The RAAF Spitfires were delivered direct from the UK:


'The Australian Government made strong representations to the British Government and, the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, agreed that three fully manned and equipped Spitfire squadrons would be sent to Australia. The two Australian squadrons, Nos 452 and 457, would return and would be accompanied by No. 54 Sqn, RAF. It was agreed that each squadron would initially be equipped with 16 Spitfire VC aircraft and would be supplied with attrition replacements of roughly five a month per squadron. These Spitfires would be drawn from the aircraft that were being prepared for overseas service at 47 and 215 Maintenance Units.'
Spitfires over Australia

Most of this initial batch were transferred to the DAF, (indicating that they had no spare aircraft) but replacements from the UK were duly dispatched to replace them.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 6, 2019)

taly01 said:


> Thanks Glider for the aircraft gun penetration tests, they are dated July 1942 so pretty much destroys the "myth" that the .303" had similar penetration to the 0.50".
> The tests actually show the 0.50" has about the same penetration as the 20mm! Which may be how the earlier myth somehow got twisted with the Spitfire .303" -> 0.5" changeover.
> 
> Actually one of the faults with the Zero was it had low velocity 20mm (60-100 rounds) and 7.7mm (500-680 rounds) until mid '43. 7.7mm(.303") may work vs Me109's but were quite useless vs P-38 and Corsairs!




It doesn't destroy the myth at all, those penetration values are from M2 brownings and ammunition not M1's that were available in 1939-40 as used in the RAF tests, those results are also when the guns are fired directly against plate, that's totally different to the same bullet that has to pass through an aircraft structure before reaching the armour.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 6, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pat303,
> 
> I was really trying to point out that when your projectile detonates as it clearly did at plate 3 and 4, I would not expect it to penetrate much further and for it to yaw would be pretty reasonable. That is why I commented that this wasn't really a good example of anything.
> If you were REALLY trying to see what kind of anti-armor performance this round had, you would be using simple AP rounds instead of API rounds.
> ...



In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests. One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943. In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> While I agree 100% about the HMG vs. LMG issue, I don't think we should push the pendulum too far the other way either. If you were at close enough range LMG's could definitely do serious damage, as in removing wings, tails, killing pilots etc. I can't say for sure about P-38s or Corsairs but plenty of pretty tough P-40s, P-39s and Wildcats, not to mention SBDs and TBFs were shot down with just the light machine guns on Zeros and Ki-43s (and Ki-27s). The main difference in terms of how HMGs were used compared to LMGs was that HMGs could kill with fewer rounds and from farther away (if you could hit the target which was always a big "if").



LMG's were good enough for Spitfire and Hurricane pilots to shoot down over 1000 Luftwaffe planes during the BoB.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 6, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?



The Australian Army is having major issue's with it's new G wagons, engine life is seriously low because of dusting, likewise Toyota is instructing all their dealers to seal air box's with bearing grease for the same reason.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 6, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?



Malta was around 1,800 miles from England, 945 miles from Alexandria, maybe a little more to Gibraltar. 
Darwin was 8,000+ miles from England, 2,000 miles from Sydney. It was much more remote. It took a lot longer to get there or to get things there.

In both cases resupply was fraught, but communication and coordination was extra difficult with the added distance.



Anyway there seem to have been mistakes made with the Spitfires shipped over from the UK. The glycol wasn't drained from the coolants system and no stabilizer was added for the long ship journey, resulting in serious corrosion. Gun heaters were either disconnected or not installed. Both of these issues were discovered after they caused serious problems in combat. There was some other issue with the propeller pitch control or something but I forgot the details. Suffice to say they were plagued with issues - which isn't unusual for combat aircraft staring up operations in a new Theater, but they didn't really have enough time to shake them out before they were thrown into the mix with the Japanese raids.

So personally, between the serious maintenance problems, the bad 20mm ammunition and the incorrect Tactics (despite having very understandable reasons for them) were all against the RAAF. I do think Darwin was an outlier.

However the Spitfire more generally didn't do spectacularly well in the Pacific and CBI, and I think it is because it just wasn't ideal for the Theater. It was designed for the defense of England and in general, for Northern Europe, where it excelled. With some tweaking in terms of kit and tactics it did well in Southern Europe as well. Further afield, it was perhaps too specialized. Not enough range / endurance and didn't like operating in filthy miserable conditions like you would have in Darwin or say, New Guinea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 6, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> I remember reading that when the Wildcat fought A6M2, they figured that one on one, the Wildcat really had no chance, but in many versus many, it was a reasonably sound tactic for the Wildcats to ignore the Zero that was on their tail and just concentrate on killing the ones chasing their squadron mates.
> The principle was that unless the Zero on your tail hit your oil coolers, they really could not do much damage to you.
> ...



Perhaps, but lets not forget, quite a few Wildcats (and various other American planes) were shot down by Zeros (and Ki-43s). So maybe not the wisest tactic...


----------



## Schweik (Dec 6, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests. One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943. In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.



The test may have made sense in 1939 or 40 but by the time aircraft were going into combat with the .50 cals - in 1941 for example in the Western Desert, it rapidly became clear that those guns were much more effective against enemy aircraft than .303s were. On the other hand, the 20mm was better still.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 7, 2019)

From "Spitfire VC vs A6M2/3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943" - Published 2019

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 7, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests.



Hello Pat303,

The ammunition in the video actually was Armor Piercing Incendiary, not Ball or "Cup and Core".



PAT303 said:


> One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943.



Higher rate of fire? Certainly.
Higher velocity? Doubtful, especially at typical aerial engagement distances.
The video was a good demonstration that everything yaws, but with that in mind, a .303 also yaws and doesn't have nearly the same momentum to tear through as much structure.

I do believe that under some very specific circumstances, it can be shown that a larger faster bullet doesn't penetrate any better, but those circumstances would be so unfavorable as to be comparing useless to more useless.



PAT303 said:


> In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.



So what you are telling us is that the armament package of 8 x .303 on a Hurricane / Spitfire in 1940 was superior to 4 x .50 cal in a F4F-3 Wildcat? I can't say I agree with this.
I see this more as a matter of the philosophy and preferences of each air service, but that would get into a much longer discussion.



RCAFson said:


> No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?



Hello RCAFson,

Probably the "worse off" was due to being on the tail end of the supply chain. The Japanese Naval air group flying against them had even less support which is why they were still flying A6M2 against Darwin Spitfires.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Perhaps, but lets not forget, quite a few Wildcats (and various other American planes) were shot down by Zeros (and Ki-43s). So maybe not the wisest tactic...



I believe it took a while before USN figured this out.... probably because other ideas were not working.
I don't believe it would have worked quite as well with the Ki-43-II or later versions of A6M with more cannon ammunition.
Without good radios on the A6M, warnings and coordination with even one wingman would be difficult and the Japanese typically flew with two. Sounds like a bad combination of equipment and tactics.

- Ivan.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> So what you are telling us is that the armament package of 8 x .303 on a Hurricane / Spitfire in 1940 was superior to 4 x .50 cal in a F4F-3 Wildcat? I can't say I agree with this.
> I see this more as a matter of the philosophy and preferences of each air service, but that would get into a much longer discussion.




The BoB was over before the first Wildcat ever flew. To have .50 cal guns fitted to Spits and Hurricanes in time for the BoB meant they would have had to be M1 Brownings which are a totally different animal to the M2, both the gun itself but especially the ammunition. In 1940 you had mark 1 of everything, tracer AP and incendiary, it wasn't until '41 but mostly '42 that specialist ammunition really started to prove itself. The .50 matured into an effective weapon but that was years after the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Higher rate of fire? Certainly.
> Higher velocity? *Doubtful,* especially at typical aerial engagement distances.
> The video was a good demonstration that everything yaws, but with that in mind, a .303 also yaws and doesn't have nearly the same momentum to tear through as much structure.



Actually the higher velocity is *without* doubt. The M1 ball and M1 AP had muzzle velocities of 2500fps or just over. The M1 incendiary wasn't adopted until after the M2 ball and M2 AP were adopted. All three had a muzzle velocity of over 2800fps and closer to 2880fps. The M8 API which is what was shown in the video, has the higher velocity and came into use in 1943 for the most part.
Unfortunately the"test" in the video doesn't really address the question. It uses the wrong materials (sheet steel) at the wrong angles and uses closely spaced sheet steel as "witness" plates. A round entering the rear of a fighter fuselage, even if it hits nothing else besides the fuselage skin/structure may not hit the seat back armor until it has traveled 5-10 feet, giving plenty of opportunity to yaw.
The British conducted tests using real fuselages and firing on the ground in controlled circumstances. I beleive (but am welcome to correction) that the guns were fired at 5 degrees of axis to the fuselage? which is a considerable angle of impact. (close to 10 degrees or 80 degrees from perpendicular?) and it doesn't take much (material) to really screw things up.
Please note in the tests listed that the while the .50 had a lot more penetration at 0 degrees impact (perpendicular) than at 40 degrees)


PAT303 said:


> The BoB was over before the first Wildcat ever flew.


True in a practical sense but definitely untrue in a bar bet sense, it also depends on what you mean by a WIldcat 
81 ex French Martlets had been built by Oct 31st 1940 and while that is after the BoB the first deliveries were defiantly in the summer as were the first few F4F-3 deliveries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 7, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> From "Spitfire VC vs A6M2/3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943" - Published 2019
> 
> View attachment 563071
> 
> ...



Like I said... and also notice the last two paragraphs which mentioned the issue with the propellers getting stuck in 'fine pitch' and over-revving the engines. I don't know why it doesn't mention the glycol problem but I can find and transcribe something about that if needed.

I also just found an excerpt from another book which mentioned the lengths the 49th Fighter group went to assure their guns didn't jam:

_"Another reason for this victory was the careful maintenance of aircraft and armament by the ground crews. Every third night the .50-inch machine guns were taken out of the aircraft wings and completely stripped, oiled and polished so that gun failure in combat was reduced to a minimum. Ammuniton in the gun belts was also taken out, each round oiled and cleaned before being re-belted. Gun ports were sealed against the dusty conditions on the strip, the seals blown off in the first firing."_

- transcribed from The Pacific Hawak, - John Vader, MacDonald & Co, London 1970, page 33.

They also show crewmembers examining a shot down but mostly intact zero at Port Moresby.

Aside from any extra problems caused by cold or dust, both the P-40 and the Spit at this time had issues with gun stoppages, the latter mainly with their 20mm cannon. Issues with the P-40 were largely resolved by early 1943. I think late model VC also had improvements which helped address the stoppages.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 7, 2019)

1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn’t tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet. 


30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2019)

pinsog said:


> 1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn’t tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet.
> 
> 
> 30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.



Unless they hit something important, all a 50 M2 will do, is punch a small hole in one side of an aircraft as it goes in and another on the way out. That is the difference with the 20mm, it explodes which generates shrapnel and lot of damage inside the aircraft. You would have to be very lucky to be hit by a 20mm and suffer no damage.

There is a reason that all airforces switched to 20mm guns (as a minimum) when they could once they started fighting well protected bombers. 

A lot of people talk down the Japanese 20mm and the early German 20mm FF cannon but I would much rather have them than an early 0.50.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 7, 2019)

Glider said:


> Unless they hit something important, all a 50 M2 will do, is punch a small hole in one side of an aircraft as it goes in and another on the way out. That is the difference with the 20mm, it explodes which generates shrapnel and lot of damage inside the aircraft. You would have to be very lucky to be hit by a 20mm and suffer no damage.
> 
> There is a reason that all airforces switched to 20mm guns (as a minimum) when they could once they started fighting well protected bombers.
> 
> A lot of people talk down the Japanese 20mm and the early German 20mm FF cannon but I would much rather have them than an early 0.50.


But look at a diagram of most any aircraft, especially single engine fighters and notice how difficult it is to NOT hit something unless you are shooting at the wingtip or tail. Also, a 50 may only make a .50 inch hole going in, but as it tumbles it will tear a much larger hole going out. A 50 also is much more likely to damage or destroy heavy internal structure such as wing spars etc. than a 30. 20 mm are great if you have enough power to carry them and their ammo. Early Zeros and 109’s had 60 round drums, enough for a few seconds of firing. What about the Whirlwind also had 60 round drums. It would have been better off with either 4 50’s and 400 rounds per gun or 8 30’s and 500-600 rounds per gun. Every fight I ever read about the Whirlwind said “I opened fire, got hits, ran out of bullets”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2019)

pinsog said:


> But look at a diagram of most any aircraft, especially single engine fighters and notice how difficult it is to NOT hit something unless you are shooting at the wingtip or tail. Also, a 50 may only make a .50 inch hole going in, but as it tumbles it will tear a much larger hole going out. A 50 also is much more likely to damage or destroy heavy internal structure such as wing spars etc. than a 30. 20 mm are great if you have enough power to carry them and their ammo. Early Zeros and 109’s had 60 round drums, enough for a few seconds of firing. What about the Whirlwind also had 60 round drums. It would have been better off with either 4 50’s and 400 rounds per gun or 8 30’s and 500-600 rounds per gun. Every fight I ever read about the Whirlwind said “I opened fire, got hits, ran out of bullets”



True to a point but a 1940 0.50 isn't a patch on the M2 version so ensure you compare like for like. I believe nearly all early 20mm had 60 round drums the exception being the Russians who often don't get the credit for some very formidable weapons. 

109E, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Whirlwinds, P38's, Zero's all of them initially had 60 round magazines and they were far more formidable for it.

If you want to compare the M2 version of the 0.50 then either magazines had increased in size or belt fed weapons had been introduced, so that argument goes out of the window. If you want to compare real life reports. How many times have you read _The instrument panel was wrecked_, I will bet a penny to a pound it wasn't because of a 20mm, as that would have almost certainly killed the pilot.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2019)

In the 1930s or even 1940 the question isn't if a single .50 bullet is more powerful but if it is four times more powerful. 
.50 cal ammo is about 5 times heavier than rcmg ammo. 
The gun was about 3 times heavier. 
The .50 fired about 1/2 as fast.
The four .50s in an early Wildcat/Martlet fired, at best, 40 rounds a Second. 
The eight .303s in the British planes fired 150-160 rounds per second and the installation weighed less. 
Four .303 rounds hitting in fraction of a second won't burst a drum but the amount of damage they can do compared to single .50 hit isn't a little thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> In the 1930s or even 1940 the question isn't if a single .50 bullet is more powerful but if it is four times more powerful.
> .50 cal ammo is about 5 times heavier than rcmg ammo.
> The gun was about 3 times heavier.
> The .50 fired about 1/2 as fast.
> ...


I agree with what your saying. I’ve said in other threads that the Whirlwind should have had 8 30’s in the nose with 30 seconds of ammo instead of the 4 20mm. 8 30’s that concentrated would be like a mini gun.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 7, 2019)

Glider said:


> True to a point but a 1940 0.50 isn't a patch on the M2 version so ensure you compare like for like. I believe nearly all early 20mm had 60 round drums the exception being the Russians who often don't get the credit for some very formidable weapons.
> 
> 109E, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Whirlwinds, P38's, Zero's all of them initially had 60 round magazines and they were far more formidable for it.
> 
> If you want to compare the M2 version of the 0.50 then either magazines had increased in size or belt fed weapons had been introduced, so that argument goes out of the window. If you want to compare real life reports. How many times have you read _The instrument panel was wrecked_, I will bet a penny to a pound it wasn't because of a 20mm, as that would have almost certainly killed the pilot.


I agree with parts of this as well. But if I’m repelling an attack on my carrier, I would much prefer and F4F-3 with 4 50’s and 400 rounds per gun than 2 20mm with 60 rounds per gun. (I know 20mm were never put on the Wildcat)

Luck and or good shooting makes a difference as well. I have also read several stories of 20mm bursting inside the cockpit and not killing the pilot. (Certainly didn’t do him any good either) which 20mm with which bullet makes a big difference, the fuses may not always work causing the shell to burst on the skin of the aircraft or over penetrate and burst after exiting. 

As with everything we discuss on here there are infinite variables for infinite outcomes


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 7, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I agree with what your saying. I’ve said in other threads that the Whirlwind should have had 8 30’s in the nose with 30 seconds of ammo instead of the 4 20mm. 8 30’s that concentrated would be like a mini gun.


One of the prototypes had 12 machine guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 7, 2019)

re: armour in aircraft structure -- here are some figures from a Dec 1940 trial to illustrate the point

Keeping in mind the document Glider posted above (.303 AP is able to penetrate *9 mm* of armour at 200 yards, 0 degrees).

In firing trials on a Spitfire fuselage (200 yards direct astern), 39 rounds struck the projected area of the pilot's *4-mm* armour plate.

17 rounds were deflected/stopped and failed to reach the plate (44%)
5 rounds struck the armour and failed to penetrate (13%), 4 of these were fragments upon striking the armour
2 rounds (fragments) penetrated the armour (5%), only one of these penetrated the pilot's seat afterwards

*EDIT*: naturally doing some quick math I see that only 62% of the rounds are accounted for in the test summary. Not sure what to make of this. Perhaps the other 15 rounds were stopped by the equipment in the rear (radio, flare tube, etc.)? 

Not sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 7, 2019)

*In terms of the real world / operational differences of LMG vs. HMG*

The main difference most often cited by aircrews and responded to by designers was *effective range*. The .30 cal weapons were very generally speaking considered relatively ineffective at more than 200 meters. How much this mattered depended in part on the number of guns and the nature of the guns - the Soviets for example had very fast firing 7.62mm LMGs which could cause a lot of damage, but as a rule they tried to get within 50-100 meters before opening fire anyway. The British famously put 8 x .303 guns on their fighters (later 12 guns on some) to concentrate firepower, so if they were in range they would likely kill their target quickly.

The .30 cal guns tend to spread out in a wider cone though which is part of the reason for the shorter effective range. Greater range meant fewer hits.

Americans were taught to do deflection shooting though only a few could master the skill - often guys who had a past history of hunting or some other kind of marksmanship. Most US fighters lacked nose guns and wing guns were not as accurate. One method they were trained to use was to use their wing mounted HMGs to shoot streams of bullets with tracers they could walk into their targets. Each pilot would work with their armorers accordingly to set range conversion of their guns based on their own preferences and marskmanship skill. There were a number of different options: all guns converging at 200, 250, 300 or 350 yards, or to have a pair of guns converging at three different ranges - one pair at 250, one at 300 and one at 350 for example, or a pair at longer range like 400 yards and the other four at 300.

But effective range for .50 cals was up to 500 yards or more, albeit with increasing challenges to accuracy. During a long stern chase range cold be almost double that. In one incident in North Africa for example an American P-40F shot down a Spit VC in a case of mistaken identity after a long chase, reportedly at a distance of 800+ meters (too far to identify what they were chasing). On another occasion J.G. 27 experten Hans Stahlschmidt was shot down from below at extreme range by Clive Caldwell. Caldwell himself said the distance was 700 yards, fellow _experten_ Hans Joachim Marseille and Hauptman Homuth who were on the flight with Stahlschmidt both commented on the range of the hit.

The API .50 cal ammunition used by the Americans was initially just intended to mark the target - the little flash of a small amount of incendiary charge was an indication to the pilot that they had gotten a hit. The fact that this flash could ignite fuel, hydraulic fluid, oil and so on was an appreciated additional effect. Tracers had a similar purpose obviously but some pilots preferred not to use them because enemy fighters could avoid the bullet stream with a quick jink or slip when they saw the tracers coming.

.30 cal weapons were typically considered a problem vis a vis defensive fire from bombers - both for the bombers themselves and for fighters attacking them. One of the complaints I've read about the early LMG based armament of Spitfires and Hurricanes was that it put them within the range of defensive bomber gunners. This was worse if the bomber had HMG or cannon armament in their defensive panoply - like the G4M "Betty" (20mm tail gun) the later He 111 (13mm in dorsal or rear gun position), or the SM 79 in the Med (1 or 2 defensive 12.7mm MG in dorsal or ventral positions). And of course most of the US made multi-engined bombers had .50 cal defensive guns, and this was a big problem particularly for the lightly armed Ki-43.

Defensive armament consisting of .30 cals, .303, 7.9mm etc. was often considered insufficient due to having about half the effective range of the heavier guns, and was routinely increased to use HMG or cannon defensive guns where possible. HMGs could outrange LMGs particularly during a long stern chase approach. Most cannon could as well. Conversely fighters were up-gunned so as to outrange defensive gunners and to quickly take them out, especially if they were protected by armor.

The second biggest issue was *armor and protected fuel tanks*. Early war military aircraft typically lacked any kind of protection, it was gradually brought in during 1939-41, especially during the Battle of Britain. Early armor was however often quite light, average probably about 8mm of unhardened steel. Sufficient to stop most .30 cals but not HMGs or cannon with AP ammunition. Also after armor was adopted, many other systems such as fuel lines, hydraulic lines, control cables and others were vulnerable to a stray bullet. It took a while for redundancy to be built in so as to decrease vulnerability. They also started putting in thicker armor of up to 12-15mm, and then later tempered / heat treated plates which could be just as strong for half the weight (so a 6mm plate was equivalent to a 12 or 13mm plate).

Aside from range, another factor which could make a big difference was angle of attack. This was true for all types of guns but it made LMGs potentially much more lethal. With Zeros they had an infamous trick where, when pursued from behind they would suddenly jump up into a loop that their pursuer could not follow, then come down onto their attacker from behind and above, and shoot right into the cockpit. This was more lethal with the 7.7mm guns concentrated in the nose of both A6M and Ki-43. Shooting from above in this manner allowed the attacker to bypass the armor and kill pilots or puncture fuel tanks. This kind of high angle attack was also incidentally done by Hans Joachim Marseille when attacking Allied fighters flying in defensive Lufberry circles over North Africa. The plexiglass cover on most aircraft offered zero protection to the pilot. Spitfires and Hurricanes also had fuel tanks in front of the cockpit.

Another method used frequently by the Japanese (and by everyone, really) was to spot an aircraft with an oblivious pilot flying straight and level, dive below it and come up from underneath, shooting into the belly from close range. This was a good way to kill the pilot as above but also to shoot holes in the coolant systems of in-line engined aircraft or damage the oil coolers and so on. Again, from close range, at the oblique angle, an accurately aimed LMG could easily kill almost any Allied fighter.



Finally, one can always find anecdotes where the 20mm cannon shells did not bring down the fighter. There was a great deal of luck involved but also how much time the attacker had to score hits, and how close of a pattern they managed.

Here is one I've posted before, Clive Caldwell posing with his Tomahawk after a tense fight with JG. 27 experten Major *Werner Schröer* and his wingman. Caldwell managed to shoot down the wingman and damage Schröers fighter enough to escape, though he was wounded in the back, shoulder and leg (probably with shell fragments). You can see what look like at least three cannon hits in the right wing.







This one is a US pilot of the 79th Fighter Group examining a 20mm shell hole, one of about 8 that hit his P-40 from a Bf 109. Obviously his behind the seat armor plate saved him.






A crash-landed P-40K of the 57th FG, also in North Africa with 20mm cannon holes near the cockpit. The pilot survived with minor injuries.







A Bf 110 damaged (IIRC) by Spitfires, gives you an idea how the cannon could tear apart an aircraft. One or two more hits on that tail structure and it would have come off.





And for comparison, an He 111 damaged by a hail of .303 bullets (I think) in the BoB

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 7, 2019)

The Bf 110 was hit by Soviet AA according to this...Messerschmitt Bf.110G-2 with traces of damage from the Soviet anti-aircraft fire

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 7, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The me 110 was hit by Soviet AA according to this...Messerschmitt Bf.110G-2 with traces of damage from the Soviet anti-aircraft fire



Fair enough, I knew I'd seen the image before but I wasn't sure (hence the IIRC). It does show the effects of cannon fire though right?


----------



## Greyman (Dec 7, 2019)

re: the bottom photo, I think it was deduced from the uniforms that the Heinkel was brought down by Swiss MS 406s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 7, 2019)

Lol I should have left those last two off...


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 7, 2019)

pinsog said:


> 1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn’t tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet.
> 
> 
> 30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.




A .50 Browning weights 40kg, the .303 Browning 10kg, 100 rounds of 50 is 16kg 100 rounds of .303 2.5kg, all weights are give or take because different ammunition has different weights but it's close enough for this discussion. For the weight of one .50 you can have four 30's, with hundreds of rounds of extra ammunition as well as many more rounds going downrange per second burst, yes they are smaller but the .303 had reliable AP Incendiary tracer rounds in production in 1940, the .50 didn't. It's also important to remember that available engine power played a big part in what gun and ammunition load could be fitted.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And for comparison, an He 111 damaged by a hail of .303 bullets (I think) in the BoB
> 
> View attachment 563179


I don't know whether that was the BoB or not but the loss rates are skewed in the BoB by many planes that made it back to base and never moved again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> the .303 had reliable AP Incendiary tracer rounds in production in 1940, the .50 didn't.



The .303 had BOTH Incendiary rounds AND tracer rounds, they were separate rounds. During the BoB there were not enough incendiary rounds and only 1 in 8 rounds fired was incenderaily. This might have change as the battle progressed?

The .50 cal may have had a tracer, it did NOT have an incendiary round until some point in 1941 or 1942.

Tracers make lousy incendiary rounds because the incendiary material is ignited upon firing and burns from that point on. the longer the distance the less incendiary material is delivered to the target.
The British used 3 different tracers from 1939 on (and perhaps some older stuff) although later in the war some new types were introduced.

The main one was "Tracer G MK II" and used 10 grains of tracer compound and had a _bright_ tracer to 1000 yds at which point there was little or no tracer compound left.
The Navy in 1939 also adopted the "Tracer G MK III" which used 10 grains of a different compound for _brilliant _trace to 800 yds.
Bomber command also got into the act in 1939 with Tracer G MK IV" which used 4.5 grains of the compound used in The Tracer G MK II for a trace lasting to 40O yds (later 600yds) as an aid to range estimation for the defensive gunners. The round was issued in 1940 and was good for 550 yds of trace at 10,000ft.
The Incendiary B MK VI used 7 grains of incendiary compound which only ignited on impact. 

Early British .50 cal tracer would give a red trace to 2000yds.
The British did not consider the American M1 .50 Incendiary round to be bore safe although small quantities were supplied in 1940. A new, redesigned Incendiary was considered high priority. Service quantities (some trials ammunition earlier?) do not appear to have shown up until late 1941.

It is quite possible to set fires with tracer ammunition. But since that was not it's intended function relying on it to do so may require a lot of hits. 

I would note that 20mm cannon ammo was highly variable in it's target effect since they was a considerable variation on the amount of HE (or incendiary) that different shells carried.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The .303 had BOTH Incendiary rounds AND tracer rounds, they were separate rounds. During the BoB there were not enough incendiary rounds and only 1 in 8 rounds fired was incenderaily. This might have change as the battle progressed?
> 
> I should have used comma's between AP, Incendiary, tracer. During the BoB it was normal for standard MkVII ball to be loaded in three of the guns because of a lack of aircraft specific ammunition, they didn't help the LMG's reputation. The RAF would have been better off putting resources into producing specialist ammunition once war was inevitable, tracer in particular in light of the poor overall shooting standards of the day but it's easy to make decisions in hindsight.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 7, 2019)

What is the fluid leaking out from behind the cockpit on Caldwell's plane?.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 7, 2019)

Oil or fuel


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Oil or fuel


What's oil or fuel doing up in the turtledeck? Isn't that where ADI fluid lives?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 8, 2019)

There are hydraulic tanks in that area of the rear fuselage on early P-40s (maybe on the later ones also but I do not know).


----------



## Greyman (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> During the BoB it was normal for standard MkVII ball to be loaded in three of the guns because of a lack of aircraft specific ammunition, they didn't help the LMG's reputation. The RAF would have been better off putting resources into producing specialist ammunition once war was inevitable, tracer in particular in light of the poor overall shooting standards of the day but it's easy to make decisions in hindsight.



I've never come across anything that indicates Ball was used due to issues with supply. Due to pre-war testing the British found that overall there was little to choose between Ball and Armour-Piercing under average conditions. AP being more effective vs. armour, heavy fittings and engines but also more easily deflected, slightly less accurate and caused rather heavier barrel wear.

Tracer gave a misleading indication in fixed-gun air-to-air sighting and therefore wasn't a requirement.

The main Incendiary in use (Mk.IV) was known to be unsatisfactory and full effort was underway in replacing it with the new Mk.VI.

The armouring of LW aircraft and the express orders to Fighter Command to target the engines of enemy bombers no doubt led to the complete replacement of Ball by AP in RAF orders (November 1940).


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2019)

There was no adi fluid used in the P-40. 
The oil tank moved around. Behind the engine on the P-36, behind the pilot and over the rear fuel tank on the long nose P-40s, back to in front of the pilot on the P-40D/E and later.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Anyway there seem to have been mistakes made with the Spitfires shipped over from the UK. ..... Gun heaters were either disconnected or not installed. Both of these issues were discovered after they caused serious problems in combat. .



People tend to think that the tropics are hot and therefore icing will not be a problem. The reality is that the very high humidity means that icing is a serious problem and extends far higher than in temperate and cold weather climates.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Here is one I've posted before, Clive Caldwell posing with his Tomahawk after a tense fight with JG. 27 experten Major *Werner Schröer* and his wingman. Caldwell managed to shoot down the wingman and damage Schröers fighter enough to escape, though he was wounded in the back, shoulder and leg (probably with shell fragments). You can see what look like at least three cannon hits in the right wing.



MAW vol. 1, page 252-253, describes the combat rather differently. Caldwell was jumped by Schroer and his P-40 lit up, but the flames died out so he stayed with the plane. 
Schroer returned to base without damage and no losses to his unit.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I've never come across anything that indicates Ball was used due to issues with supply. Due to pre-war testing the British found that overall there was little to choose between Ball and Armour-Piercing under average conditions. AP being more effective vs. armour, heavy fittings and engines but also more easily deflected, slightly less accurate and caused rather heavier barrel wear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> People tend to think that the tropics are hot and therefore icing will not be a problem. The reality is that the very high humidity means that icing is a serious problem and extends far higher than in temperate and cold weather climates.


(Off topic for a second): Phantoms in SE Asia used to experience a phenomenon called "mach bite", where the honeycomb filled entire outer wing panel aft of the leading edge/spar D tube would get saturated with moisture during the monsoon season and freeze at altitude, bulging the skin outward. If the plane then flew fast enough to generate a shock wave, the entire panel aft of the spar would pop right out leaving the spar and D tube giving the proverbial "one finger salute". This didn't constitute much of an emergency, as there were no flight controls or plumbing out there, just an extra 15 knots on final, bingo ashore if carrier based, and take the wire on landing. We had one come in at Boca Chica after a midair collision that took off the entire panel, and it was a nugget pilot at the controls with a 2 'Nam tour RIO in the back seat practicing his oratory skills. Piece of cake. The plane was fixed in time to fly the last cycle of the day.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 8, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> MAW vol. 1, page 252-253, describes the combat rather differently. Caldwell was jumped by Schroer and his P-40 lit up, but the flames died out so he stayed with the plane.
> Schroer returned to base without damage and no losses to his unit.


Now im really scratching my head. I read an article about a year ago in which Schroer himself was quoted about the combat wherein he mentioned the loss of his wingman. I suppose the author could have made it up or quoted someone who made up the quote( that sort of thing happens) but l like I said scratching my head a bit here.


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2019)

Taking this one part at a time


pinsog said:


> I agree with parts of this as well. But if I’m repelling an attack on my carrier, I would much prefer and F4F-3 with 4 50’s and 400 rounds per gun than 2 20mm with 60 rounds per gun. (I know 20mm were never put on the Wildcat)
> 
> 
> Luck and or good shooting makes a difference as well. I have also read several stories of 20mm bursting inside the cockpit and not killing the pilot. (Certainly didn’t do him any good either) which 20mm with which bullet makes a big difference, the fuses may not always work causing the shell to burst on the skin of the aircraft or over penetrate and burst after exiting.
> ...


By the time the USA were involved in the war then the standard UK Spitfire 20mm had 120 rpg not the 60rpg limitation. Granted this still gave you less firing time that the F4F-3 but this was often sufficient.
Which brings us to the second part or the debate, which would you rather have? The USN were very keen to switch to 20mm but at the time US 20mm were very unreliable so they generally stayed with the 0.50. The F6F-5 were all designed and built to accept 2 x 20mm plus 4 x 0.5 but essentially all, with very few exceptions had 6 x 0.5 for that reason. Why would the USN be so keen? because they cannot afford to let one bomber get through to the carrier. To stop that they need the maximum impact in the minimum period of time and for that, you need the 20mm.
2 x 20mm had approx. 50% more impact than the 4 x 0.50 in the Wildcat and reliability was still an issue with the early F4F-3 whereas the bugs had been wrung from the 20mm.

There are arguments for and against both options, but for me what swings it is the UK 20mm were supplemented by 4 x 303, whilst being far from the most effective aerial weapon I agree, but capable doing fatal damage to the early Japanese aircraft


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

Glider said:


> 20mm were supplemented by 4 x 303, whilst being far from the most effective aerial weapon I agree, but capable doing fatal damage to the early Japanese aircraft.


So could 4 or 6 .50s. USN's early carrier losses weren't due to ineffective firepower of the Wildcats, they were more a function of less than optimum fighter direction of the CAP. It was the few "leakers" that got through the fighter screen that did the damage. Integrating radar into CIC and multiple carrier coordination was a steep learning curve, and when it finally reached a fine art it was already Hellcat time. The Japanese had coordinated multi carrier ops pretty well worked out by Dec 1941, even without radar and effective fighter direction, where as USN still operated carriers as "lone wolves", even when together in a task force, as late as Midway. If the strikes had been coordinated rather than piecemeal at Coral Sea and Midway the results would have been more effective and less costly.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the higher velocity is *without* doubt. The M1 ball and M1 AP had muzzle velocities of 2500fps or just over. The M1 incendiary wasn't adopted until after the M2 ball and M2 AP were adopted. All three had a muzzle velocity of over 2800fps and closer to 2880fps. The M8 API which is what was shown in the video, has the higher velocity and came into use in 1943 for the most part.



Hello Shortround6,

I am actually very surprised seeing this from you. From what I recall, the muzzle velocity of a .303 with a 174/175 grain bullet is also around 2500 fps. Some are a bit lower, some are a touch higher but not by much. but that is at the muzzle.
How fast are they moving at the typical aerial engagement distances of perhaps 300 yards?
I don't know how poor the shape of the M1 bullet was, but it would have to be pretty poor to lose out to a rifle caliber round at a few hundred yards.



pinsog said:


> 1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn’t tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet.
> .......
> 30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.



Hello Pinsog,

You beat me to it.
I figure this might have been one of the reasons Spitfire V wasn't killing all that many A6M2 while Wildcats were.



XBe02Drvr said:


> What's oil or fuel doing up in the turtledeck? Isn't that where ADI fluid lives?



Hello XBe02Drvr,

There is a big drum shaped fuel tank behind the cockpit and the two other tanks are just below the cockpit.
They might have been punctured by some rifle caliber rounds also from the Me 109?

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 8, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> On the subject of fitting the Kinsei to the A6M, the Kinsei 50 series was in production in 1941 and was fitted to the H6K5 flying boat, which was ordered into production in case the H8K was seriously delayed and delivered over 1941 and early in 1942 with production stopped once the H8K was seen to be a success. They were also used by the G3M3, the last G3Ms produced.



Hello Cherry Blossom,

At about the same time I was reading Nuuumannn's response, I also came across some detail for the Kinsei 46 that was installed in the H6K3 which had a critical altitude equivalent to Sakae 12 should have given pretty similar performance.... Almost. The problem was that I could not find the production date for this engine.



cherry blossom said:


> Using data from q‹ó‹@ƒGƒ“ƒWƒ“ˆê——E“ú–{ŒR (Goodwin and Starkings agrees but leave some numbers as question marks), for take off we have 1300 ps at 2600 rpm for the Kinsei 51 and 1130 ps at 2750 rpm for the Sakae 21. At 6200 metres, the Kinsei 51 gave 1100 ps at 2500 rpm while at 6000 metres the Sakae 21 gave 980 ps at 2700 rpm (both translated as military power). The Kinsei weighed 640 kg compared to 590 kg for the Sakae.



The problem here was that this would have been 1941 and the bugs in A6M2 had been worked out and it finally met the requirements that were called for in the initial specification. Whether those requirements were intelligent is a subject for another discussion.
Did it make sense to replace the engine to most likely decrease the range and NOT meet the original requirements?



cherry blossom said:


> Thus a 1941 A6M8 would have lost the two 7.7 mm machine guns, increased in weight and probably in fuel consumption but benefited from an extra 120 ps at altitude. The Kinsei 60 series was first used in December 1942 for the Ki-46 III prototype. The variant powering the real A6M8 gave 1250 ps at 5800 metres and 2600 rpm (probably with an extra bearing to allow higher rpm but with an increase in weight to 675 kg). The A6M8's quoted max speed of 356 mph suggests that we would see about 341 mph with a Kinsei 50 series engine ignoring the slight difference in weight. However, the A6M8 was able to dive significantly faster than a 1941 Zero due to thicker skinning and carried a heavier armament.



The 1941 A6M8 could not have lost the 7,7 mm MG and still have been useful. First of all the 7.7 mm MG were part of the required armament in the original specification.
We already agree on the range issue.
The increase in engine weight isn't simply the engine but the propeller as well. The Sakae 12 used a 2.90 M propeller, the Sakae 21 and later used a 3.05 M, and from what I can find, the Kinsei used either a 3.05 M or 3.20 M propeller.
Now assuming that the 7.7 mm guns could not be deleted and had to be added to the wings and additional fuel had to be added in a wing and / or a fuselage tank, the decrease in agility also might not meet the original requirements.
By the time the actual A6M8 came around, the strategic situation and requirements were no longer the same.

- Ivan.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So could 4 or 6 .50s. USN's early carrier losses weren't due to ineffective firepower of the Wildcats, they were more a function of less than optimum fighter direction of the CAP. It was the few "leakers" that got through the fighter screen that did the damage. Integrating radar into CIC and multiple carrier coordination was a steep learning curve, and when it finally reached a fine art it was already Hellcat time. The Japanese had coordinated multi carrier ops pretty well worked out by Dec 1941, even without radar and effective fighter direction, where as USN still operated carriers as "lone wolves", even when together in a task force, as late as Midway. If the strikes had been coordinated rather than piecemeal at Coral Sea and Midway the results would have been more effective and less costly.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I agree with you on this with one small exception or addition: fighter direction was one problem, the 2nd problem was US fighter performance. The fact that the Wildcat has such a horrible climb rate often meant that they simply couldn’t get high enough in time to intercept dive bombers and sometimes couldn’t catch a Kate torpedo bomber if the Kate passed over them in a slight dive. I think it was John Thach that said “we need something that gets upstairs faster”

You are certainly right about the Wildcat firepower not being a problem, if the Zeros weren’t around to interfere, Wildcats would generally decimate Japanese bombers


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> (Off topic for a second): Phantoms in SE Asia used to experience a phenomenon called "mach bite", where the honeycomb filled entire outer wing panel aft of the leading edge/spar D tube would get saturated with moisture during the monsoon season and freeze at altitude, bulging the skin outward. If the plane then flew fast enough to generate a shock wave, the entire panel aft of the spar would pop right out leaving the spar and D tube giving the proverbial "one finger salute". This didn't constitute much of an emergency, as there were no flight controls or plumbing out there, just an extra 15 knots on final, bingo ashore if carrier based, and take the wire on landing. We had one come in at Boca Chica after a midair collision that took off the entire panel, and it was a nugget pilot at the controls with a 2 'Nam tour RIO in the back seat practicing his oratory skills. Piece of cake. The plane was fixed in time to fly the last cycle of the day.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The early Airbus models had a composite leading edge on the fin that would do the same and Airbus had to replace quite a few for Singapore Airlines (and others) with an improved unit with a thin metal sheath that prevented the moisture penetration. Part of the problem was that rain drops hitting the surface at high speed could produce micro cracks in the paint allowing the water to penetrate into the composite


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I agree with you on this with one small exception or addition: fighter direction was one problem, *the 2nd problem was US fighter performance. The fact that the Wildcat has such a horrible climb rate often meant that they simply couldn’t get high enough in time to intercept dive bombers and sometimes couldn’t catch a Kate torpedo bomber if the Kate passed over them in a slight dive.* ...



(my bold)
Bolded part, 100%.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

That's why they hated the F4F-4 so much. Even worse performance. They should have probably kept a few slightly stripped down -3s just for CAP duties.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2019)

That's why they should've had the navalized P-36s instead of Buffaloes in the 1st place, and move on with a fighter designed around a big radial ASAP.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

Interesting idea but I'm not sure if P-36 could be navalized, or if it would be better than a Wildcat once you put the arrestor hook and armor and protected fuel tanks in it. And heavier guns. I bet you end up with something pretty slow. How quickly could they have made a Wildcat variant like the FM-2?

But who knows maybe. One of the limitations of carrier aircraft was that they tried to make them so generalist. Too much so. Sure you need the flexibility but it's hard to imagine a day where a given aircraft carrier doesn't need to send out some ASW planes, some search planes, and some CAP. Even if it's only 3 or 4 of each. So I always thought, why not have a small number of planes which are slightly more specialized for their specific niche roles. Say keep a half a dozen specialized interceptor types for CAP, something maybe a bit more like a Fulmar for search maybe.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> You beat me to it.
> I figure this might have been one of the reasons Spitfire V wasn't killing all that many A6M2 while Wildcats were.



That's like saying Wildcats didn't kill many Me109's or FW190's. They fought in different theaters.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> That's like saying Wildcats didn't kill many Me109's or FW190's. They fought in different theaters.



I think Wildcats did kill a few Bf 109s. They also shot down a fair number of P-36s and D.520s.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> That's like saying Wildcats didn't kill many Me109's or FW190's. They fought in different theaters.


So Australia is a different theater than SW Pacific?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

It's a bit odd though that Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes and Sea Gladiators and so on seemed to bear the brunt of a lot of the convoy fights, I think mainly just because the (probably more effective) Martlets were slow to arrive and be readied for action. But there were some around in the Med when convoy fights were still going on.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think Wildcats did kill a few Bf 109s. They also shot down a fair number of P-36s and D.520s.





Spitfires shot down a few Japanese planes too, but the Spitfire spend the war fighting the Luftwaffe, the Wildcat the Japanese, you can't shoot down what you don't fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

I see your point.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So Australia is a different theater than SW Pacific?



Spitfires ended the war with a 6-1 kill ratio over the Japanese, the amount of fighting the Spit did against the Japanese was minor compared to what it did against the Luftwaffe.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Spitfires shot down a few Japanese planes too, but the Spitfire spend the war fighting the Luftwaffe, the Wildcat the Japanese, you can't shoot down what you don't fight.


Yes, but the initial comment was specifically in reference to the Spit V's poor performance in Australia against the same aircraft types the Wildcats were facing.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 8, 2019)

Wildcat pilots claimed 4 Bf 109s off Norway Mar.26 '45

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

Glider said:


> 2 x 20mm had approx. 50% more impact than the 4 x 0.50 in the Wildcat and reliability was still an issue with the early F4F-3 whereas the bugs had been wrung from the 20mm.
> 
> There are arguments for and against both options, but for me what swings it is the UK 20mm were supplemented by 4 x 303, whilst being far from the most effective aerial weapon I agree, but capable doing fatal damage to the early Japanese aircraft




The USN found that one Hispano was worth 3 .50's in regards to effect on target, when you look at the weights involved, two 20mm give the performance of 6 .50's but are lighter, that is why the British skipped the .50 back in 1940.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 8, 2019)

Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories​


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Interesting idea but I'm not sure if P-36 could be navalized, or if it would be better than a Wildcat once you put armor and protected fuel tanks in it. And heavier guns. How quickly could they have made something like the FM-2?
> ...



British sorta-navaized the Hurricane and fully navalized the Spitfire into Seafire. 
P-36 was a smaller aircraft than Wildcat, without the prominent belly - basically, there is already the FM-2 equivalent in 1941 with run-on-the-mill Twin Wasp S3C4-G (as used on early Martlets).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Spitfires ended the war with a 6-1 kill ratio over the Japanese


Here you're talking about all marks of Spits in the Pacific/CBI, At which point the appropriate comparisons are Hellcat and Corsair vs Spits.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Spitfires ended the war with a 6-1 kill ratio over the Japanese, the amount of fighting the Spit did against the Japanese was minor compared to what it did against the Luftwaffe.



Yeah but claims I think not verified. Kind of like the 11-1 legend for some of the USN fighters


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yes, but the initial comment was specifically in reference to the Spit V's poor performance in Australia against the same aircraft types the Wildcats were facing.



There's a dozen pages of replies answering this question, and 1 wing gave the Japanese a big enough bloody nose that they left and never returned.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> British sorta-navaized the Hurricane and fully navalized the Spitfire into Seafire.
> P-36 was a smaller aircraft than Wildcat, without the prominent belly - basically, there is already the FM-2 equivalent in 1941 with run-on-the-mill Twin Wasp S3C4-G (as used on early Martlets).



I know this is probably controversial and may get me in trouble, but the Seafire seems to have been a debacle as a Naval fighter. Poor range mainly but also a host of other problems. At least in the MTO (Italy) it was basically a disaster. They would have been much better off with Martlets.

No doubt the P-36 is much slimmer and more streamlined but how much fuel can you fit in it for those long range carrier strikes? Can it keep up with the SBDs and TBFs? And considering it was already pretty slow even without armor etc., how fast is it going and how well is it climbing once you add 1,000 lbs of stuff?

I never did understand why the P-36 was so slow even with 1,200 hp engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> 1 wing gave the Japanese a big enough bloody nose that they left and never returned.


They never returned because their bases were pushed back out of range and their aircraft were decimated by USN, USMC & USAAF.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Wildcat pilots claimed 4 Bf 109s off Norway Mar.26 '45



Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down 229 Me109's in August 1940 alone.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 8, 2019)

....and you said...



PAT303 said:


> Spitfires shot down a few Japanese planes too, but the Spitfire spend the war fighting the Luftwaffe, the Wildcat the Japanese, you can't shoot down what you don't fight.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down 229 Me109's in August 1940 alone.



I think he was pointing out (in that and the subsequent post) that Martlets / Wildcats didn't have many claims against German fighters. Most of their 26 MTO victories were actually Vichy French aircraft during Torch.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> They never returned because their bases were pushed back out of range and their aircraft were decimated by USN, USMC & USAAF.



How lucky are we to have big brother looking after us while we sat on our hands and did nothing, thank's for the history lesson.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 8, 2019)

I don't know why those rivalries always come up but seriously, it was a collaborative effort. Right? The Brits and Commonwealth surely bore the brunt in Europe especially for the first two years of the war, and did so with great courage and skill. The US did a lot of the heavy lifting in the Pacific, that's just a fact. We couldn't have won without each other, and without the Soviets lets not forget.

We all likes planes a lot. We have a lot more in common with each other than with people in our own countries who like the Kardashians ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> ....and you said...



So 4 planes lost to Wildcats in 1945 constitutes regulatory fighting the Luftwaffe?.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't know why those rivalries always come up but seriously, it was a collaborative effort. Right? The Brits and Commonwealth surely bore the brunt in Europe especially for the first two years of the war, and did so with great courage and skill. The US did a lot of the heavy lifting in the Pacific, that's just a fact. We couldn't have won without each other, and without the Soviets lets not forget.
> 
> We all likes planes a lot. We have a lot more in common with each other than with people in our own countries who like the Kardashians ...



The Japanese decided to stop bombing Australia because their losses were unsustainable, it had nothing to do with any other reason.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I never did understand why the P-36 was so slow even with 1,200 hp engines.


It took awhile to tweak the cooling baffling for twin row engines with tighter cowls. As they got better at it, it became evident that Curtiss's approach with the P36 was excessively draggy and inefficient. And the P36 used the early style 1830 before it got the "enhanced finning" cylinders. The baffling was a baffling nightmare that they never quite got right. And then along came the V1710 and they stopped beating their heads against the wall. Remember, most propeller aircraft have 30-40% of their total drag inside the cowling and radiators.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 8, 2019)

They shot down what they fought


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> How lucky are we to have big brother looking after us while we sat on our hands and did nothing, thank's for the history lesson.


You didn't sit on your hands, you tried your darnedest, but your efforts with the Spit V weren't well suited to the local circumstances; about like ours in ETO prior to mid 1943. And your troops on the Kokoda Trail, now there were some lads who had it all together.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I know this is probably controversial and may get me in trouble, but the Seafire seems to have been a debacle as a Naval fighter. Poor range mainly but also a host of other problems. At least in the MTO (Italy) it was basically a disaster. They would have been much better off with Martlets.



No poor range for P-36 with 160 gals of internal fuel - no worse than Wildcat or Zero.



> No doubt the P-36 is much slimmer and more streamlined but how much fuel can you fit in it for those long range carrier strikes? Can it keep up with the SBDs and TBFs? And considering it was already pretty slow even without armor etc., how fast is it going and how well is it climbing once you add 1,000 lbs of stuff?



316-317 mph at 17000 ft with 950 HP, as tested in Sept 1939. That is with R-1830-23 engine, that didn't have military power setting (power of 950 HP was at max continuous setting, rated altitude of 14300 ft. Martlet received the improved engine that offered 1050 HP at 13100 ft, plus 1200 HP at 5900 ft - made it go 317 mph. One of improvements was a 2-speed supercharger.
1000 lbs added on P-36 = 6800-7000 lbs. Martlet, clean went between 6800 lbs (early models, Cyclone engine) to 7800 (F4F-4 equivalent).



> I never did understand why the P-36 was so slow even with 1,200 hp engines.



1200 HP engines used on P-36 were low-atitude engines; the R-1830-23 (with 1100 HP for take off) will provide better hi-alt power than -17 (with 1200 HP for take off).


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> That's like saying Wildcats didn't kill many Me109's or FW190's. They fought in different theaters.



Sorry.... Comparing Darwin to Guadalcanal.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I am actually very surprised seeing this from you. From what I recall, the muzzle velocity of a .303 with a 174/175 grain bullet is also around 2500 fps. Some are a bit lower, some are a touch higher but not by much. but that is at the muzzle.
> How fast are they moving at the typical aerial engagement distances of perhaps 300 yards?
> I don't know how poor the shape of the M1 bullet was, but it would have to be pretty poor to lose out to a rifle caliber round at a few hundred yards.



The .50 cal M1 ball lost about 300fps by the time it reached 300yds at sea level, this was with just under .40 secs time of flight. At higher altitudes the time of flight is less and the velocity loss is less. I don't have the tables of fire for the .303 at hand but the US M1 Ball (174 grain boat-tail at 2650fps mv) had a time of flight of 0.39 seconds to 300yds.
The .50 cal has a tremendous advantage at long range, at short ranges (like 300 yds) not so much. It is cumulative. I don't worry to much about hundreds of a second in flight time, it is tenths of seconds that start to amount to something. 

The M2 Ball and AP rounds show a rather better advantage since they start out about 15% faster with times of flight that reflect that. 
They also hit a lot harder. Like over 30% more kinetic energy than the M 1 Ball or M1 AP for doing things like bursting that water drum.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> So 4 planes lost to Wildcats in 1945 constitutes regulatory fighting the Luftwaffe?.


For whatever it's worth Wildcats/Martlets accounted for 50 some( I believe it's 52) German aircraft. How many constitutes regular fighting im not sure but 50 some odd victories and not sure how many damaged seems like more than than a one of kinda thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The USN found that one Hispano was worth 3 .50's in regards to effect on target, when you look at the weights involved, two 20mm give the performance of 6 .50's but are lighter, that is why the British skipped the .50 back in 1940.



It's also worth remembering that Seafires had the Hispano V which were a noticeable improvement on the Hispano II being both lighter and faster firing, so the effect would have been increased.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2019)

The naval P-36 is pretty much a non-starter. 

see. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf 

Take off run for a P-36C at 5800lbs was 600ft zero wind and using 30 degrees of flap. 
Take off run for an F4F-3 at 7543lbs was 690ft zero wind.
Take off run for an F4F-3a at 7320lbs was 650ft zero wind.
Take off run for an F4F-4 at 7973lbs was 710ft zero wind.
Take off run for an P-40E at 8289lbs was 1070ft zero wind.

Now to get a P-36C to weigh 5800lbs you have to start leaving things out as the gross weight was 5838lbs and the max safe flying weight was 5840lbs, anything over that and the plane had restrictions. 
This weight is with 105US gallons of fuel, a 66lb radio, one, 50 cal with 200 round and three .30 cal guns with 500rpg. 
Filling the fuel tank behind the pilot added 348lbs, extra oil to last as long as the fuel was another 26lbs. 
The F4F3s were carrying 42 gallons more fuel and enough oil. They also had armor, self-sealing tanks, 129lbs worth of radio/communications gear, survival gear, and so on.

P-36s also had trouble with wing skin buckling over the landing gear when landing on land. Slamming them onto carrier decks without beefing up the structure probably wasn't going to work well. 

*IF *you can get the USN to forego armor and self sealing tanks and* IF *you can get them to agree to a lower fuel capacity and *IF* you can limit the guns to the P-36C armament or six .30 cal guns and no .50s and *IF* you can get by with less radio gear and no life raft and...............................

Then maybe you can get a Naval P-36 but it you do, what have you really got? 

BTW changing to the engine used in the F4F3A will add 92 pounds and the 2 stage engine will add 192 pounds of dry engine weight. 

A P-40 no letter weighed 673lbs more than the P-36C empty and that includes 292 lbs of radiator and coolant. 
If you add much weight at all the structure will have to be beefed up (which adds weight) to meet the usual American strength requirements. The early P-40 wing gained over 100lbs from the Hawk/P-36 wing. 

How heavy does the P-36 get before it can no longer safely operated from the carrier decks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The .50 cal M1 ball lost about 300fps by the time it reached 300yds at sea level, this was with just under .40 secs time of flight. At higher altitudes the time of flight is less and the velocity loss is less. I don't have the tables of fire for the .303 at hand but the US M1 Ball (174 grain boat-tail at 2650fps mv) had a time of flight of 0.39 seconds to 300yds.
> The .50 cal has a tremendous advantage at long range, at short ranges (like 300 yds) not so much. It is cumulative. I don't worry to much about hundreds of a second in flight time, it is tenths of seconds that start to amount to something.
> 
> The M2 Ball and AP rounds show a rather better advantage since they start out about 15% faster with times of flight that reflect that.
> They also hit a lot harder. Like over 30% more kinetic energy than the M 1 Ball or M1 AP for doing things like bursting that water drum.



Hello Shortround6,

First of all, the .303 174 grain starts off at about 2475 fps from the muzzle out of a 25 inch barrel. I don't know if the Aircraft ammunition was loaded hotter or if the barrels of the aircraft MG were longer. I don't believe it ever exceeds 2550 fps. The bullets weigh the same but are fatter by just a touch thus probably a lower BC or at least a lower sectional density. As mentioned before, some of them had an air space and an aluminum core at the front, so they might have been longer for a better BC. I don't believe those were available in the mid 1930's when the testing was done.

Also, as I understand it, the US .30 cal M1 (pretty much the same as a M72 Match round) actually had a bit higher muzzle velocity than you are listing here. It was more like 2700 fps or so. The 2640 fps or what is typically listed on the box is velocity at 78 feet instrumental.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2019)

The MK VII bullet was adopted in 1910. Even with the normal delays between adoption and introduction into service this was the standard round in WW I. It was most certainly available for testing in 1930s.

The MK VIIIz with boat tail was adopted in the very late 30s but may not have seen aircraft use?

The point is that at 300yds or so the difference between the times of flight of the slow/early .50 cal ammo and the British .303 ammo are so small as to be unimportant. At much longer ranges the differences do become much larger and assume greater importance.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 8, 2019)

As far as I know Mk.VIII was for Army Vickers guns only. RAF only ever used Mk.VII.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I know this is probably controversial and may get me in trouble, but the Seafire seems to have been a debacle as a Naval fighter. Poor range mainly but also a host of other problems. At least in the MTO (Italy) it was basically a disaster. They would have been much better off with Martlets.
> 
> No doubt the P-36 is much slimmer and more streamlined but how much fuel can you fit in it for those long range carrier strikes? Can it keep up with the SBDs and TBFs? And considering it was already pretty slow even without armor etc., how fast is it going and how well is it climbing once you add 1,000 lbs of stuff?
> 
> I never did understand why the P-36 was so slow even with 1,200 hp engines.


In the MTO the Seafire IIc / LIIc could intercept then drive off attackers, the Martlet was too slow.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The MK VII bullet was adopted in 1910. Even with the normal delays between adoption and introduction into service this was the standard round in WW I. It was most certainly available for testing in 1930s.
> 
> The MK VIIIz with boat tail was adopted in the very late 30s but may not have seen aircraft use?
> 
> The point is that at 300yds or so the difference between the times of flight of the slow/early .50 cal ammo and the British .303 ammo are so small as to be unimportant. At much longer ranges the differences do become much larger and assume greater importance.



Hello Shortround6,

First of all, you are using a round that has about 200 fps more muzzle velocity (than the .303) as a comparison.
Second, I was comparing retained velocity (between .303 and .50), not time of flight.
Third, if the two projectiles you chose to compare (the .30 and .50) have the same time of flight but the .30 starts off 200 fps faster, that means that its final velocity will be much slower because its AVERAGE velocity is the same.

Since you are using a .30 cal as an example for ballistics and the .303 is considerably slower, there is no way it will retain nearly as much velocity downrange unless something very very strange is happening.
Also, as you just pointed out, the .303 probably wasn't using a boat tail bullet (which I thought it was), so it would be losing velocity even more quickly.

Thus, you are actually proving my point.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

I have one comment and three questions on the guns. 

My comment is that if you were trying to shoot down an enemy bomber with defensive armament, the 12.7mm gun is a much better bet than the .303. Against an enemy fighter with armor, the 12.7mm is again better and more likely to kill the target from a further distance.

My questions:

What is the firing time for 60 rounds from a Hispano cannon with 60 rounds? 6 -10 seconds?
What is the firing time for an M2 .50 cal with 450 rounds? 40-50 seconds?
Both the M2 Browning and the Hispano 20mm were known for serious problems with gun-stoppages / jams in the early years of the war. Which one was worse in that respect?
Also bonus question: 

Did the motor-cannon / hub mounted 20mm generally speaking (ShVAK or Mg 151 or whatever) have less problems with stoppages? Because this is what I have read anecdotally.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the MTO the Seafire IIc / LIIc could intercept then drive off attackers, the Martlet was too slow.



Well, in theory. Have you read about the Seafire in Italy? They lost 70 Seafires from landing accidents alone at Salerno. Not so great.


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have one comment and three questions on the guns.
> 
> My comment is that if you were trying to shoot down an enemy bomber with defensive armament, the 12.7mm gun is a much better bet than the .303. Against an enemy fighter with armor, the 12.7mm is again better and more likely to kill the target from a further distance.
> 
> ...


If the HMG was the better weapon against bombers, then why did nearly all the nations switch to the 20mm? Against a fighter a 20mm is going to do far more damage than a 0.50 at any range due to the explosive warhead. 

a) 6 seconds from a 60 rd magazine but by the time the USA entered the war the Spit had 120 rds as the norm
b) 35 Seconds
c) By 1942 the 20mm issues had been resolved whereas the 0.50 were still being looked at

Bonus
I don't think so. The 20mm was designed for mounting in the hub and my understanding was that it was far more reliable from the start, the problems began when the gun was moved to the wing. The vast majority of French fighters had them mounted on the centre line.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Ok some followup.

A) I don't think this is correct because apparently a lot of Spit VB in the MTO were still using 60 round drums through the second half of 1942 and well into 1943, so I'm a little bit confused here. Can you clarify?
B) Again, a little confused because I'm showing 600 rpm, which translates to 10 rounds per seconds, so that would be 45 seconds would it not?
C) Also in the med, and in Darwin, stoppages seemed to continue to be a major problem with the Hispano 20mm.

On the Bonus question - I would agree, it seems to be that the hub mounted guns were more reliable, if not perfect.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, in theory. Have you read about the Seafire in Italy? They lost 70 Seafires from landing accidents alone at Salerno. Not so great.



Those were Seafires landing on CVEs in extremely light winds. No other Allied naval fighter would have done any better except maybe the Sea Hurricane.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 9, 2019)

These "Cannon vs. Machine Gun" arguments have been done to death, and always seem to be divided on National lines. The Americans praise the M2 Browning, while everyone else prefers 20mm. I think history is quite clear as to what is the more effective air-to-air armament. 
Once aircraft had the lifting capability to effectively wield auto-cannons, they generally did, and still do.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

I just don't think it was that simple. I've seen both 20mm cannon and .5 in machine guns fired, and I've shot the latter myself (at ranges) so I do find them impressive, but I'm not stupid - in many respects 20mm cannon were better. But as with anything to do with WW2 aircraft (and most other things) the devil is in the details. One of the questions is how much better. You can pretend it's not an issue but stoppages were a real problem for most wing-mounted guns. So was the limited armament of early cannon, even 120 rounds isn't that much, 60 is a real limitation. So it's a trade-off. 

Personally I would not say that 12.7mm machine guns are better or even close to equal to 20mm cannon. Cannon are just better at tearing apart aircraft because they can rip away the skin and structure. Cannon AP rounds also penetrate better.

However, are two 20mm with 60 rounds each better than 6 x .50s? I'm not convinced. It's a tradeoff, like everything in aircraft design. I think maybe the HMGs are better for carrier aircraft four a couple of different reasons. But it's also true that the only reason the US didn't switch over the cannon wholesale was that they couldn't figure out how to make the Hispanos work, didn't have a viable alternative design either, and ultimately figured the HMGs were "good enough."

The debate here though which was started, kind of as a derail, sprang from the claim that .303 machine guns were better / more useful than the 0.5 inch. Which is just not reality during the actual war.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Those were Seafires landing on CVEs in extremely light winds. No other Allied naval fighter would have done any better except maybe the Sea Hurricane.



Wildcats / Martlets seemed to operate just fine on CVEs, including very marginal ones and in awful conditions. I never heard of a Naval fighter with that much of a problem as 70 aircraft lost in two days (even if they eventually repaired almost half of them). I understand why they wanted to make a naval fighter out of the Spitfire, it was the best allied fighter in air to air combat for most of the war. But I don't think it was actually suitable for Naval use. Plenty of Brits and Commonwealth pilots seem to agree.

FAA Pilot Hugh Popham's view:
From "Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot"
_The Hurricane was a good aeroplane, on land, on a deck or in the air. The Spit was adequate on a runway, *bad, as it turned out, on a deck*, but in the air one of the most exquisite machines ever made by man. It was beautiful to look at with that knife-fine wing-section and the two sheer ellipses of its leading and trailing edges, and with that flowing line from spinner to fin. And it was beautiful to fly, light and quick on the controls, without vices. It was always said that Mitchell’s wife designed the lay-out of the cockpit; whether it was true or not, it was a pretty compliment, for it was as neat as a new kitchen. Against its incomparable virtues could be set its silly little *undercarriage, which was quite inadequate against the rough and tumble of deck-landing,* and the long, long nose which stretched away in front of the pilot ad made him practically blind in the traditional, nose-up, deck-landing attitude. In so far as it had never been designed for a deck, it was unfair to charge the designer with these disadvantages: they were the outcome of a makeshift policy towards Fleet Air Arm aircraft which threw us on to the doubtful mercies of obsolescent R.A.F. machines, hastily modified, or on to the Americans._

FAA pilot Henry "Hank" Adlam's view:
From "On and Off the Flight Deck: Reflections of a Naval Fighter Pilot in World War II"
_The Seafire, which was a normal Spitfire with the attachment of a hook for deck-landing, was in reality entirely unsuitable for Carrier operations. The narrow track of the undercarriage, its fragility and that of the whole fuselage made the Seafire unable to cope with the constant stresses of Carrier landings. The big wooden propeller constantly shattered because it had too little deck clearance. *The aircraft had a very limited range*, no bomb load *and, with the extra weigh of the hook, was not all that much faster than the Wildcat and with lesser fire-power. *The in-line engine, with the scoop-type coolers under the wings, made a successful ‘ditching’ in the sea difficult. But also, although a beautiful machine just to fly, it was very difficult to deck-land because of its tendency to ‘float’ over the wires when the engine was cut. Over the years, in the process of operating from Carriers, the Seafire seriously hurt or killed many pilots. Yet there were a few pilots of above average ability who loved the thing, despite its many faults as a Carrier aircraft._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The debate here though which was started, kind of as a derail, sprang from the claim that .303 machine guns were better / more useful than the 0.5 inch. Which is just not reality during the actual war.



It rather depends on the specific timeframe within the war that we're talking about. In the summer of 1940, the .303 was absolutely a better weapon than the 50cal because the latter simply wasn't a workable weapon solution in wing-mounted installations. The significant issues with the 50cal continued until at least the middle of 1942 and, in some cases, through Q3 of that year. I absolutely agree that the 50cal offered considerable advantages during the period late-1942 thru the end of 1943 but after that point I think cannon armament was absolutely ascendant.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, in theory. Have you read about the Seafire in Italy? They lost 70 Seafires from landing accidents alone at Salerno. Not so great.


I know. That was a success because they chased away attacking Jabo's.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I know. That was a success because they chased away attacking Jabo's.



plenty of other aircraft were shooting down Fw 190s at Salerno



> It rather depends on the specific timeframe within the war that we're talking about. In the summer of 1940, the .303 was absolutely a better weapon than the 50cal because the latter simply wasn't a workable weapon solution in wing-mounted installations. The significant issues with the 50cal continued until at least the middle of 1942 and, in some cases, through Q3 of that year. I absolutely agree that the 50cal offered considerable advantages during the period late-1942 thru the end of 1943 but after that point I think cannon armament was absolutely ascendant



I'd also take into considering much of 1941 when alot of fighting was going on in the MTO and the various convoys.. The M2 had problems then still, but so did the Hispano without any doubt (I don't know about the .303s or .30s) the M2 was working well enough to shoot down a lot of Axis aircraft in that period, mostly while being aimed by British and Commonwealth pilots.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Personally I would not say that 12.7mm machine guns are better or even close to equal to 20mm cannon. Cannon are just better at tearing apart aircraft because they can rip away the skin and structure. Cannon AP rounds also penetrate better.
> 
> However, are two 20mm with 60 rounds each better than 6 x .50s? I'm not convinced. It's a tradeoff, like everything in aircraft design. I think maybe the HMGs are better for carrier aircraft four a couple of different reasons. But it's also true that the only reason the US didn't switch over the cannon wholesale was that they couldn't figure out how to make the Hispanos work, didn't have a viable alternative design either, and ultimately figured the HMGs were "good enough."



If you think 20mm are better at destroying aircraft, and the only reason the USN didn't switch is because of the failed attempts to domestically produce the Hispano, then why would HMG's be better for carrier aircraft?

That does not compute for me. But, that is also not unusual for me


----------



## Greyman (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok some followup.
> 
> A) I don't think this is correct because apparently a lot of Spit VB in the MTO were still using 60 round drums through the second half of 1942 and well into 1943, so I'm a little bit confused here. Can you clarify?
> B) Again, a little confused because I'm showing 600 rpm, which translates to 10 rounds per seconds, so that would be 45 seconds would it not?
> ...



a) No figures to show for it right now but I'd agree that Spitfire Vc numbers didn't overtake Vb numbers until well into 1942.​b) Air service .50-cal Browning had a rate of fire of 700-850 rnds/min, depending on the source.​c) Stoppages rates for a particular weapon are dependent on many factors. Depending on the when, where, who and what mounting -- numbers are all over the place. eg:​VIII Fighter Command Mustang .50-cals -- 550 rounds per stoppage (February 1944)​VIII Fighter Command Lightning .50-cals -- 5750 rounds per stoppage (June 1944)​​I cherry-picked the best and worst figures in the time frame available (Jan-July 1944) to illustrate the point, and I imagine things get more varied when you go to different locales, use different units/armament crews, different ammunition lots, etc.​​Things moved very fast in those days and a lot could depend on having the latest minor modification or servicing technique.​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> If you think 20mm are better at destroying aircraft, and the only reason the USN didn't switch is because of the failed attempts to domestically produce the Hispano, then why would HMG's be better for carrier aircraft?
> 
> That does not compute for me. But, that is also not unusual for me



Well one thing I've learned about WW2 aircraft, and history in general, is that a lot of times what seem like easy and obvious answers aren't actually correct, because the Devil is in the Details as I said before.

For 20mm cannon, yes better for tearing apart enemy aircraft, shell for shell. But there are other factors - which boil down to how many shells hit the enemy aircraft when you need them to. In more granular detail - how many guns does your aircraft carry, how much ammunition does it carry. How accurate are they (some disagree but I think all other things being equal nose mounted guns were more accurate) and how often do they jam. Could jams be cleared by the pilot (some guns had methods to do this that worked, particularly those nose that could be cocked from inside the cockpit. Others did not).

So we know as has been pointed out a few times in this thread that the 60 round drum magazine limitation on the A6M was a problem for the Japanese Navy in some battles. In circumstances where there are multiple attacks coming in all day, more ammunition capacity may be better than heavier guns. The .50 cal was also pretty good at killing enemy aircraft - punching through engines and armor, putting big holes in fuel tanks and so forth. So if it's a choice between 10 seconds worth of heavy (20mm) shells vs. 40 or 50 seconds worth of HMG (12.7mm) I think the latter might be better. This is I believe why the original F4F-3 had four guns instead of six.


One other more 'meta' thought - I while I know it cane be annoying any time a Yank criticizes any kind of British hardware and vice versa, keep in mind, what seems like bias is in some case just greater familiarity. Americans are familiar with the .50 cal and all the American fighter aircraft, because we had uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew them. Because the US army still uses the M2 HMG and many of us fired them in the service. Because we saw these fighters at airshows and in museums. In the UK or Australia or Canada you are more likely to have uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew Spitfires and you'll have grown up with more familiarity with, and affection for, the British kit of all kinds.

So try to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Most of us want to transcend the cliches and learn as close as we can, what the reality was. We all grew up bathed in the propaganda of our own State and our own culture with it's biases. But we all respect the great fighters and warplanes in general for the most part. Right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Greyman said:


> a) No figures to show for it right now but I'd agree that Spitfire Vc numbers didn't overtake Vb numbers until well into 1942.​


​​Agreed​​

> b) Air service .50-cal Browning had a rate of fire of 700-850 rnds/min, depending on the source.


​Maybe Shortround6 can correct us, but I seem to remember the early war .50s had a slower rate of fire, then they got the M3 which went up to 1,200 rounds per minute. My understanding was that 600 rounds per minute was the norm for the early .50s, and lower than that for the ones that shot through the propeller arc like on the Tomahawk.​​​


> c) Stoppages rates for a particular weapon are dependent on many factors. Depending on the when, where, who and what mounting -- numbers are all over the place. eg:​VIII Fighter Command Mustang .50-cals -- 550 rounds per stoppage (February 1944)​VIII Fighter Command Lightning .50-cals -- 5750 rounds per stoppage (June 1944)​


​​For a large part that is nose gun mounting vs. wing gun mounting.​​​


> I cherry-picked the best and worst figures in the time frame available (Jan-July 1944) to illustrate the point, and I imagine things get more varied when you go to different locales, use different units/armament crews, different ammunition lots, etc.​​Things moved very fast in those days and *a lot could depend on having the latest minor modification or servicing technique.*​



That is very clearly the case, notably from the history at Darwin of the 49th FG and 1st Fighter Wing.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Americans are familiar with the .50 cal and all the American fighter aircraft, because we had uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew them. Because the US army still uses the M2 HMG and many of us fired them in the service. Because we saw these fighters at airshows and in museums.


I think you summed up the love affair with the .50 cal right there. 
I do not deny there was probably an over-lap period when the belt fed cannons were still somewhat unreliable, and the wing mounted M2 was MOSTLY reliable, perhaps in the 1941-42 period, that an all HMG armament could arguably be called superior. But I don't think that period lasted very long, if it existed at all


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So try to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Most of us want to transcend the cliches and learn as close as we can, what the reality was. We all grew up bathed in the propaganda of our own State and our own culture with it's biases. But we all respect the great fighters and warplanes in general for the most part. Right?




Well said

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think you summed up the love affair with the .50 cal right there.
> I do not deny there was probably an over-lap period when the belt fed cannons were still somewhat unreliable, and the wing mounted M2 was MOSTLY reliable, perhaps in the 1941-42 period, that an all HMG armament could arguably be called superior. But I don't think that period lasted very long, if it existed at all



It sounds like you only understood half of my point  but to each his own!


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 9, 2019)

Guns are not my thing but my two cents worth is that the engine mounted cannons are reportedly more reliable than the wing mounted ones. My two bobs worth on that is that the wing mounted ones were fitted to a more flexible structure that twisted slightly during heavy maneuvering and that *may *be a factor.
Engine mounted cannon would be living in a warmer environment therefore they would have had less problems with ice formation and viscous lubricants and that would likely be another factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The debate here though which was started, kind of as a derail, sprang from the claim that .303 machine guns were better / more useful than the 0.5 inch. Which is just not reality during the actual war.



You need to understand the conversation, the British tested the .303, Vickers .5 and Browning .50 in the late 1930's, in that era, neither of the .50 Cal guns with the ammunition in service at the time gave a worthwhile advantage over the .303 to offset their increased weight, slower cyclic rate and unreliability. The British decided that instead of adopting the Browning .50 that weigh around 38kg it would be better to use the Hispano 404 at 43kgs, the USN tested both and concluded that the effect on target of the 20mm was three times that of the .50 so two Hispano's at 86kgs gave the performance of six .50's that weighed 228kgs, those weights don't include mountings heaters etc. Guns cannons and more importantly ammunition changed dramatically through out the war, the guns and ammunition in service in 1945 were very different to what was available in 1940.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 9, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> These "Cannon vs. Machine Gun" arguments have been done to death, and always seem to be divided on National lines. The Americans praise the M2 Browning, while everyone else prefers 20mm. I think history is quite clear as to what is the more effective air-to-air armament.
> Once aircraft had the lifting capability to effectively wield auto-cannons, they generally did, and still do.



Hello Clayton Magnet,

The discussion didn't really involve .50 cal BMG versus 20 mm in whatever flavor, at least not to start.
My involvement in this discussion has been to question the testing by the British that showed that a .50 cal had no more AP capability than the .303.
While I can see how this can be true in very specific circumstances, I am arguing that the .50 cal has better effectiveness at typical aerial engagement distances.
It is really a preference for rate of fire as compared to effect of each round on the target and in the end I believe it has more to do with each air service's philosophy than anything else.

I believe it also has something to do with the mission of the fighter aircraft.
When you have a point defense interceptor like the Me 109 or Spitfire, 7 or 12 seconds of ammunition may not be so bad because you aren't likely to be that far from your base.
If you have a long range fighter like the A6M2, it might get pretty uncomfortable when you use up those 7 seconds of ammunition and are 5-6 hours from home.

Here is an interesting research question for the British members here:
Of the British fighters shot down during the Battle of Britain, how many were downed by Cannon and how many were downed by MG file alone? The Me 109E also had the problem of very limited cannon ammunition.

In the end, I would prefer the biggest A$$ gun that could comfortably be carried that offered sufficient duration of fire and did not compromise performance.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You need to understand the conversation, the British tested the .303, Vickers .5 and Browning .50 in the late 1930's, in that era, neither of the .50 Cal guns with the ammunition in service at the time gave a worthwhile advantage over the .303 to offset their increased weight, slower cyclic rate and unreliability. The British decided that instead of adopting the Browning .50 that weigh around 38kg it would be better to use the Hispano 404 at 43kgs, the USN tested both and concluded that the effect on target of the 20mm was three times that of the .50 so two Hispano's at 86kgs gave the performance of six .50's that weighed 228kgs, those weights don't include mountings heaters etc. Guns cannons and more importantly ammunition changed dramatically through out the war, the guns and ammunition in service in 1945 were very different to what was available in 1940.



I am well aware, I followed the argument, and do understand quite well - but there is a bit of funneling going on here. That is what I meant by a "derail". Some counterpoints:


What was (maybe, arguably) true in 1939 doesn't necessarily hold for 1940, 41, 42, 43 or 44
The context of the conversation was not limited to the pre-war
Two Hispanos with 60 rounds are just definitely _not_ automatically better than 6 .50s with 250-300 rounds or more (or even than four .50s with 450 rounds)
The .50 cal ammunition in use by 1941 was vastly more lethal and effective for destroying aircraft than _any_ .30 cal ammunition


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, in theory. Have you read about the Seafire in Italy? They lost 70 Seafires from landing accidents alone at Salerno. Not so great.



I don't know why people constantly bring up the Seafires issue's, the Spitfire was never designed to be used off a carrier, given time that the FAA didn't have it's issue's could have been sorted out but there was a war to be won, what I find more interesting is no one says anything about the Corsair, it was designed as a carrier aircraft but could only land by hitting the water after crashing onto the deck and was mostly used off paved strips instead.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

I think the context was discussion of carrier aircraft as a spin-off from Darwin and the notion that Spitfires didn't do so well in the PTO, being more specialized for the defense of Britain and in the ETO.

How well Corsairs could have done in the ETO or MTO is an interesting question.

But I agree until the Royal Navy showed the yanks how to do it, the Americans couldn't land Corsairs on carriers and they had a lot of teething problems with them in general - quite serious ones that tend to get glossed over, especially early on. But in spite of those issues, and the fact that the F6F was really the star carrier fighter of the war, the F4U turned out to be a very useful land based fighter during the crucial mid-war period and did contribute significantly to victory.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I don't know why people constantly bring up the Seafires issue's, the Spitfire was never designed to be used off a carrier, given time that the FAA didn't have it's issue's could have been sorted out but there was a war to be won, what I find more interesting is no one says anything about the Corsair, it was designed as a carrier aircraft but could only land by hitting the water after crashing onto the deck and was mostly used off paved strips instead.



Hello Pat303,

Don't you find it somewhat ironic then that the British were the first to use the Corsair aboard carriers when the USN had banished them to Marines and land bases? 
Sounds like the RN was desperate for a good naval fighter at the time and didn't mind dealing with the Corsair's bad manners on landing.
It didn't even fit below decks on British carriers because the folded wings were too high and the first idea was to deflate tires to stow the aircraft and yet they needed it so badly they had to find a means to use this awful carrier fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I am well aware, I followed the argument, and do understand quite well - but there is a bit of funneling going on here. That is what I meant by a "derail". Some counterpoints:
> 
> 
> What was (maybe, arguably) true in 1939 doesn't necessarily hold for 1940, 41, 42, 43 or 44
> ...



Point one, that has been explained aleready
Point two, the conversation is pre war because what guns you are going to use have to be fitted to aircraft before the war starts, not after.
Point three, In 1940 two 20mm's give you the performance of six .50's with less weight, that's a very important point considering the engine power available at the time. 
Point four, more effective .50 cal ammunition was being developed in 1941 and 42 and again in 43 and finally in 44 everyone was happy with the M8 API.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Point one, that has been explained aleready
> Point two, the conversation is pre war because what guns you are going to use have to be fitted to aircraft before the war starts, not after.



And yet armament changed routinely all through the war, in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944



> Point three, In 1940 two 20mm's give you the performance of six .50's with less weight, that's a very important point considering the engine power available at the time.



Only if you still had rounds to fire mate



> Point four, more effective .50 cal ammunition was being developed in 1941 and 42 and again in 43 and finally in 44 everyone was happy with the M8 API.



So switching the .50 in 1941 or 42 wasn't such a bad move...


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wildcats / Martlets seemed to operate just fine on CVEs, including very marginal ones and in awful conditions. I never heard of a Naval fighter with that much of a problem as 70 aircraft lost in two days (even if they eventually repaired almost half of them). I understand why they wanted to make a naval fighter out of the Spitfire, it was the best allied fighter in air to air combat for most of the war. But I don't think it was actually suitable for Naval use. Plenty of Brits and Commonwealth pilots seem to agree.
> 
> FAA Pilot Hugh Popham's view:
> From "Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot"
> ...



That's just nonsense. All naval aircraft need minimum wind over the deck to reduce the landing speed to something manageable by both the aircraft's hook and the carrier's arrestor gear. In FAA service the Sea Hurricane seems to have had the lowest accident rate and the highest serviceability rate.

_"The fighter force had flown 713 sorties resulting in 32 deck-landing crashes which wrote-off the machine. Undercarriage failure claimed 17 aircraft while a further 24 were found to have sustained distortion of the rear fuselage. Four Seafires were lost to engine failure.
Many Seafires needed repairs after the propeller clipped the fight deck after catching an arrester wire. Spares were soon depleted. A quick “field modification” was applied through the trimming of the propeller by 2in which drastically reduced landing damage without any noticeable loss in performance."_

The windless conditions and the slow CVE's with their short flight decks caused havoc amongst the Seafire squadrons:

"FAA Pilot Hugh Popham's view:
From "Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot"
_I, with the remainder of the squadron (of Seafires from HMS Illustrious), was dispatched to Unicorn to augment her depleted fighter-strength.
Depleted it certainly was. The twenty aircraft the Woolworths (escort carriers) had sent ashore represented all that remained serviceable, out of a hundred or more, after the first three days of the operation. This was in part due to the complete lack of wind. The small carriers were only capable of a maximum of seventeen or eighteen knots, and this with no natural wind to supplement it, was on the low side for deck landing. In conjunction with a lack of experience on the part of many of the pilots, it resulted in accidents of truly astonishing number and complexity. They had come roaring in, shedding their hooks, thumping into the barrier, dropping into the park, going over the side, until the hangars were choked with wrecks.
We, with our bigger decks and higher speed, had no such troubles: in fact the squadron got through the operation without a prang at all, which somewhat mitigated the unfortunate impression which Commander Flying had formed of us. "_

_"The Seafires also performed above expectation: The highest daily sortie rate was a maximum of 4.1 per Seafire. They had been expected to only go up twice each on the first day.
HMS Hunter suffered the least accidents of the whole Seafire force. The pilots of 834 Flight had received intensive instruction in the art of deck landing by their RNZVR CO, resulting in the whole flight remaining operational.
Pilots from HMS Indomitable operating from the escort carriers after their own ship had been damaged by torpedo were among the worst crash offenders, blaming difficulty in adapting to the 30 per cent smaller flight decks and 10knot slower base wind-over-deck speeds."_

_"The ghosts of Salerno were partially exorcised when the Seafire and escort carriers were paired to cover another amphibious landing, this time along the shores of Southern France on August 15, 1944, in Operation Dragoon. HMS Hunter carried 807 Squadron, HMS Attacker had 879 Squadron, HMS Stalker 809 Squadron and HMS Khedive carried 899 Squadron.
The extra time available for working-up pilots - along with more favourable winds - resulted in the Seafire’s crash rate falling to one in more than 50 landings. HMS Stalker’s Seafires conducted 337 sorties in the 10 days of the escort carrier’s deployment.
Seafire LFIIIs used in Dragoon were used as fighter-bombers, carrying 500lb bombs in support of ground troops. It was one of only very few occasions this occurred."_

_Armoured Aircraft Carriers _

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

I guess you can spin things a lot of different ways. I call that a catastrophe, and it was hardly the only debacle with the Seafire. The FAA pilots commentary was quite eloquent on several of the issues. But it's always possible to see the same data two different ways.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pat303,
> 
> Don't you find it somewhat ironic then that the British were the first to use the Corsair aboard carriers when the USN had banished them to Marines and land bases?
> Sounds like the RN was desperate for a good naval fighter at the time and didn't mind dealing with the Corsair's bad manners on landing.
> ...



By 1945 the Corsair was favoured by the USN over the F6F. It was a combination of improved landing technique and better LG that made the Corsair a successful carrier aircraft.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> By 1945 the Corsair was favoured by the USN over the F6F. It was a combination of improved landing technique and better LG that made the Corsair a successful carrier aircraft.



I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 9, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> By 1945 the Corsair was favoured by the USN over the F6F. It was a combination of improved landing technique and better LG that made the Corsair a successful carrier aircraft.



Hello RCAFson,

Agreed, but the remedy for the uneven stall and landing gear bounce had NOT been addressed when the Royal Navy began operating the Corsair from carriers even though the US Navy had chosen not to.
THAT was my point.

- Ivan.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.



Yes, the FAA clipped the wings and the prop, IIRC.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello RCAFson,
> 
> Agreed, but the remedy for the uneven stall and landing gear bounce had NOT been addressed when the Royal Navy began operating the Corsair from carriers even though the US Navy had chosen not to.
> THAT was my point.
> ...



The problem was that the USN favoured a hard stalled landing where the FAA was used to using gentler landing techniques.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I guess you can spin things a lot of different ways. I call that a catastrophe, and it was hardly the only debacle with the Seafire. The FAA pilots commentary was quite eloquent on several of the issues. But it's always possible to see the same data two different ways.



Pilots crashed while operating in still wind conditions and in some cases landing on decks 30% smaller than what they were used too, I'd suggest you look at the Corsairs loss rate here Corsair loses explained if you want to talk about debacle's.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.



I believe it was to be able to fit below decks for both aircraft.
As I mentioned before, the initial idea for the Corsair was to deflate the tires and re-inflate them before flight.
The actual working solution was to clip the wings.
Regarding Seafire clipped wings: Have you seen what a unclipped wing on a Seafire looks like when folded? It needs a second bend at the wing tip. Seems a whole lot simpler just to remove it.

Problem with clipping wings to increase sink rate is it also increase stall speed and that isn't something you want on a shipboard aircraft.

Has anyone else found it odd that of the carrier fighters mentioned, the Seafire probably has the lowest stall speed of any of the others, assuming it wasn't significantly different from a land based Spitfire, but the slow escort carriers and lack of wind made it necessary for them to come in so hot that they were breaking and having many accidents?

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 9, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The problem was that the USN favoured a hard stalled landing where the FAA was used to using gentler landing techniques.



Hello RCAFson,

You need to see what the post I was responding to:



PAT303 said:


> .....what I find more interesting is no one says anything about the Corsair, it was designed as a carrier aircraft but could only land by hitting the water after crashing onto the deck and was mostly used off paved strips instead.



- Ivan.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello RCAFson,
> *You need to see what the post I was responding to:*
> - Ivan.



My two bobs worth is that is a good reason to always include at least a clipped version of the post you are replying to or to say* re post #807.*

I find it saves a lot of confusion for me so I would expect it to assist others as well. Maybe I am just getting old though and need more help than the younger members.

Mi


----------



## pbehn (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.


I believe the wings were clipped to fit the hangers and this gave a higher sink rate which some preferred, also less "float" over the deck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 9, 2019)

I will try to sum up (brief history) the US .50 cal gun, and it's ammo.
For the gun pretty much unchanged from the early 20s to the late 30s/1940. Some details but function and rate of fire didn't change much.
These guns fired at 600rpm _at BEST_. They were often tested with short belts and longer belts or high lifts of the belt from the ammo storage to the gun feed way slowed them down. 
These 1920s and 30s guns were known as the M1921 although a few other years might be thrown in. By 1837 or so the gun had been redesigned to allow different versions to be built off the same receiver (aircraft gun, ground (surface) gun with air cooled barrel or water cooled and feed could be switched from left side to right side. This was called the M2 but the rate of fire stayed the same as the older guns. Please note that the "ground" gun with air cooled barrel fired at a lower rate. 
By 1940 they had figured out how to increase the rate of fire and older guns could be converted to new standards with a parts kit. the firing rate is given variously as 750-850rpm but this covers not only the variation from gun to gun but different installations. Either as part of the M2 or separately ( I am going by memory here and not looking things up) the roughly doubled the belt pull (force the gun exerted on the belt to move it or lift it) by changing the cam tracks. How quickly the M2 was gotten into service by the US is subject to question but since the US was not in a shooting war for 1940 and most of 1941 it really doesn't have a lot of bearing. The British got some of the M2s during this period. 
The M2 carried on through the war essentially unchanged (as far as rate of fire goes) until the end of the war. Around 8,000 (?) of the faster firing (1200rpm) gun (later called the M3) wer built in very late 1944 and 1945 under a "T" number but actual details of where they went seem a bit sketchy. The M3 had to be built as such and while many parts were interchangeable an M2 could not be modified into an M3. Now please note there were a number of projects starting in 1942 to build this 1200rpm gun (at least three companies and some companies had more than one project going at the same time) so the planners might have expected the fast firing guns to show up before they did. Some of the projects were pretty much failures from the start and others just missed the reliability goal (number of broken parts per 5000 rounds) and the programs dragged out over two years. 
Please note the increased belt pull helped sort out some of the early feed problems (but not all). 
Please also note that the US ordnance dept had some rather strict requirements for the number of jams or broken parts allowed per 1000 rounds (or 5000 rounds) fired and, barrels aside which were considered expendable, a rather high expectation of gun life, like tens of thousands of rounds given replacement parts. 

Ammo, as has been mentioned, went through a lot changes. While during the 20s and 30s you had the Ball and AP rounds, and tracer. There was no HE ammo or incendiary ammo in service. The Ball and AP rounds had a velocity of about 2500fps. This rating was for all guns at least until the M2 HB ground gun came along with it's 45 in barrel. 
In the late 30s the improved smokeless powder/s that had been developed in the 1920s and 30s allowed for higher velocities. There is some confusion here as some books from the 30s or early WW II list MV of 2400fps for the old ammo in range tables (to account for a worn gun instead of factory fresh) and the new ammo is listed as 2700fps but with a lighter bullet this soon went to the more well known 2880fps. I don't know how much was due to the ighter bullet, how much was due to a different powder and how much was due to accepting higher pressure or different barrel life, the new powders may have been a bit "cooler" and allowed things to be pushed a bit more. However the .50 was always a barrel burner and needed short bursts and cool down periods if there was not to be a huge consumption of spare barrels.

the M1 incendiary was not adopted (or at least issued) until after the M2 AP and M2 ball ammo was issued and these are the rounds that have 2880 fps muzzle velocity. The AP and ball ammo are issued in 1940. It is not until very late 1941 or 1942 that the M1 incendiary is issued in numbers (basicly and enlarged British Dixon bullet.) and it may have taken a while before it's use was wide spread. This was followed by the M8API which carried roughly the same amount of incendiary material as the .303 incendiary bullet of about 1/4 it's weight. 

So we have 2 if not 3 different capability guns (not counting the M3) different installations (and the synchronized guns could be cycling at 400-500rpm)over the years and several different sets of ammo. the low velocity no incendiary ammunition group. the high velocity but still no incendiary ammunition group, the high velocity with incendiary ammunition group and the M8API ammo years, this leaves out Korea.

Trying to assess or evaluate the Buffalo, F4F, P-36, P-38,P-39s and early P-40s (though the E) needs to take into account the rapidly changing guns and ammo and what was known or planned for the future near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 9, 2019)

There is a lot going on in this thread. I have never come across any evidence that proves that 4 x.50 are >8 x .303 or visa versa as well. The wing mounted .50s had serious jamming issues , in the P 40 for sure, until well into late 42. Stocky Edwards in his book, "Kittyhawk Pilot" complains about the jamming a lot, saying that after any high G manuevres in a dogfight, they would all pack it up after a few bursts. The 8 x .303s were extremely reliable in 1940, and were very effective with the dixon/dewilde ammo. The .50 had better armour penetration , but the increased number of guns , plus the higher firing rate, the .303 had a better probability of getting a critical hit. RAF testing had shown that most aircraft were shot down by hits to the relatively vunerable engine. I feel that the greater reliability of the 8 x.303s gives the nod to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

There is a reason why basically every country in WW2 (including the British) quickly abandoned the .30 cal (.303, 8mm, 7.62mm, 7.7mm, 7.9mm etc.) as a main fighter armament or even (a little later) as a primary defensive gun for bombers. It just lacked the effective range of the heavier guns. 12.7mm wasn't as good as a 20mm (round for round) but it was much better than any .30 cal weapon.

The problems with stoppages while shooting in high G turns was an issue with all wing mounted guns as far as I know, certainly the 20mm Hispanos had the same issue.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 9, 2019)

Concerning the initial topic of this thread , one needs to remember that the tropicalized Spit V was probably the low point of the Spit during the war. In tropicalizing the Spit V the whole nose of the Spit was enlarged for additional oil/glycol , plus the volkes air filter adding considerable increased drag. These issues were resolved with the Spit Mk 8 with its, integral tropical filter and far better performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

I agree, in fact my analysis per the three fighters in the OP is as follows:

Early War - *A6M2* and *Spitfire*, tied*. Both played a huge rule in the military successes of their respective Island nations, both defied the expectations of their enemies, the A6M in a stunning series of offensive victories, the Spitfire in the big defensive victory of the BoB.
Mid War - *Fw 190* - it came out with a bang, wrecked a lot of Allied kit (and shot down many Spitfire V series), wrought carnage in the Channel, in the Med and on the Russian Front. But it was then overwhelmed as more maneuverable fighters, including the Spitfire, caught up in performance. A pilot in a Spit IX had little to fear from a Fw 190 unless it got bounced unawares. P-51s owned them too.
Late War - *Spitfire* again**. The Spits from late 1943 onward were too much for any Axis fighter except the Jet. And the Jet was in a league of it's own.

* Along with the Bf 109 I'd say, but it's not in the OP
** Other fighters were contending with the Spitfire in the late war for that "best of" category, but the Spitfire was better than the other two in the OP by that period.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> How quickly the M2 was gotten into service by the US is subject to question but since the US was not in a shooting war for 1940 and most of 1941 it really doesn't have a lot of bearing. *The British got some of the M2s during this period*.



That is why it _did_ matter - the British bought quite a few US made fighters and bombers (and took over more from the French) during 1941 and got some into action before 1942 notably in the Med. And of course even more in 1942, not all of which were necessarily armed the same way.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> 12.7mm wasn't as good as a 20mm (round for round) but it was much better than any .30 cal weapon.



Show me your proof, ie combat results, that 4 x .50 is > than 8 x.303 . I am going to check out operation Pedestal results comparing Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars to Martlets.

The advantage of longer range is spurious at best, as almost all WW 2 aces will stress the need to get close.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Show me your proof, ie combat results, that 4 x .50 is > than 8 x.303 . I am going to check out operation Pedestal results comparing Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars to Martlets.
> 
> The advantage of longer range is spurious at best, as almost all WW 2 aces will stress the need to get close.



There is no way to prove any of it. But the people at the time, War planners, pilots, commanders of air units, knew it was an issue - specifically for the reasons I mentioned. I could pull these kinds of comments up easily enough - as I did in the debate about the Seafire. But as in the debate about the Seafire, there are people who can 'see no evil' and cheerfully ignore that kind of evidence. There is always enough wiggle room to believe whatever you want to believe if you try hard enough 

If you are flying an aircraft with nothing but .303 machine guns and are attacking a bomber formation with aircraft armed with 20mm cannon or 12.7mm machine guns, you are taking a much bigger risk than if the roles are reversed. You better figure out where the big guns are and attack from the other direction (which may mean fewer attacking passes in a given battle) or you better come swiftly and aim true. And hope you have a bullet proof windscreen.

Fighter to fighter it doesn't matter as much, except in terms of armor penetration. And that depends on how much armor the other fighter has.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

I think there is also a reason why the FAA acquired so many Martlets and Hellcats, and Corsairs, and for that matter Avengers. They were better suited to naval combat operations than what they had.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Helldivers on the other hand they were wise to reject...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> There is a reason why basically every country in WW2 (including the British) quickly abandoned the .30 cal (.303, 8mm, 7.62mm, 7.7mm, 7.9mm etc.) as a main fighter armament or even (a little later) as a primary defensive gun for bombers. It just lacked the effective range of the heavier guns. 12.7mm wasn't as good as a 20mm (round for round) but it was much better than any .30 cal weapon.



Sorry but that is wrong, the British stayed with the .303 in their bombers because at night the ranges were very short and the opportunity to shoot happened very quickly, because of this the decision was made to stay with the faster firing .303's to increase the chances of hitting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

Night is different, arguably. But daytime bombers like the Baltimore were upgraded from .30 to .50 cal in the MTO. 

So were dozens of bomber types all over the world, from Russia to Japan to the US


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think there is also a reason why the FAA acquired so many Martlets and Hellcats, and Corsairs, and for that matter Avengers. They were better suited to naval combat operations than what they had.



Do you think that being designed as Naval aircraft would have any bearing on them being adopted by the FAA to be used in the Navy?.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Do you think that being designed as Naval aircraft would have any bearing on them being adopted by the FAA to be used in the Navy?.



The Fulmar was designed as a Naval aircraft...

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Night is different, arguably. But daytime bombers like the Baltimore were upgraded from .30 to .50 cal in the MTO.
> 
> So were dozens of bomber types all over the world, from Russia to Japan to the US



Your flogging a dead horse, bombers could not defend themselves regardless of what guns they had, they all needed escort fighters, including night time.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

Lol tell that the B-29 pilots...

The point is that even with an escort, most bombers need as strong a defense as possible. When they put in a defensive gun in the* Il2 *- a 12.7mm UBT was the ultimate version - losses went down significantly with or without escorts.

The US medium and heavy bombers had multiple .50 cals for defense. Older types or those designed for European orders (like the Boston and the Baltimore) were upgraded to the heavier defensive guns (.50 cals) to extend their service life. They were still (usually) flown with escorts but the heavy defensive armament helped them stay alive. Older designs with lighter defensive guns like say the Wellington and the Blenheim were basically relegated to Coastal or night-time missions. Thousands of brave and highly trained aircrew lost their lives in Blenheims in the MTO as they couldn't survive missions with or without escorts. The only real exception being the Mosquito which had the superlative speed to enable evasion of fighters based on performance alone.

Nor were the Americans by any means unique in this. Most late model multi-engine bombers had heavy machine guns and / or cannon for defense:

Soviet *Pe-2 *was up-gunned to a 12.7mm defensive gun (which reduced the loss rate), as was the *Il-4 *(12.7mm UBT in the dorsal turret)
The successful though antiquated Italian *SM.79 *Torpedo bomber was given a 12.7mm defensive gun to survive encounters with Fulmars and Hurricanes in the Med
The *G4M* as I'd mentioned, had a 20mm tail gun. Later Japanese bombers like the *Ki-67* had multiple (in that case x 5) 12.7mm defensive guns plus a 20mm.
The earlier German bombers with enough room (like the He 111 and Fw 200) were up-gunned with 13mm defensive guns, and later model German bombers had a mix of cannon and HMGs (*Ju 188* had 20mm cannon and 3 x 13mm MG 131, the *Do 217* had two 13mm guns, the ill-fated *He 177* had no less than 2 x 20mm and 4 x 13mm guns)

So I would say it was a trend mate.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Fulmar was designed as a Naval aircraft...


The Fulmar was a redesign of the P4/34, a light bomber designed for the RAF. IIRC the FAA's top scoring fighter.


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 10, 2019)

Hey guys,

A few bits of info concerning the continuing debate on fighter armament.

As I stated in my post#635 above: "The Air Ministry tests of .50 cal Browning vs .5" Vickers vs .303 cal MG (various makers) took place from 1932-1935." There was no available 20mm suitable for fighter use at the time. The result was the 8x .303 cal Browning armament specified for the Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I.

In late-1930s pre-war planning and wargame exercises, the Air Ministry considered the ratio of weapon effectiveness to be 1pt vs 2pts vs 4pts for the .303 cal vs .50 cal/.5" vs 20mm respectively.

In so far as none of the potential opponents at the time were fitted with armour or SSFT, the Air Ministry considered 8x .303 cal as the minimum acceptable, with the 20mm the clearly superior weapon (particularly vs bombers) but not yet available.

In 1935 the standard US fighter armament was 1x .50 cal and 1x or more .30 cal, depending on the service.

The US did not switch to 2x .50 cal plus ?x .30 cal, or 4x .50 cal (or more), until just before they entered the war - this change being largely brought about by what they learned from the early-war experience of the UK and France. Examples of this change in thinking (if needed) are the differences between the Buffalo/Wildcat/P-36/P-39/P-40/P-43 prototypes and/or early production variants, vs the first really combat ready models used by the US, such as the P-40D/E or F4F-3/-4.

I may be wrong but I do not recall any requests by the UK that the aircraft supplied by the US, after the US entered the war, have the .50 cal Brownings replaced with .30/.303 cal Brownings (which would have been quite feasible).

Based on the above I have to conclude that the US and UK both considered the war-time .50 cal clearly superior to the .30/.303 cal, at least once the opponents were carrying armour and SSFT.


During the war and post-war the UK switched to 20mm armament wherever possible, and post-war an all 20mm fit was adopted for all the new aircraft (I think, please correct me if I am wrong).

My understanding is that end-war/post-war the US considered the 20mm M3 to be worth 3x .50 cal M3. Although I have never seen a report that detailed the exact reasoning for this, I did run across a document that mentioned the effects of thicker skinning used on stressed skin surfaces and monocoque structures as used on the jets of the time (late-1940 to early-1950s). The document mentioned that the .50 cal had difficulty reliably penetrating the surfaces, particularly at higher obliquities (also mentioning the projectile tumbling problem) and still do adequate damage to internal components. Attempts to develop a ~.60 cal MG resulted in inadequate improvement in reliable penetration. Subsequently the 20mm was adopted, the reasoning being that a 20mm AP round would by its very nature be superior to a .50 cal AP round if that was what was needed, and that the destructive effects of the 20mm HE on skin and structure were so superior to the .50 cal that there was no comparing the two.

Based on the above I have to conclude that the US and UK both considered the 20mm clearly superior to the .50/.5" cal, at least as far effect on target is concerned. Maybe the 20mm could be considered overkill for fighter vs fighter combat in WWII, but I would think that the Air Ministry would have requested .50 cal/.5" be fitted instead of the 20mm (again, this would have been quite feasible) if there was any real doubt as to which was better?


(My apologies for not being able to post some original source documents for the above but my last computer crapped out ~2 weeks ago and I am still trying to recover the data.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

The US was never able to produce what they considered a reliable conventionally designed 20mm cannon, which is why the F-86 was still using .50 cals in the Korean War (and not doing very badly with them). They did finally get Hispano 404s into production (as the Colt Mk 12) but they felt it wasn't accurate enough and was prone to stoppages. It wasn't until the German type revolver cannons like the M39 (based on the Mauser 213) became available in the 50's that the US were confident enough in the 20mm to put them into wider use, though they still had problems with those guns wearing out the barrels. The M39s were replaced by the first multi-barrel (G.E. M-61) "gattling" types which arrived in the early 60's and are still in use today, which seem to be pretty effective.

As for the post above, again yes I agree round for round a 20mm is going to be better and more lethal than a 12.7mm round, but you do have to take into consideration ammunition capacity and reliability. The first generation 20mm cannon with their 60 round drum magazines were not necessarily the equivalent of two 12.7mm guns let alone three.

The 12.7mm had roughly equivalent effective range as the 20mm and if you had more of them with a lot more ammunition that did make a difference, especially for Carrier fighters.


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 10, 2019)

Hey Schweik,

While I agree that the number of rounds available is important I do not know if it is important enough to change the question of balance (for lack of a better way to express it)? The Japanese could have installed Ho-103, an ~equivalent to the .50 cal Browning, with more ammo in place of the 20mm in the Zero if they had wanted to. Likewise, the Germans could have installed MG131 in place of the 20mm in the Me109 (including in the nose). But as far as I know they did not (at least not to any extent?).

I wonder how much the availability of gyro/lead-computing gunsights had to do with the switch to 20mm and smaller ammo loads post-war?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think there is also a reason why the FAA acquired so many Martlets and Hellcats, and Corsairs, and for that matter Avengers. They were better suited to naval combat operations than what they had.


Concur. No hanks to the RAF. Beach aviators have no business messing with seagoing aviation. "Every two Fulmars/Fireflies/Baracudas means one less Lancaster."
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Concur. No hanks to the RAF. Beach aviators have no business messing with seagoing aviation. "Every two Fulmars/Fireflies/Baracudas means one less Lancaster."
> Cheers,
> Wes


The Fulmar was our highest scoring FAA fighter, so I couldn't agree with you. The conversion kit Sea Hurricane the second highest scoring and the Seafire third with 99.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The US was never able to produce what they considered a reliable conventionally designed 20mm cannon, which is why the F-86 was still using .50 cals in the Korean War (and not doing very badly with them)



The US was _still using_ the .50 in Korea because all the intended replacements had crapped out *AND *the guns used in Korea were the M3s (at least in the jets) *and *the ammo used in the Jets was the M23 incendiary round with much more incendiary material than the old M8 and since it was lighter, a much higher velocity which require less lead to get hits. 
An F-86 in Korea was firing 120 rounds a second compared to the 80 rounds a second of an F5F, F4U, or P-51D. An F-86 carried 267 round per gun for a firing time of just under 14 seconds. If the US had used WW II M2 guns and WW II ammo things may not have gone so well. 




ThomasP said:


> The Japanese could have installed Ho-103, an ~equivalent to the .50 cal Browning, with more ammo in place of the 20mm in the Zero if they had wanted to. Likewise, the Germans could have installed MG131 in place of the 20mm in the Me109 (including in the nose). But as far as I know they did not (at least not to any extent?).


.

In theory the Japanese could have done that, at least later in the war, the Ho-103 not being in service until 1943 or so? (400 Ki-61s being fitted with imported German Mg-151 cannon). This assumes the Japanese Army and Navy actually co-operated 

Sort of the same problem for the Germans. the MG-131 doesn't show up (at least in quantity) until 1941/42. It certainly is not a replacement for the MG/FF or MG/FFM 20 mm guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lol tell that the B-29 pilots...
> 
> The point is that even with an escort, most bombers need as strong a defense as possible. When they put in a defensive gun in the* Il2 *- a 12.7mm UBT was the ultimate version - losses went down significantly with or without escorts.



The B-29 was pretty much in a class of it's own. One gunner could command several turrets/barbettes giving 4-60 guns aimed by one man at the same target. The sighting system was much more sophisticated than most other bombers used. 

The IL-2 is an extreme case. No defensive armament to a very, very good 12.7mm gun (still manually aimed.






Schweik said:


> Soviet *Pe-2 *was up-gunned to a 12.7mm defensive gun (which reduced the loss rate), as was the *Il-4 *(12.7mm UBT in the dorsal turret)
> The successful though antiquated Italian *SM.79 *Torpedo bomber was given a 12.7mm defensive gun to survive encounters with Fulmars and Hurricanes in the Med
> The *G4M* as I'd mentioned, had a 20mm tail gun. Later Japanese bombers like the *Ki-67* had multiple (in that case x 5) 12.7mm defensive guns plus a 20mm.
> The earlier German bombers with enough room (like the He 111 and Fw 200) were up-gunned with 13mm defensive guns, and later model German bombers had a mix of cannon and HMGs (*Ju 188* had 20mm cannon and 3 x 13mm MG 131, the *Do 217* had two 13mm guns, the ill-fated *He 177* had no less than 2 x 20mm and 4 x 13mm guns)



True on the PE-2 and IL-4 although both still suffered high losses,
the SM.79 was a bit different. the Italians hadn't actually standardized on the 12.7mm gun but they used a lot more of them than the 7.7mm guns. The SM.79 actually had three 12.7mm guns. one fixed out the front over the pilots windscreen (in the 'hump") one dorsal flexible mount out the back of the hump and one out the back of the ventral tub. One or two 7.7mm guns were mounted as waist guns. They did not change from 7.7mm guns in response to encounters with British fighters. The contemporary Fiat BR.20 bomber also used three 12.7mm machine guns. 

The G4M used a 20mm gun and while effective if it hit it's chances of hitting were not good and it's overall performance as a defensive gun is questionable. However, as with so many other situations regarding aircraft armament one has to look at what the alternatives were. The other guns on the G4M were copies of the WW I Lewis gun (with or without licence) and a 7.7/.303 gun firing at around 600rpm with a 97 shot drum is hardly the last word in rifle caliber defensive armament, in 1940-42. 

The German MG 131 was _designed_ to fit into most spaces the MG 15/17 would, it was also, by a very narrow margin, the least powerful heavy machine gun cartridge. In part due to the requirement for a small, light gun. It was about 50% as powerful as the Russian 12.7mm UB ammunition as far as kinetic energy goes. 
This also helps explain the Germans skipping over it to some extent and going for the 20mm cannon. 

One 13mm MG 131 is hard pressed to equal a pair of rifle caliber Brownings for instance. 15 36 gram(average) projectiles a second vs 40 10 gram projectiles at about the same velocity (and the MG 131 bullets were not that streamlined). the Russian 12.7mm gun was firing 16-17 45-52 gram bullets per second at an extra 100meters per second. This made it a bit harder to control in a manual mount though. 





Round for the MG 131 on the left with the Russian 12.7mm ammo, everybody else's heavy machine gun ammo was in between. 

During the war there was an awful lot of fitting what was available or likely to be available vs what was desired or planned for two to four years down the road. 
The Germans made pretty much a hash of defensive armament for bombers. They had subscribed a bit too much to the fast bomber concept and then tried to leapfrog from manual aimed guns (fighting the slipstream) to remote aimed powered barbettes with the result that the few powered turrets/mounts they used weren't that good or were behind the curve when actually deployed. 




supposed to be a 13mm turret on a He 177.
One gun, and _why_ does the the gun have a small amount amount of independent traverse to the turret itself?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

Perhaps affinity for different caliber weapons also hinged on the quality of the versions they had available. Shell size not being the only criteria. MG 131 for example was a light weapon designed for use by aircraft (unlike the Browning M2) and had a pretty high rate of fire for an HMG, around 900 rpm. The Wiki notes specifically that it was considered a major improvement over the earlier 7.92mm LMGs especially as used by Bf 109 and Fw 190s. Not sure about reliability but German guns were usually pretty good.

The two biggest users of HMGs were arguably the US and the Soviets and they both had pretty good ones available. The British on the other hand had a love affair with the .303 round and had those nice Boulton - Paul powered turrets. Maybe hard to let that go. The Italians and Japanese also used HMGs a lot but I know the Italian Breda wasn't so great.

From my perspective as far as the American infatuation for the M2 .50 goes, it's from witnessing the effects of it on the range. It's a very impressive weapon. When I was in the army I spent a lot of time on the range because I liked to shoot and it was actually a way for me to basically have a day off. I never saw an Hispano 404 fired but aside from small arms I did see basically all the NATO weapons including the German, British, US, Italian and French LMGs, the M2, and some Warsaw Pact weapons like the PK and RPK. I also got to see some demonstrations of the M61 Vulcan which was extremely impressive but it used a vast amount of ammunition in a very short period of time. So your aim better be precise. Old hands from Vietnam told us that the VC used to just hide in the foxhole and wait for the buzzing sound to end. I also the saw the old Bofurs in use which to me seemed like a more useful weapon because it didn't blow the whole wad in ten seconds and had an impressive range.

The most impressive LMG in terms of accuracy and reliability from my (admittedly limited) perspective was the German MG-3. It had a high ROF and was very accurate especially on the tripod, and didn't seem to jam very often. The German soldiers were good at shooting short bursts from them, so good that with other LMGs they could shoot a single round at a time. Next was probably the FN MAG, which had a lower ROF but was also accurate and seemed reliable. The worst was the US M-60 which jammed a lot from what I saw and wasn't that accurate. Some of the ones we had were quite old and rattly, maybe Vietnam era (this was in the 80s). All of the LMGs tended to overheat quickly if you shot more than a couple of belts and required barrel changes.

To me, the "Ma Deuce" was just by far the scariest and most destructive thing on the range. We had a lot of old trucks and vehicles and other stuff on the range to shoot at - very far downrange. The M2 would consistently knock pieces off and it wasn't hard to hit targets very far away. The tracer rounds seem to float peacefully down toward the target and then just wreck it. The affinity for it by all branches of the US service personnel (and quite a few NATO troops) was not due to patriotism but due to seeing how effective it was. For example a lot of the same guys who loved the M2 despised the M-16 in those days and preferred the AK to it. (I gather the modern version of the M4 is better than the old M-16A1 and A2 that we had back then).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The British on the other hand had a love affair with the .303 round and had those nice Boulton - Paul powered turrets.


That "love affair" lasted exactly as long as the reliable belt fed 20mm was not available. Which came on-line about the same time as an acceptably reliable wing mounted M2 system. The soviets used 12.7mm guns in their aircraft, not because they preferred them, but because they couldn't loft more than ONE ShVAK 20mm at a time. Once they COULD, they standardized exclusively on 20mm and larger. In my opinion, for what its worth, the Yak-3P had maybe the best air-to-air armament of any fighter during the war, with its 3 B-20 cannons, all concentrated in the nose. Relatively light weight, fast firing, hard hitting


----------



## pinsog (Dec 10, 2019)

I wonder how many people here that argue for the 303 over the 50 BMG have ever actually held the rounds in their hand side by side? I understand the 20 mm was more destructive than a 50 per hit, but if you only have 2 20mm and either 60 or 120 rounds per gun vs even 4 50’s with 450 rounds per gun then that is a big difference, especially when you spend most of your time missing the other plane. If I was in a P47 or a Corsair and could have 4 20mm with 250 rpg then that might make sense. But early in the war when your talking about Wildcats and P40’s I think 4 50’s was about optimum for what the allies were fighting, mostly single engine fighters and 2 engine bombers.

Let’s not forget that Caldwell stated that they would have been better off at Darwin with 4 50’s instead of the 4 303 and 2 20mm that they had

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

One of the FAA pilots I quoted upthread noted that (in his opinion) the Martlet had better armament than the Seafire he flew.


----------



## taly01 (Dec 10, 2019)

While combat warplanes can be pretty and flight performance numbers are interesting they really only exist to be flying weapon systems, it would be an interesting topic one day for aircraft that were made or failed due to their weapons.

Part of the success of the Fw190 probably had alot to do with the 4x20mm wing guns the early ones came with, a few random 20mm hits could still devastate or disable a fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

Especially in combination with their high combat speed, because it made the bounce so much easier. No idea there is an enemy plane around, and then you are hit with 30 or 40 x 20mm shells. Bye bye.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 10, 2019)

The early Fw190A-0's were armed with six 7.92mm MG 17's, followed by the A-1's, which replaced the outboard machine gun in each wing with a single MG FF 20mm

If only those crazy Germans had thought to put 50 cals on it instead, they could have won the war! 





sorry

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

The A-0 was pre-production. From the A-2 onward they had the four 20mm


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I wonder how many people here that argue for the 303 over the 50 BMG have ever actually held the rounds in their hand side by side? I understand the 20 mm was more destructive than a 50 per hit, but if you only have 2 20mm and either 60 or 120 rounds per gun vs even 4 50’s with 450 rounds per gun then that is a big difference, especially when you spend most of your time missing the other plane. If I was in a P47 or a Corsair and could have 4 20mm with 250 rpg then that might make sense. But early in the war when your talking about Wildcats and P40’s I think 4 50’s was about optimum for what the allies were fighting, mostly single engine fighters and 2 engine bombers.
> 
> Let’s not forget that Caldwell stated that they would have been better off at Darwin with 4 50’s instead of the 4 303 and 2 20mm that they had



I don't know how many times this has to be repeated...IT DEPENDS ON THE TIMEFRAME. The 50cal was useless as a weapon in 1940 because it simply wasn't reliable enough and the rate of fire was so poor. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the 303 was the right choice for the RAF. By the time the US entered the war, the 50cal was a more viable weapon but it still took almost 9 months to get it working reliably in wing installations. By that time, cannon armament was looking like a more efficient option for the RAF. 

I'm also puzzled by the continued reference to smaller ammo capacity for the cannons. The whole purpose of the 4x303 machine guns was to aid sighting so that the pilot only opened fire with the cannon when he was (relatively) certain of a hit. That's a different technique from having 4 or 6 50cals where the objective is simply filling the air with flying lead. Not saying one technique is better or worse than another...they're just different, so let's not try to equate them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

That was how it worked _in theory_, but not always in reality. A pilot in WW2 didn't always have the time to line up a shot with the .30 cal weapons before shooting just a couple of rounds of cannon. Even if he did, it's still a very limited number of cannon shots (trigger pulls) with a 60 round drum.

The specific context of this comparison of ammunition capacity was in reference to the fact that A6M pilots found they often had ran out of (cannon) ammunition and either had to land on the carrier to re-arm (as at Midway) or were stuck hundreds of miles from base with only LMGs which were considered only marginally effective especially against well protected bombers. This was a factor in several Pacific battles. It also sometimes seemed to be a problem for the RAF for example over Malta during some of the convoy fights.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 10, 2019)

I certainly agree with you though that the multiple .303 armament was correct for the Battle of Britain.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 10, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I don't know how many times this has to be repeated...IT DEPENDS ON THE TIMEFRAME.



If people can't follow the conversation don't bother replying, like you said, this has been discussed numerous times.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 10, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I don't know how many times this has to be repeated...IT DEPENDS ON THE TIMEFRAME. The 50cal was useless as a weapon in 1940 because it simply wasn't reliable enough and the rate of fire was so poor. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the 303 was the right choice for the RAF. By the time the US entered the war, the 50cal was a more viable weapon but it still took almost 9 months to get it working reliably in wing installations. By that time, cannon armament was looking like a more efficient option for the RAF.
> 
> I'm also puzzled by the continued reference to smaller ammo capacity for the cannons. The whole purpose of the 4x303 machine guns was to aid sighting so that the pilot only opened fire with the cannon when he was (relatively) certain of a hit. That's a different technique from having 4 or 6 50cals where the objective is simply filling the air with flying lead. Not saying one technique is better or worse than another...they're just different, so let's not try to equate them.


The idea of using 30’s to get sighted on a target and then expecting your 20mm to hit him has been discussed and been proven incorrect. By the time you see your 30’s start hitting, make the decision to squeeze the cannon trigger, then actually squeeze the trigger, the guns fire and the cannon rounds get there, both aircraft have probably moved 1,500 feet and the angle, range and everything else has changed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Perhaps affinity for different caliber weapons also hinged on the quality of the versions they had available. Shell size not being the only criteria. MG 131 for example was a light weapon designed for use by aircraft (unlike the Browning M2) and had a pretty high rate of fire for an HMG, around 900 rpm. The Wiki notes specifically that it was considered a major improvement over the earlier 7.92mm LMGs especially as used by Bf 109 and Fw 190s. Not sure about reliability but German guns were usually pretty good.



The quality is a good point but the characteristics of the guns also play into it. The Russian aircraft guns (aside from the 7.62mm ShKAS) being of rather low quality compared to western guns (short gun life) however the russians had traded long gun life for light weight and high rate of fire. The russian 12.7mm machine gun was slightly more powerful than the M2 Browning, fired faster (up to 30% faster depending on source) and weighed a significant amount less. Assuming the plane lasted long enough the Russians junked the whole gun while the Americans might be replacing an extractor and spring (barrels are consumables). But remember, durability is different than reliability. 

The German MG 131 was a very successful gun for the role it was designed for. Which was to replace the MG 15 and MG 17 on a pretty much one for one basis. It fired a much heavier bullet at close to the same rate of fire. the fixed MG 17 fired at 1200rpm without synchronization and the MG 131 fired at 900rpm. the smaller gun weighed 12.6 kg and the larger one 17 kg compared to the Browning M2 29 kg.

However other nations were improving their armament too and they often were not replacing one gun with a bit larger one. The much put upon Blenheim in it's "turret" went from a single drum feed Lewis gun to the drum feed Vickers K gun ( 600 rpm to 1000rpm) and then to twin Vickers K guns and then to twin belt feed Brownings (1200rpm each) . The turret was actually good for around 180 degrees of traverse. Unfortunately for the Germans in comparisons since bombers often did not fight bombers, by the time they were sticking one or two .MG 131s into a bomber the British were sticking in those Boulton - Paul power turrets with four .303 guns with a combined rate of fire of 4800rpm or 80 rounds a second. Each round may have been a bit on the weak side but that was a lot of bullets. 




Schweik said:


> The two biggest users of HMGs were arguably the US and the Soviets and they both had pretty good ones available. The British on the other hand had a love affair with the .303 round and had those nice Boulton - Paul powered turrets. Maybe hard to let that go. The Italians and Japanese also used HMGs a lot but I know the Italian Breda wasn't so great.



The Italian Breda wasn't too bad except it was heavy. The Italians had been using since at least the mid 30s and it was pretty much a Browning clone. trouble is the Italians didn't lighten it up to match the small cartridge they used (ballistic twin to the British .5in Vickers) and never seemed to get the rate of fire up to the newer guns. 
The British .5in Vickers, the Italian 12.7mm and the Japanese 12.7mm were all pretty much ballistic triplets. They also were just enough more powerful than the German 13mm to win a bar bet but the practical difference in power was near zero. The British did not use exploding bullets the other two nations did. The Japanese also managed to cut about 6kg from their Browning Clone that the Italians did not and also seem to have achieved a higher rate of fire. 

This is part of the British "love affair" with the .303. A British .5in AP round has about 3.25 times the energy of a British ,303 round but the . 303 gun weighs about 1/2 as much and fires almost twice as fast. Compared to the US Browning as tested in the 30s (and they did adopt the small Browning) the M1 loading had 15,000 joules of energy compared to the .303s 3280 joules. The later M2 load had 17400 joules. 




Clayton Magnet said:


> That "love affair" lasted exactly as long as the reliable belt fed 20mm was not available.



The love affair ended a lot earlier. The British were build a factory to manufacture HS 404 cannon in Britain in 1938. Part of the love affair can be explained by the shear size of the Hispano cannon and by the fact that it needs to be supported a good distance out the barrel.





Note mounting bracket on the left hand gun. This forward support is difficult to arrange in a aircraft gun turret. It was eventually done. but not until about the end of the war. It was a lot easier to shove a pairof American .50 cal Brownings in a Boulton Paul turret in place of 4 .303. British were toying with the idea od a turret mounting four Hispanos on a twin engine super Defiant but that idea went away quickly. 




pinsog said:


> I understand the 20 mm was more destructive than a 50 per hit, but if you only have 2 20mm and either 60 or 120 rounds per gun vs even 4 50’s with 450 rounds per gun then that is a big difference, especially when you spend most of your time missing the other plane



The British were working on more ammo capacity for the Hispano in the summer of 1940. a variety of feeds/ magazines and belts were being tried. 
However not all .50 cal US planes carried anywhere near 450 rounds, in fact many never came near that amount and others were often flown (or at least performance tested) with much smaller amounts. The first P-40Ns being the most famous, four guns with 201 rounds per gun. of about 15-16 seconds of firing time. The P-40Ls were about 235rpg for four guns. 
Some of the weight charts for the F4F show only 200rpg but I have no idea if any were flown in combat that way. Likewise the initial weight chart for the F4U lists only 200rpg with the higher capacity being labeled overload. P-47s with underwing loads dropped to around 267 rpg. 

The early P-51s carried 200rpg for the fuselage mounted guns and 250rpg for the wing mounted .50 cal guns. If they carried 6 guns total the outboard guns could have 350 rounds. 

The Wildcat was an outlier with 430rpg and paid for it with poor performance. .50 cal ammo for the Browning is about 30lbs per hundred.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The idea of using 30’s to get sighted on a target and then expecting your 20mm to hit him has been discussed and been proven incorrect. By the time you see your 30’s start hitting, make the decision to squeeze the cannon trigger, then actually squeeze the trigger, the guns fire and the cannon rounds get there, both aircraft have probably moved 1,500 feet and the angle, range and everything else has changed.



Like all discussions of this sort, it all depends on the engagement scenario. If the target is non-manoeuvering (and, frankly, most fell into that category) then the tactic is entirely valid. It's not appropriate for a snap shot take during high g manoeuvres.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2019)

this use the rifle caliber guns to range and sight for the 20mm cannon certainly has been discussed a lot and just on this page in this thread we have the technique being discussed to cover both the 600m/s Japanese type 99-I 20mm cannon and the 860m/s Hispano ammunition. Both countries using 7.7mm ammo of about 760m/s. Maybe It's me but something certainly seems off. 

At close range (say under 300yds) it might actually work but then so would learning to shoot and just pulling the trigger. at the range gets longer the technique gets increasing faulty unless you have ex math professors as pilots.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2019)

taly01 said:


> Part of the success of the Fw190 probably had alot to do with the 4x20mm wing guns the early ones came with, a few random 20mm hits could still devastate or disable a fighter.



While this is true the Germans seldom get take to task for the variety of trajectories and times of flight of some of their armament set ups. If their pilots got in close this could be ignored, but at longer ranges things could get a bit weird. The 20mm MG 151 fired the same projectiles as the MG.FFM cannon but fired them about 100-125m/s faster (about 14-15%) and the German 20mm ammo used different projectiles, the infamous mine shell left the muzzle about 90-115m/s faster than the 117gram HEI and AP rounds (and they were the ones that had the tracers) but they slowed down much quicker so even ammo from the same gun isn't hitting at the same place at the same time. Now at 300 meters at sea level this might not be a big problem as most of the German ammo is within about 1/10 a second of each other and a 300mph plane is covering about 440-450fps. or 44-45ft in that 10th of a second but at 600 meters the difference in times of flight has gone to about 3/10ths a even getting the different shells on bomber might be a problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 10, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> I may be wrong but I do not recall any requests by the UK that the aircraft supplied by the US, after the US entered the war, have the .50 cal Brownings replaced with .30/.303 cal Brownings (which would have been quite feasible).



Actually I believe RAF Buffalo's and some P 40 Tomahawks and the P 36 Mohawks had their armament modified to 6 x .303s.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 10, 2019)

I did a quick check on the results from "Operation Pedestal" . The 32 Sea Hurricanes accounted for between 16 to 18 kills, including 8 or 9 tough well protected JU 88s. The 10 Martlet II s, armed with 6x .50 scored 2 to 4 kills. The Sea Hurricane had a performance advantage as well but seemed to do just fine with the 8 x .303s. There was one Sea Hurricane 1C armed with 4 x 20 mm that got some kills.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I agree, in fact my analysis per the three fighters in the OP is as follows:
> 
> Early War - *A6M2* and *Spitfire*, tied*. Both played a huge rule in the military successes of their respective Island nations, both defied the expectations of their enemies, the A6M in a stunning series of offensive victories, the Spitfire in the big defensive victory of the BoB.
> Mid War - *Fw 190* - it came out with a bang, wrecked a lot of Allied kit (and shot down many Spitfire V series), wrought carnage in the Channel, in the Med and on the Russian Front. But it was then overwhelmed as more maneuverable fighters, including the Spitfire, caught up in performance. A pilot in a Spit IX had little to fear from a Fw 190 unless it got bounced unawares. P-51s owned them too.
> ...


Agree on the Spitfire. For missions where having a long range was not nescesary it was for most of the war the best piston engined fighter in existence.........Imho of course.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Mid War - *Fw 190* - it came out with a bang, wrecked a lot of Allied kit (and shot down many Spitfire V series),



Just a wee update to this, and not really a correction, but the Bf 109F was responsible for the high numbers of RAF flighters being shot down throughout most of 1941 and into early 1942, the Fw 190 was certainly responsible for adding to the high losses, but it was the Messerschmitt, not the Fw that scored most of the kills. There is a thread on this forum that contains official Fighter Command loss figures that attest to this and the majority of FC Spitfires were lost before the Fw 190 made an appearance - I think it was Steve (Stona) who provided the hard info. After the Fw appeared, the losses FC suffered actually drop off a little, but still remained high. In the first half of 1942 after the introduction of the Fw 190, FC losses decreased over the previous six months of the Bf 109F in charge. The '190 takes the credit, but the Messer did the most of the work (I wish I could find the thread and figures...)

Part of the thing with the Fw is that it displayed demonstrably superior performance to the Spit V from the outset and the British didn't really place too much speculation on the Friedrich, believing that the Spit V was its superior, but evaluation proved that the Friedrich could outperform the Spit V in almost every respect except turn radius. When told this, this led one Spitfire pilot to exclaim in frustration that, "turning doesn't win battles!"

Part of the problem was FC's strategy for pushing into France. There was high losses for little measurable return.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

I'm familiar with that argument, but I don't buy it. To me that is kind of like pointing out that Hurricanes shot down more Luftwaffe planes than Spitfires so therefore they were more important in the Battle of Britain.

The Spitfire was the most important fighter in the BoB (in my opinion) because it was good enough compared to the best German fighter (at the time Bf 109E) that the British pilots themselves felt that they had the better bird. You can debate they point -I think they were right- but there is enough overlap to argue it one way or the other. The key thing was that the Spitfire was in the same league as the 109, and maybe better. Most Spitfire pilots thought it was better, and that made a real difference in terms of morale and planning. If you needed to smash a big LW raid coming in, you know if you could get enough Spifires there to give you that extra edge you could break it up. Maybe Hurricanes could pull it off too but they were at a slight disadvantage and everyone knew it. You need that edge to win battles.

The FW 190 similarly outclassed the Spit V. The high combat speed, the big panoply of guns, the roll rate and the armor, put the FW in another league. That had a devastating morale effect on RAF pilots. The Bf 109F may have shot down more Spitfires (or it may not have) but that was probably more circumstantial - the Spits coming across the channel to attack integrated air defenses. The 109F may have had marginally better (speed and climb) performance than a Spit V (depending on the precise configuration of the latter, boost settings etc.) but the Spitfire pilots knew they had their own advantages and could beat a 109F. The Spit V was basically it's equal. The FW could interdict over England and they couldn't catch it, they knew if they tangled with a unit of 190s they were at a serious disadvantage.


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok some followup.
> 
> A) I don't think this is correct because apparently a lot of Spit VB in the MTO were still using 60 round drums through the second half of 1942 and well into 1943, so I'm a little bit confused here. Can you clarify?


Spit Vb had 60rd drums but the Vc which entered service in Oct 1941 had the 120rd magazine


> B) Again, a little confused because I'm showing 600 rpm, which translates to 10 rounds per seconds, so that would be 45 seconds would it not?


You certainly could be right but I had 800 rpm for the 0.5 M2.


> C) Also in the med, and in Darwin, stoppages seemed to continue to be a major problem with the Hispano 20mm.


I wasn't aware of major problems with the 20mm in the desert. They did have major problems with the reliability of the Spit V 20mm in Malta, but it was traced down to ammunition made in the USA. Despite all the shortages, they destroyed all US produced ammunition and the problem went away. As for Darwin, I don't pretend to know the reason


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 11, 2019)

II/ Jg26 became operational with Fw 190's during the fall of 1941, I. and II. gruppe converted about the end of the year, by which time the fighting had petered out due to winter. Jg 2 converted to Fw 190's during the spring of '42.
There is no doubt that it was 109's that caused FC the most grievance 'leaning in to France' during the summer and fall '41, though there were also still a good many Spitfire Mk. II equipping FC squadrons in this period.

The major difference is one of perspective, imo; the FC pilots in '41 were claiming more German fighters shot down than they were losing, though it wasn't the case. However, in '42 when the Fw 190 was the main German fighter FC pilots were claiming less German fighters than were losing. It may in some way have been convenient to blame the Fw 190 for FC woes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 11, 2019)

Glider said:


> I wasn't aware of major problems with the 20mm in the desert. They did have major problems with the reliability of the Spit V 20mm in Malta, but it was traced down to ammunition made in the USA. Despite all the shortages, they destroyed all US produced ammunition and the problem went away. As for Darwin, I don't pretend to know the reason



The 20mm ammunition supplied to 1 wing was made in a new factory at St Mary's west of Sydney and was out of spec, the cannons also didn't have heaters, combined this caused the stoppages.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The FW 190 similarly outclassed the Spit V



The Spit V was optimized to fight over 20,000ft, the FW190 under, the standard Spit V was outclassed by the 190 but Supermarine cut the wings down and RR developed the Merlin 50 engine and the MkV LF, Low Flight was born.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

Glider said:


> Spit Vb had 60rd drums but the Vc which entered service in Oct 1941 had the 120rd magazine



Yes but there were still plenty of Vb around in 1942


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Spit V was optimized to fight over 20,000ft, the FW190 under, the standard Spit V was outclassed by the 190 but Supermarine cut the wings down and RR developed the Merlin 50 engine and the MkV LF, Low Flight was born.



Yes it depended on the variant. Boost rating mattered too.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The 20mm ammunition supplied to 1 wing was made in a new factory at St Mary's west of Sydney and was out of spec, *the cannons also didn't have heaters*, combined this caused the stoppages.



Same problem as in Darwin


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

slaterat said:


> I did a quick check on the results from "Operation Pedestal" . The 32 Sea Hurricanes accounted for between 16 to 18 kills, including 8 or 9 tough well protected JU 88s. The 10 Martlet II s, armed with 6x .50 scored 2 to 4 kills. The Sea Hurricane had a performance advantage as well but seemed to do just fine with the 8 x .303s. There was one Sea Hurricane 1C armed with 4 x 20 mm that got some kills.



Impressive, especially considering that Hurricanes flying out of Malta seemed to routinely be unable to intercept Ju 88s in particular.

How many Zeros were shot down by Sea Hurricanes (or any kind of Hurricanes?) How many Bf 109s?

Keeping in mind that victory claims are not the same as verified destruction, US F4F Wildcat pilots claimed 986 aircraft shot down in the PTO and FM-2 pilots claimed another 422. I believe most of the former were fighters, and most of those A6Ms.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 11, 2019)

How many Zeros were in Operation Pedestal?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> How many Zeros were in Operation Pedestal?



I think we can agree there were zero Zeros. But apparently there were only ten Martlets so it's not much of a comparison for those either. The convoy was rather badly devastated with the aircraft carrier (or CVE) HMS Eagle sunk plus 3 warships and 9 transports sunk and 34 aircraft lost so it's not exactly a rousing success. It did get the job done though.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

If you wanted to seriously compare the operational successes of Martlets to Sea Hurricanes it would probably be best to do it on a per-sortie basis or per encounter / combat basis.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Spit V was optimized to fight over 20,000ft, the FW190 under ...



According to whom?


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 11, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Like all discussions of this sort, it all depends on the engagement scenario. If the target is non-manoeuvering (and, frankly, most fell into that category) then the tactic is entirely valid. It's not appropriate for a snap shot take during high g manoeuvres.


Agreed. Several of the top Japanese aces claimed they used this method frequently.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but there were still plenty of Vb around in 1942


Service intro for Vc was March / April 1942.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Keeping in mind that victory claims are not the same as verified destruction,



Those are the post war numbers from ," Malta the Spitfire Year"



Schweik said:


> If you wanted to seriously compare the operational successes of Martlets to Sea Hurricanes it would probably be best to do it on a per-sortie basis or per encounter / combat basis.



True, but in many cases, for fighter comparison, those numbers are not available.



Schweik said:


> I think we can agree there were zero Zeros. But apparently there were only ten Martlets so it's not much of a comparison for those either. The convoy was rather badly devastated with the aircraft carrier (or CVE) HMS Eagle sunk plus 3 warships and 9 transports sunk and 34 aircraft lost so it's not exactly a rousing success. It did get the job done though.



Its a very good comparison of how they performed side by side in the same deployment/combat.

Some people try to claim that "Pedestal" was not a great success but I believe that is in complete error. Malta was the most bombed place on Earth, at the time. The forces available to attack the convoy were very large. with 540 serviceable aircraft alone. It is important to note that the convoy suffered no losses from air attack, while under the umbrella of the carriers and their fighters. Malta was very close to collapse and starvation until relief from Pedestal. They received 40 more Spitfires plus fuel, food and munitions to continue the fight through the fall. The allied forces achieved their objective. Two months later Ropmmel was stopped and eventually crushed at El Alamein.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

I agree it was a Strategic victory, albeit at great cost. A great deal hinged on Malta without any doubt.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 11, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 563370
> 
> Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories​


Be interesting to add the Shoot Down Records of the other European Theater
Such as Russia for the P39/400 and P40. 
Not much written with other US planes though a few P51's, P47's and P38s were sent.

The range limited Spitfire and Airacobra did well when they could get to the fight.
All the other planes had much better range making for more opportunity.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

That kind of data is very gradually emerging in the last 10 or 15 years or so, and seems to be coming out at an accelerating pace now (with at least 6 credible authors or groups of researchers I know of to date) but it's going to be a while, probably another generation, before we make sense of it all and put it into perspective to change our fondly remembered legends and tropes.


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The 20mm ammunition supplied to 1 wing was made in a new factory at St Mary's west of Sydney and was out of spec, the cannons also didn't have heaters, combined this caused the stoppages.



Thank you for that, it goes to prove that I still learn something new every day. Appreciate it


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but there were still plenty of Vb around in 1942


There were also plenty of Hurricanes IIB, Brewster Buffalo's and Tomahawks with unreliable 0.50 and a considerable number of other aircraft of an earlier vintage in early 1942 particularly in the desert.
The point I was trying to make was that by 1942 the standard production Spit was the Vc which was armed with 20mm which had 120 rpg.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

I get the point - I was just pointing out what was still in use on the battlefield. Spit VB was around for a while, and for reasons I don't understand some pilots actually said they preferred them over the VC. Of course VC had different configurations. The Spit V more broadly remained in use for a really long time.

Tomahawks I think were pretty good with their (nose mounted) .50 cal armament as guns go, the early Kittyhawks though were a bit of a problem.

That said, one comment on machine guns in general - all machine guns jam. It's just a matter of how often. Upthread someone posted a ratio of 1/500 rounds for a P-51 (wing mounted) and 1/5000 rounds for a P-38 (nose mounted), I forget for what time periods, but that gives you some idea of the range of probability of an issue. This was one of the reasons why multiple guns were needed.

In 1942 a lot of fighters were flying around that had a high likelihood of a series of gun stoppages / jams in almost any fight, gradually that improved to the point where you might expect to have some of your guns still working by the time you ran out of ammunition. If you used them properly (didn't fire overly long bursts, resisted the urge to shoot wing guns while in high G turns etc.)

You could push your luck of course and get a few rounds out but then it might stop shooting. Some guns could also be cleared after a jam, especially those nose mounted guns which had gun chargers protruding into the cockpit







Others had electric chargers that may or may not work (more likely generally speaking over time and when maintenance standards were good).


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Tomahawks I think were pretty good with their (nose mounted) .50 cal armament as guns go, the early Kittyhawks though were a bit of a problem.


AS far as I understand, someone please correct me if I am wrong, the M2 did not lend itself well to synchronization, with a 50% reduction in rate of fire.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 11, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> AS far as I understand, someone please correct me if I am wrong, the M2 did not lend itself well to synchronization, with a 50% reduction in rate of fire.




That's true but in the movie Red Tails P40's blew up a warship with a squirt of .50's and Me262's exploded into balls of flames after a few hit's while other less effective rounds like the MG 108 30mm's merely scratched the paintwork in return.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> AS far as I understand, someone please correct me if I am wrong, the M2 did not lend itself well to synchronization, with a 50% reduction in rate of fire.



True, though that also means longer shooting time right?


----------



## pinsog (Dec 11, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> That's true but in the movie Red Tails P40's blew up a warship with a squirt of .50's and Me262's exploded into balls of flames after a few hit's while other less effective rounds like the MG 108 30mm's merely scratched the paintwork in return.


The 50 BMG rate of fire was reduced when synchronized but not near 50%. When Shortround6 sees this he will probably give us nearly the exact rate of fire, but seems like it was around 500 rounds per minute. Whatever it was, the Russians P39’s seemed to do ok with only 2 50’s and the 37mm or 20mm. Dauntless SBD’s also did ok with only 2 synchronized 50’s bringing down several 4 engine Japanese float planes as well as Kates, Vals and the occasional Zero.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2019)

Getting exact numbers is almost impossible, on many of these synchronized guns the firing rate was dependent on the rpm of the engine. 
The British generally figured (or reported) that the Synchronized guns on the Tomahawks and early P-39s were in the 400-500rpm range, some of the early P-40s/Tomahawks had the 600rpm max guns when not synchronized. I have no idea if the guns in the P-39s the Russians could do better when synchronized but at least they were supposed to shoot around 800rpm unsynchronized. Please note the manual for the M2 aircraft gun gives a range of 750-850rpm so none of these numbers is exact. 
The Italian Breda 12.7mm is supposed to have fired at 700rpm but as low as 400rpm when synchronized and the Japanese Ho-103 gun also had a very large drop. It wasn't the US M2 but the Browning gun design in general that did not take to synchronization well.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm familiar with that argument, but I don't buy it. To me that is kind of like pointing out that Hurricanes shot down more Luftwaffe planes than Spitfires so therefore they were more important in the Battle of Britain.



Nothing of the sort. Here is a post by Steve, which I collected when writing an article on Fw 190, but can't find the original post on the forum. it displays figures Steve collected for himself. It's in its original form and based on these figures, prove it.

"Hooton notes that between June - December 1941 RAF FC lost 416 fighters in six months during 20 495 day sorties flown (2 % loss rate), plus BC's 108 bombers in 1406 sorties (7.6 % loss rate...!).
This was pretty much the 109F period, just before the JGs started to convert to the 190A. Luftflotte 3 was flying 19535 sorties but lost only 93 fighters (0.4 % loss rate)..

The numbers pretty much speak for themselves - 4 RAF fighters and a bomber was lost for every German fighter . RAF fighter command at the time was however believed that it had shot down over 700 German fighters.

In the next six months (January - June 1942), when the Fw 190 was making appearance, the RAF lost another 295 fighters in 22 729 (1.2% loss rate) day sorties while BC flew 1007 day sorties and lost only 16 (1.5% loss rate).

*It's quite clear that the first six months of Fw 190ish 1942 was much easier on the RAF than the previous six months of 1941. 109F equipped JGs were kicking the brown out of Fighter Command in 1941 much worse than 190As did in 1942.* Fighter Command's losses did not, as you'd believe, increase in 1942. In fact they were decreasing, but the RAF had enough. Similar losses for the same period for the Jagdwaffe are not available, but Hooton notes that in the four months leading to June 1942, RAF FC has lost 264 fighters for 58 German

To summerize:

*In the second half of 1941 the Germans, largely equipped with 109Fs shot down 416 RAF fighters and 108 bombers, for the loss of 93 of their own fighters - a loss ratio of 5.6 to one!
In the four months leading to June 1942 the Germans, largely re-equipped with 190As shot down 264 RAF fighters and about a dozen bombers, for the loss of 58 of their own fighters - a loss ratio of 4.7 to one!*

Thus actually the LW was doing relatively worse with the 190 (meaning that they 'only' shot down about 5 RAF planes for each of their own instead of 6..) and Fighter Command actually slightly better.

All that happened that the RAF was slow to realize it. It took them a year and a number of high profile engagements in the spring of 1942, when JGs practically annihilated a number of Spitfire Squadrons in combat: on 1st June 1942 9 Spitfires of the Debden wing were shot down, the next day seven out of 12 Spitfires of No. 403 Sqn were shot down by JG.

This must have rose some heads in the air ministry and Dougles was told to stop this nonsense over France at once. The RAF began to realize the reality of the situation that was going on for a year and they finally had enough of the hammering they received over France - either from 109Fs or 190As.

They may have perceived that this was caused by the 190s, but with the hindsight it seems it was an easy excuse for everyone, since essentially it was the failure of the tactics and lack of concept, aka the human factor. Surely post-war historians were keen to build on that. After all, 'the Fw 190 menace' and blaming it all on a supposedly unbeatable uberfighter sounds a whole lot nicer in the history books than 'we were banging our head against the concreate hoping it would yield and it took us a year to realize this was a stupid concept'.

So, in short your earlier statement that *'RAF only started to suffer losses which they considered unsustainable after the introduction of the Fw 190' is demonstrably untrue."*

You can disbelieve it all you want, doesn't change the facts. The Air Ministry knew that the Bf 109F was doing enormous damage and was superior to the Spitfire V, Sholto Douglas wrote a secret memorandum in August 1941 drawing urgent attention for the need to improve performance of the Spitfire V, which it was acknowledged was inferior to the Bf 109F in speed and climb.

The essential issue was the foolishness of the 'Leaning into France' policy, as Sholto Dougllas called it and the belated realisation that it was taking an enormous toll on Fighter Command. Allocating blame was easy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 11, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Nothing of the sort. Here is a post by Steve, which I collected when writing an article on Fw 190, but can't find the original post on the forum. it displays figures Steve collected for himself. It's in its original form and based on these figures, prove it.
> 
> "Hooton notes that between June - December 1941 RAF FC lost 416 fighters in six months during 20 495 day sorties flown (2 % loss rate), plus BC's 108 bombers in 1406 sorties (7.6 % loss rate...!).
> This was pretty much the 109F period, just before the JGs started to convert to the 190A. Luftflotte 3 was flying 19535 sorties but lost only 93 fighters (0.4 % loss rate)..
> ...


190A’s had a 5-1 kill ratio over Spitfire Mark V’s, 109F’s had a 6-1 kill ratio over the Spitfire Mark V’s, and Zeroes had a 7-1 kill ratio over Spitfire Mark V’s. Interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

pinsong said:


> The 50 BMG rate of fire was reduced when synchronized but not near 50%. When Shortround6 sees this he will probably give us nearly the exact rate of fire, but seems like it was around 500 rounds per minute. Whatever it was, the Russians P39’s seemed to do ok with only 2 50’s and the 37mm or 20mm. Dauntless SBD’s also did ok with only 2 synchronized 50’s bringing down several 4 engine Japanese float planes as well as Kates, Vals and the occasional Zero.



And the Tomahawks did quite well with the nose guns too, with the AVG, with the Russians (who sometimes removed the wing guns altogether) and in the Western Desert where quite a few Commonwealth pilots made Ace flying them.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 11, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Nothing of the sort. Here is a post by Steve, which I collected when writing an article on Fw 190, but can't find the original post on the forum. it displays figures Steve collected for himself. It's in its original form and based on these figures, prove it.
> 
> "Hooton notes that between June - December 1941 RAF FC lost 416 fighters in six months during 20 495 day sorties flown (2 % loss rate), plus BC's 108 bombers in 1406 sorties (7.6 % loss rate...!).
> This was pretty much the 109F period, just before the JGs started to convert to the 190A. Luftflotte 3 was flying 19535 sorties but lost only 93 fighters (0.4 % loss rate)..
> ...



Was there a change in tactics involved between 1941 and 42? My understanding was that some of the losses against 190s occurred over the Channel itself? I admit that isn't an area I've spent a lot of time reading about.


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Be interesting to add the Shoot Down Records of the other European Theater
> Such as Russia for the P39/400 and P40.
> Not much written with other US planes though a few P51's, P47's and P38s were sent.
> 
> ...



The various sources don't necessarily agree on the number of 'shoot downs' when it comes to the USAAF USAAF fighter victories


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And the Tomahawks did quite well with the nose guns too, with the AVG, with the Russians (who sometimes removed the wing guns altogether) and in the Western Desert where quite a few Commonwealth pilots made Ace flying them.



Is that still the case adjusting for overclaiming? That 's not always possible, but in the Western Desert at any rate there certainly seems to be a significant amount of overclaiming going by the MAW series.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Dec 12, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The numbers pretty much speak for themselves - 4 RAF fighters and a bomber was lost for every German fighter . RAF fighter command at the time was however believed that it had shot down over 700 German fighters.



I'm afraid those figures are nonsense. They are comparing total RAF losses to all causes - including flak and non-combat losses - to those German planes supposedly destroyed in air-combat - and we know that in 1940-2 the Germans included large numbers of aircraft shot down by the British as 'non-combat' losses. JG2 and JG26 lost 236 aircraft in the second half of 1941, according to official records, but as in the Battle of Britain, these loss-lists were incomplete. As an example, on one day in 1941, Adolf Galland was shot down twice, and on one of these occasions his wingman was also shot down - but only one of these three planes is listed as destroyed.

Another point is that JG2 and JG26 were not alone: there were always at least two other gruppen present, as well as second-line units such as _Jagdfliegerschule_ 5, which also took part in combat. This would have added somewhere between 100 and 150 more losses, to give total German losses of 340-390 planes. Given that the RAF attributed 70 of their losses to flak, it's pretty clear that the RAF at least held their own- indeed, given that the RAF were flying approximately twice as many sorties as the Luftwaffe, and would thus suffer a higher proportion of non-combat losses, it's entirely possible that they achieved a better than 1:1 ratio in the air fighting.

I fear all this is yet another attempt to perpetuate the myth of the _uber_ German fighter-pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 12, 2019)

MycroftHolmes said:


> ...
> Another point is that JG2 and JG26 were not alone: *there were always at least two other gruppen present*, as well as second-line units such as _Jagdfliegerschule_ 5, which also took part in combat.
> ...



(my bold)
What are those two gruppen?



> I fear all this is yet another attempt to perpetuate the myth of the _uber_ German fighter-pilots.



You will not hear that myth repeated by nuuumannn or Stona.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 12, 2019)

MycroftHolmes said:


> I'm afraid those figures are nonsense. They are comparing total RAF losses to all causes - including flak and non-combat losses



As an example, Polish 306 Squadron on a rhubarb over France in August 1942 and lost Four Spitfires to AA shooting up airfields.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Is that still the case adjusting for overclaiming? That 's not always possible, but in the Western Desert at any rate there certainly seems to be a significant amount of overclaiming going by the MAW series.



Lol! What are you trying to imply there, that there were not British Aces in the Western Desert or just the Tomahawk ones?


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2019)

MycroftHolmes said:


> given that the RAF were flying approximately twice as many sorties as the Luftwaffe, and would thus suffer a higher proportion of non-combat losses, it's entirely possible that they achieved a better than 1:1 ratio in the air fighting.
> I fear all this is yet another attempt to perpetuate the myth of the _uber_ German fighter-pilots.



Let's stick to facts.

On 13th November 1941, in the face of mounting losses, the Air Staff issued a directive stopping all but 'essential' air operations over NW Europe. There was a pause while a period of regrouping and intensive pilot training was undertaken.

In early 1942 operations resumed (in time for the infamous Channel Dash) and continued for several months. By June Fighter Command had lost another 335 aircraft, mostly Spitfire Vs. On 13th June Sholto-Douglas was instructed once again to curtail operations over NW Europe.

The facts are that twice in the period between November 1941 and June 1942 Fighter Command had unacceptable losses inflicted on it by the Luftwaffe and twice was ordered to curtail operations over NW Europe. This is not conceivable if Fighter Command was doing as well as you seem to think it was. Indeed, it would have destroyed the Luftwaffe fighter forces in NW Europe!

The only way that the Spitfire V could survive over NW Europe was by an alteration in its tactics, principally adopting a much higher cruising speed, which in turn reduced endurance and the range at which Fighter Command could operate. The situation was not ameliorated until the introduction of the Mk IX, whose performance advantage should not need explanation here. Although it is true that it became available in July/August 1942, significant numbers entered service rather later.

I would remind readers that the AFDU at Duxford flew trials between a Spitfire V and Fw 190 in July 1942. The results were alarming. The Fw 190 was superior in every parameter measured, except in turning circles. It was much faster (at all altitudes up to 21,000 feet), climbed and dived faster, accelerated faster, rolled faster and was more manoeuvrable. The AFDU could not come up with a means by which a Spitfire could make a successful attack on an Fw 190 which was aware of the Spitfire's presence. In all scenarios the Fw 190 was able to evade and draw away from the Spitfire, forcing it to break off the attack. It is very difficult to achieve a 1:1 exchange ratio (or better) against an aircraft with such an advantage.
The Spitfire on the other hand was in trouble. A slow Spitfire could evade initially by turning but that was not going to get the pilot home. A fast cruising Spitfire might evade by opening the throttle and going into a *shallow* dive, "providing the Fw 190 was seen in time". The AFDU reckoned that this gave the Spitfire a "reasonable chance", of running away to fight another day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 12, 2019)

stona said:


> Let's stick to facts.
> 
> On 13th November 1941, in the face of mounting losses, the Air Staff issued a directive stopping all but 'essential' air operations over NW Europe. There was a pause while a period of regrouping and intensive pilot training was undertaken.
> 
> ...



IIRC, this was the impetous to upgrade the single stage Merlins to 16lb boost and to clip the wings on some Mk Vs. A clipped wing Mk V with 16lb boost is well matched to the 190 below 20k ft.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2019)

How soon were the LF Spitfire Mk Vs in the field?


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> IIRC, this was the impetous to upgrade the single stage Merlins to 16lb boost and to clip the wings on some Mk Vs. A clipped wing Mk V with 16lb boost is a well matched to the 190 below 20k ft.



The shortened wing tips did very little for speed The AFDU ran trials with two Mk Vs, swopping the shortened tips between them, and reckoned that at 10,000 feet the clipped version was 5 mph faster, but that at other altitudes the difference was insignificant. 5 mph does not help much with an opponent that is at least 30 mph faster at that altitude. Boscombe Down ran rather more scientific trials and measured the clipped version at just 1 mph faster at 17,000 feet. At 19,600 the two had the same speed and at 25,000 feet the standard version was 4 mph faster.

Rate of climb was somewhat reduced. In zoom climbs from 20,000 feet to 25,000 feet, a useful combat manoeuvre, the standard aircraft was 15 seconds faster, from 10,000 feet to 15,000 feet there was no measurable difference.

The minimum turning circle of the clipped Spitfire at 20,000 feet was 55 feet bigger than standard at 1,025 feet, but this was still well inside the RAE figure for the Fw 190 of 1,450 feet.

So what was the point?

The clipped Spitfire accelerated and dived better than the standard version, an important combat advantage. Crucially it rolled faster. The AFDU report described the response to ailerons as 'very quick and very crisp'. This would certainly be another advantage in combat. In mock dogfights at 10,000 feet and 15,000 feet, the standard Spitfire starting on the tail of the clipped version, the clipped Spitfire was able to evade so quickly in the rolling plane that it was able to lose the standard aircraft and reversed the position in 20 seconds. Only at 25,000 feet was the standard aircraft able to keep the clipped version in sight.

A clipped Spitfire V might not have a much better chance of shooting down a Fw 190, but it certainly had a better chance of getting away.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2019)

The clipped wing spit rolled much faster (look at the roll rate chart that is always going around in here) which did make a big difference in terms of overall maneuverability - reducing one of the big advantages of the FW. The +16 boost improved speed I think more than the wings (I don't know exactly how much but I'm sure someone here does). Also with less drag, the CW Spit would have a better overall combat speed particularly down low. Each maneuver that would normally imposed a drag penalty imposed a little less of it. 

In other words, normal wing Spit V might have a top speed of ~350 mph at 10,000 ft and clipped wing only 355, but after a few maneuvers normal wing Spit is down to 270 whereas CW is still at 300. _Then _add an extra +7 lbs boost.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 12, 2019)

stona said:


> The shortened wing tips did very little for speed The AFDU ran trials with two Mk Vs, swopping the shortened tips between them, and reckoned that at 10,000 feet the clipped version was 5 mph faster, but that at other altitudes the difference was insignificant. 5 mph does not help much with an opponent that is at least 30 mph faster at that altitude. Boscombe Down ran rather more scientific trials and measured the clipped version at just 1 mph faster at 17,000 feet. At 19,600 the two had the same speed and at 25,000 feet the standard version was 4 mph faster.
> 
> .



However, at the latter above altitudes, 16lb boost was ineffective. At 10k ft it would give the CW Spit at least parity with an FW190 and theoretically at 10k ft the CW Spitfire would gain more speed from 16lb boost than the standard wing version.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 12, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The various sources don't necessarily agree on the number of 'shoot downs' when it comes to the USAAF USAAF fighter victories



Understand... Dan Ford sure did not agree on CBI Shoot Downs of the Flying Tigers !


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 12, 2019)

MycroftHolmes said:


> I fear all this is yet another attempt to perpetuate the myth of the _uber_ German fighter-pilots.



Sholto Douglas, Hooton, Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce and countless others who recognised that the Spitfire V was not
up to dueling it out with the Bf 109F and Fw 190 must have thought so too, then.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lol! What are you trying to imply there, that there were not British Aces in the Western Desert or just the Tomahawk ones?



No, but I am applying a bit of logic. How many Tomahawk victories were there in the Western Desert? As I understand it's only a couple of hunderd, 250 maybe? That is _before _factoring for overclaiming. That is going to temper how successful they actually were.


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 13, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Understand... Dan Ford sure did not agree on CBI Shoot Downs of the Flying Tigers !



I am not even sure that explains the disparity in numbers in the CBI; but it certainly does not explain the dispaity in the other theatres.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 13, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Sholto Douglas, Hooton, Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce and countless others who recognised that the Spitfire V was not
> up to dueling it out with the Bf 109F and Fw 190 must have thought so too, then.



The Luftwaffe used the same tactics over France that Mallory and Park used in the BoB, that is they ignored fighter sweeps and attacked only when they had the advantage, the ''leaning on the enemy'' idea was a waste of pilots and planes but Sholto Douglas's ego wanted it's day in the sun after getting rid of the former two. If you read Johnnie Johnson's works he talks about crossing the coast at wave top height before climbing at max boost to counter the ground controllers positioning their planes to gain an advantage, and that was when he was flying MkIX's. As per JG 26's autobiography, in 1941-42 the ''Abbeville Kids'' were at the height of their power, it wouldn't have mattered what planes the RAF had, it still would have been a tough slog.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

I think the issues in the Channel / Northern France we mainly due to tactics, and secondarily to configuration and teething issues with the Spit V. I don't think the Spit V was inferior to the Bf 109F at all. They had different strengths and weaknesses but in the MTO / Shores they appear to be about even. Getting there did require an adjustment of Tactics and some modification of the aircraft by the British. MTO is a different Theater of course as both Spitfire and Bf 109 suffered to some extent in performance due to Tropical modifications, which in the case of the former were dramatically improved.

The biggest issue over France though I suspect was the integrated air defense. This was a very tough nut to crack and something the RAF had to adapt to.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> No, but I am applying a bit of logic. How many Tomahawk victories were there in the Western Desert? As I understand it's only a couple of hunderd, 250 maybe? That is _before _factoring for overclaiming. That is going to temper how successful they actually were.



Well there weren't that many Tomahawks. But I think this deserves a deeper dive which I may now have time to get into.


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2019)

How well did Spitfires do against the Bf 109 F over Malta?

120 British/Commonwealth fighter pilots lost their lives over Malta in the Spitfire year (January to November 1942), obviously not just at the hands of the Bf 109 F.
55 Luftwaffe day and night fighter pilots were killed in the same period, flying from Sicily, against Malta _and the convoys._

During the October Blitz (11th to 17th) 43 Spitfires were shot down or crash landed, more than double the number of Axis fighters, of which just 12 were Bf 109s.

This time the integrated air defence system was British.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 13, 2019)

stona said:


> How well did Spitfires do against the Bf 109 F over Malta?
> 
> 120 British/Commonwealth fighter pilots lost their lives over Malta in the Spitfire year (January to November 1942), obviously not just at the hands of the Bf 109 F.
> 55 Luftwaffe day and night fighter pilots were killed in the same period, flying from Sicily, against Malta _and the convoys._
> ...



How many Luftwaffe and RAI aircrew were lost in the same period.

How many Spits were downed by Luftwaffe bomber defensive fire and how many were downed by RAI aircraft?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2019)

During that Blitz the defenders shot down 32 Ju 88s, 5 MC 202s and 1 Re 2001 and the 12 Bf 109s already mentioned in exchange for 43 Spitfires (another 39 were damaged). Fortunately for the defenders only 12 Spitfire pilots were killed, 7 were wounded and 24 unhurt.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 13, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I am not even sure that explains the disparity in numbers in the CBI; but it certainly does not explain the dispaity in the other theatres.


I carefully read his book. Compared it to earlier versions.
Chennault's number one problem was logistics, getting equipment, stuff, food, decent shelter.
Before the Japanese attacked the Philippines even General MacArthur helped by sending three Seaplanes of parts.
Discovered this during research on the CBI 10 years ago. This still took 3 months to get to Burma.

Between practicing and sorties the Flying Tigers never had the supplies or bullets to wreck 600 Japanese planes in 6 months.
They distributed supplies to dozens of underground and safe locations which was smart.
But took a while to haul them back to the bases. 
Even their first battle in December 20th 1941 confirmed 3 bombers downed.
Do not think he had more than 20 Flyable P-40's at any one time.
When over run by the Japanese and lost 20 that were being serviced at a CAMCO factory.

What made the P 40 versatile was it had enough fuel to reach combat altitude, stay and fight and enough places to land, RTB.
Chennault Radio Network Systems allowed the P-40 to get to perch altitude and cruising speed.

Dan Ford calculated about 100 to 120 planes destroyed or shot down.
Which was more realistic and a heck of a lot better than the British.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

stona said:


> How well did Spitfires do against the Bf 109 F over Malta?
> 
> 120 British/Commonwealth fighter pilots lost their lives over Malta in the Spitfire year (January to November 1942), obviously not just at the hands of the Bf 109 F.
> 55 Luftwaffe day and night fighter pilots were killed in the same period, flying from Sicily, against Malta _and the convoys._
> ...



Don't forget there were quite a few Italian casualties as well.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

stona said:


> During that Blitz the defenders shot down 32 Ju 88s, 5 MC 202s and 1 Re 2001 and the 12 Bf 109s already mentioned in exchange for 43 Spitfires (another 39 were damaged). Fortunately for the defenders only 12 Spitfire pilots were killed, 7 were wounded and 24 unhurt.



That's actually a pretty good ratio - 50 aircraft vs 43, which is about even, but multi-engine aircraft have more value generally speaking in this kind of exhange, they cost more in both kit (especially engines) and most importantly crew. RAF lost 12 Spitfire pilots, the Axis probably lost up to 146 crew based on the numbers above, mostly from the Ju 88s.

The job of the Spits in this case was to get the bombers, which they did. 32 Ju 88s in that short of a period is too high of a price for the LW. Presumably some of the crew made it back to base one way or another so maybe not 146 lost, but almost certainly close to ten times as many as the British lost.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

I would love to see a chart, if someone could provide it, showing a breakdown of speed and climb at three altitudes (sea level, 10,000 ft, 25,000 ft) for the following:

Spit Va - 9 lbs boost
Spit Vb - 9 lbs boost
Spit Vb - 12 lbs boost
Spit Vb - 16 lbs boost
Spit VC / 4 - 9 lbs boost
Spit VC / 2 - 9 lbs boost
Spit VC / 4 - 12 lbs boost
Spit VC / 2 - 12 lbs boost
Spit VC / 2 LF - 12 lbs boost
Spit VC / 2 - 16 lbs boost
Spit VC / 2 LF - 16 lbs boost


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I am not even sure that explains the disparity in numbers in the CBI; but it certainly does not explain the dispaity in the other theatres.



Ok Stig1207, so lets talk about this disparity in numbers, as it pertains to Aces.

We have previously discussed this famous engagement on *Nov 22, 1941* in the Western Desert, between two RAF squadrons flying Tomahawks (112 RAF and 3 RAAF) and 3 squadrons plus one Stab of the famous JG 27 (1., 4., and 5./JG 27 plus Stab II./JG 27).

These engagements involved at least three British / Commonwealth Tomahawk Aces making claims that day: Alan Rawlinson (8 victories with P-40s) and Bobby Gibbes of 3 RAAF (10 victories with P-40s), and Neville Duke of 112 RAF (8 Victories in P-40s).
There were also at least three German Aces: Wolfgang Lippert and Wolfgang Redlich, and Otto Shulz. All the German piots were flying Bf 109F-4 (Trop).

This is covered in quite a bit of detail (including some extended pilot commentary) in Shores MAW Vol I, pgs 323-333.

As the DAF deployed to support the army during heavy ground fighting, there were two sets of engagements on that day, which cost 3 RAAF particularly dearly, but also impacted JG.27 enough so as to cause a policy change (according to Shores).
First in the morning, 3 RAAF went out on a bomber escort mission, escorting Blenheims. They were attacked by JG 27 and in the subsequent engagement, three Tomahawks were lost to fighters, and four Blenheims were shot down. The Aussies in turn claimed two Bf 109s which were confirmed by German records. 112 RAF also went out on a strafing mission losing one to ground fire. LW pilots accurately claimed 3 Tomahawks.
Then in the afternoon 3 RAAF went out again on a fighter sweep over the Luftwaffe bases. The LW decided to make a concerted effort to wipe out these DAF fighters who were 150 miles from their own base. They were attacked by elements of JG. 27 in what turned into an epic hour long engagement which went on until sunset. No less than three LW squadrons 1., 4., 5./JG 27, plus Stab II./ JG 27 all joined the fight. The RAF were assisted by 112 Sqn RAF which also jumped into the fray. So it was 2 DAF Tomahawk squadrons against 3 LW Bf 109F-4 squadrons plus a headquarters flight.
In the second engagement, outnumbered and under repeated attacks from above, the DAF pilots formed a defensive circle, breaking off only to attack German fighters that were diving through their formations. Eventually the circle descended to dune top height. The Germans were fighting over their own bases and were able to land and refuel and rearm and then go back into the fight.

During this fight, RAF pilots claimed 2 confirmed victories and several probables and damaged. The LW pilots claimed 12 (on top of their 3 from earlier). Actual losses were 7 Tomahawks and 4 Bf 109F-4s, plus Bobby Gibbes fighter was seriously damaged though he was able to land it back at base. The DAF fared worse in terms of casualties - the Aussies lost at least 4 pilots KIA plus two PoW. The Germans lost two as PoW and two wounded, one of whom died in a hospital the next day.

So total claims / losses for the day was:

4 claims by the British, vs.* 6 actual Bf 109s shot down. *Two in the morning and four in the afternoon. Of these German losses Shores links three of them to British Aces, one by Neville Duke and two by Alan Rawlinson.
15 claims by the LW, vs. *10 actual Tomahawks shot down*. Three in the morning and seven in the afternoon.
Apparently one of the losses on both sides was due to a mid-air collision.
In this case, we can see clearly that the British / Commwealth pilots actually _underclaimed_ (claiming 4 vs 6 for 66% of their actual victories), and it does appear that all three did score victories that day. The Germans overclaimed (15 vs. 10 for 150% of their actual victories).

Now I'm not trying to suggest this as a general rule. This is just one example of a significant combat which we have discussed before. Shores says it caused the LW to change policy so as to avoid close sustained engagements with P-40s. Overlaiming of course happened on all sides. DAF pilots certainly overclaimed, so did the LW and RIA pilots. I don't think the Allies did so more necessarily than the Axis. What we can see here is that on _this_ day the British underclaimed and the LW overclaimed. Furthermore at least three British Aces made a total of 4 claims (1 by Duke and Gibbes, 2 by Rawlinson) which appear to be valid or at least highly plausible. So I would say this is evidence (not proof but evidence) that your suggestion that British Tomahawk Aces (or British Aces flying any other aircraft) in the Western Desert weren't actually Aces is basically groundless.

The Wiki on Alan Rawlinson has a description of the battle:

_On 22 November 1941, during Operation Crusader, Rawlinson led No. 3 Squadron on a bomber escort mission near Bir el Gubi in the morning, and a fighter sweep south-east of El Adem in the afternoon.[43][44] German Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters shot down three Tomahawks for the loss of two of their own in the first action, Rawlinson claiming a 109 damaged. In the second action, a drawn-out battle for air superiority, the squadron lost six Tomahawks against two 109s destroyed, one of which was claimed by Rawlinson along with one probable and one damaged.[18][43] He had also taken a shot at a distant 109 and, believing he had missed it, did not claim. After the war it was established that Rawlinson's bullets had damaged the 109 and wounded its pilot, Ernst Düllberg, who made a forced landing back at base.[18][44] Rawlinson was credited with his final victory on 30 November, when he downed an Italian Macchi C.200 in an engagement that saw No. 3 Squadron's tally of claims rise to 106 aircraft destroyed.[45][46] _

_




_

_S_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2019)

There were also two comments in the book about the Germans being surprised at being hit from unusually long range, including in the incident with Rawlinson above.

I also wanted to point out - at this point the DAF tactics were not very good:

They were not flying in pairs but in Vics of three with various experimental formations like 'fluid pairs'.
They were operating at low altitude (usually below 10,000 ft) and flying in combat areas at low speed.
They hadn't established the policies they later used for turning into attacks from above as a group
They had not yet established gunnery training, and they probably weren't doing any overboosting.

All of this would change later when the DAF came under new management in mid 1942.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2019)

stona said:


> How well did Spitfires do against the Bf 109 F over Malta?
> 
> 120 British/Commonwealth fighter pilots lost their lives over Malta in the Spitfire year (January to November 1942), obviously not just at the hands of the Bf 109 F.
> 55 Luftwaffe day and night fighter pilots were killed in the same period, flying from Sicily, against Malta _and the convoys._
> ...



Can I ask where these figures came from? I ask as I have Malta the Spitfire Years and am having difficulty matching these up.
In the vast majority of the actions the Spits were outnumbered and were often bounced by the Attackers. 
On the 12th October the RAF seem to have lost:-
7 x Spits destroyed and 6 damaged with three pilots killed
The attackers
4 x Me109G-2 destroyed
11 x Ju88 destroyed
3 x MC202 damaged (the damaged Luftwaffe aircraft are not listed)

Plus at night an He111 and a Z1007bis were shot down by nightfighters.

All in all I would say that the Spit V did well as no one would deny that a Spit V is outclassed by a 109G-2.

To give some idea of the odds in total over five raids the approx number of aircraft sorties involved are:-
*Raid 1*
Ju88 15
Axis fighters 25
Spits 22

*Raid 2*
Ju88 7
MC202 12
Spit x 8
Me109 unknown (indirect escort)
Spit 9

*Raid 3*
Ju88 8
MC202 10
Me109 20
Spit 21

*Raid 4*
MC202 23
Me109 8
Re2001 13
Spit 23

*Raid 5*
Ju88 5
Escort approx. 50 fighter
Spits 16

*13th October
Raid 1*
Ju88 x 7
Me109 x 30
Spits x 26

*Raid 2 *
Ju88 x 6
MC202 x 28
Me109 x 36
Spit x 16

*Raid 3*
Ju88 x 6
Me109 x 40
Spit x 24

*Raid 4* 
Ju88 x 7
MC202 x 30
Me109 x 42
Spit x 24

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I would love to see a chart, if someone could provide it, showing a breakdown of speed and climb at three altitudes (sea level, 10,000 ft, 25,000 ft) for the following:
> 
> Spit Va - 9 lbs boost
> Spit Vb - 9 lbs boost
> ...



RAAF Spitfire VC Trop and VC [email protected] 16lb boost and 9lb boost (FTH) (~20k ft) with Merlin 46:



> AL794 - 6 SEPT YOUR L847 4 SEPT [1943]
> 
> SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT (.)
> 
> ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 13, 2019)

stona said:


> How well did Spitfires do against the Bf 109 F over Malta?
> 
> 120 British/Commonwealth fighter pilots lost their lives over Malta in the Spitfire year (January to November 1942), obviously not just at the hands of the Bf 109 F.
> 55 Luftwaffe day and night fighter pilots were killed in the same period, flying from Sicily, against Malta _and the convoys._
> ...



I'd suggest to read Malta Spitfire Pilot, 10 weeks of terror for a good explanation of what really happened, and Malta didn't have an integrated air defence system


----------



## slaterat (Dec 13, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Is that still the case adjusting for overclaiming? That 's not always possible, but in the Western Desert at any rate there certainly seems to be a significant amount of over claiming going by the MAW series.


 I don't think that the over claiming was any higher than anywhere else. in the war. Here are the figures from Hurricanes Over the Sands, vol 1.

30 sqd 26 claims 15-20 verified post war 60-80%

33 Sqd 213 claims 60% verified

73 Sqd 117 claims 65-75% verified

80 Sqd 195 claims 50% verified

Over all average is above 50% which is not too bad.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think the issues in the Channel / Northern France we mainly due to tactics, and secondarily to configuration and teething issues with the Spit V.



That was basically my takeaway from reading anecdotes from non-top-ace / sergeant types. These operations seemed to be a continual series of:

fly in a nice, tight, slow, formation over France
stare at the sun for an hour trying to find the enemy
half dozen pilots yelling break as several Spitfires fall away streaming glycol/smoke/flames
scramble back to England in ones, twos and threes
Swap each side's planes and I doubt things would go all that differently.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I'd suggest to read Malta Spitfire Pilot, 10 weeks of terror for a good explanation of what really happened, and Malta didn't have an integrated air defence system



Try 'Malta:The Spitfire Year 1942' by Shores, Cull and Malizia. That has a day by day account of exactly what happened. It gives a better overall view of 1942 than the memories and opinions of a pilot. I presume this is the Denis Barnham story? If you enjoyed it try and get hold of 'One Man's Window' which was written close to the events. Barnham was quite an artist, I believe one of his works is still in the IWM in London. After the war he was Art Master at Epsom College, Surrey, from 1949 to 1972.

The radar on Malta, initially just four stations, were the first to be used anywhere outside the UK. The British had an experimental installation on the island before the war.

The problem on Malta, prior to Park's arrival, was the way the system was used. It was used defensively, the sector controller sent squadrons into the air and then maintained a running commentary (rather like the late war German system). It was left to formation leaders to decide where to patrol and when to attempt an interception. On 25th July Park issued his 'Fighter Interception Plan'. The fighters would now adopt a far more aggressive, forward defensive posture, reminiscent of 11 Group in the BoB. The object now was to intercept raids north of Malta, BEFORE they crossed the coast. The sector controllers were instructed to make sure that the first squadron launched gained height up-sun and then intercepted the enemy's high fighter cover. The second squadron was to intercept the bombers' close escort, or the bombers themselves if unescorted. The third squadron was to make a head on attack on the bombers about ten miles north of the coast, followed by a quarter attack, to force them to jettison their bombs into the sea. If a fourth squadron was available, it would engage any bombers that broke through the forward fighter screen.

The plan depended on reliable radar warning, competent sector controllers and alert pilots. Take-off were to be much quicker than in the past, control had to be accurate and clear. Squadrons were to obey orders immediately. Wireless discipline was to be strict.

This strategy was only possible with the integrated system that existed on Malta.

It worked. After two weeks only four aircraft had been damaged or destroyed on the ground, compared to thirty four in the first two weeks of July. Luftwaffe raids had been roughly handled, most had been intercepted north of the island, and it had resorted to making high altitude fighter sweeps in an attempt to regain air superiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2019)

Glider said:


> Can I ask where these figures came from? I ask as I have Malta the Spitfire Years and am having difficulty matching these up.
> In the vast majority of the actions the Spits were outnumbered and were often bounced by the Attackers.



See p648 and on, Chapter 11 'Aftermath' and various appendices.


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok Stig1207, so lets talk about this disparity in numbers, as it pertains to Aces.
> _S_



You have quoted my response to Dan Fahey, discussing this USAAF fighter victories Nothing to do with aces.



Schweik said:


> So I would say this is evidence (not proof but evidence) that your suggestion that British Tomahawk Aces (or British Aces flying any other aircraft) in the Western Desert weren't actually Aces is basically groundless.



Where did I suggest this?


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 14, 2019)

slaterat said:


> I don't think that the over claiming was any higher than anywhere else. in the war. Here are the figures from Hurricanes Over the Sands, vol 1.
> 
> 30 sqd 26 claims 15-20 verified post war 60-80%
> 
> ...



I don't think that the overclaiming was higher than anywhere else, but nor was it lower. My assertion was merely that when assessing how successful a particular aircraft was, in this case the Tomahawk, that if the number of victories is not high, a couple of hundred, then dividing them with the usual rate of overclaiming of 2-3,
then the actual success is rather less than the percieved.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You have quoted my response to Dan Fahey, discussing this USAAF fighter victories Nothing to do with aces.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I suggest this?



See post 887


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I don't think that the overclaiming was higher than anywhere else, but nor was it lower. My assertion was merely that when assessing how successful a particular aircraft was, in this case the Tomahawk, that if the number of victories is not high, a couple of hundred,



There was a relatively small number of Tomahawk victories because there were a relatively small number of Tomahawks in action for a relatively short time. At the peak in the Summer of 1941 there were three Tomahawk squdarons (112 RAF, 250 RAF, and 3 RAAF)

By Winter of 1941/42 112 RAF and 250 RAF were phasing out Tomahawks in favor of Kittyhawks, while 2 and 5 SAAF got Tomahawks. 3 RAAF switched from Tomahawk to Kittyhakws in Nov 1942.

So the unit strength of Tomahawks in the Western Desert ranged from a high of roughly 30- 36 in late 1941 down to 20-24 by fall of 1942 and I think after that it was just the one South African squadron of 10-12 aircraft (ideally, assuming close to full serviceability - more often it was 7 or 8 aircraft per mission).



> then dividing them with the usual rate of overclaiming of 2-3,
> then the actual success is rather less than the percieved.



I don't know what you mean by "_overclaiming of 2-3_" but if you mean 200-300% then I don't think there is any evidence for that. Specifically with the Aces as I showed it looks like on that particular day of Nov 22 1941 they underclaimed and the Luftwaffe were the ones doing fairly substantial overclaiming.

As for how impressive it was, it's largely a matter of claims to loss ratios. 112 RAF claimed 36 victories with Tomahawks, 3 RAAF claimed 41 victories with Tomahawks. I don't know their precise number of losses during the time they had Tomahawks but I don't believe it's anywhere near that many. We probably need to open a new thread for this though since you are so adamant.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I would love to see a chart, if someone could provide it, showing a breakdown of speed and climb at three altitudes (sea level, 10,000 ft, 25,000 ft) for the following:
> 
> Spit Va - 9 lbs boost
> Spit Vb - 9 lbs boost
> ...



Basically what we're lookin' at ...






*Spitfire Vc (Merlin 45) +9, +12 and +16 boost
Spitfire Vc (Merlin 46) +9, +12 and +16 boost 
Spitfire Vc (Merlin 45M) +18 boost*






Spitfire Vc (Merlin 45) +9 boost 2850 rpm
*Spitfire Vc (Merlin 45) +12 boost 3000 rpm*
*Spitfire Vc (Merlin 45M) +18 boost 3000 rpm*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2019)

For the first chart, what is the difference between Green and purple? I'm missing something. Both say Spit VC / Merlin 45...?

Spit V with 45M seems like quite a beast!


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

Oops, typo ... should be Merlin 46.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2019)

Am I missing something - cannon-armed Spitfire V making more than 380 mph?


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 14, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Am I missing something - cannon-armed Spitfire V making more than 380 mph?



When testing the universal wing on a MkVc it did 375 mph with 8 brownings, 374 with 4 Hispano's, that was with 9 psi boost.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 14, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Basically what we're lookin' at ...
> 
> View attachment 563921
> 
> ...



I'd still like to know where the 52mph the Darwin MkV's lost went?.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> When testing the universal wing on a MkVc it did 374 mph with 8 brownings, 374 with 4 Hispano's, that was with 9 psi boost.



We also have a test where it did 359 on +9 psi here; 369 mph at 13000 ft on +16 psi boost.
The fit & finish problems surfacing out in 1942?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Basically what we're lookin' at ...
> 
> View attachment 563921
> 
> ...



Spitfires with Merlin 46 were hard pressed to touch 370 mph on +9 psi boost (20000-22000 ft): link; scroll down for table.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

The figures I used are from data sheets and correspondence between big wigs discussing the new clipped-and-cropped Spitfires. They're more to illustrate the differences between the three engines/boost levels than to show exactly what airframe No. XYYYY did.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 14, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> We also have a test where it did 359 on +9 psi here; 369 mph at 13000 ft on +16 psi boost.
> The fit & finish problems surfacing out in 1942?



You would get a variation of 5 mph between 4 planes in the same squadron so 370+ is a fair number. Here's a Spit XIV that had it's wings painted and polished,http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/spitfire-fig6.jpg a gain of 10mph.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I'd still like to know where the 52mph the Darwin MkV's lost went?.



I noted the RAAF had 365 mph at 22,000 feet for a tropical Spitfire Vc (Merlin 46) from NAA A11093: 452/A58


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 14, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I noted the RAAF had 365 mph at 22,000 feet for a tropical Spitfire Vc (Merlin 46) from NAA A11093: 452/A58



The best they got was 332mph, the Zero they tested hit 331.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2019)

Greyman said:


> The figures I used are from data sheets and correspondence between big wigs discussing the new clipped-and-cropped Spitfires. They're more to illustrate the differences between the three engines/boost levels than to show exactly what airframe No. XYYYY did.



I'm not talking about a single airframe, but about whole Spitfire V series with Merlin 46 engine - of seven aircraft listed at the table I've linked, neither was able to make 370 mph between 20000 and 22600 ft, let alone going beyond 380. The ones outfitted with float-type carb were barely making 360 mph.



PAT303 said:


> You would get a variation of 5 mph between 4 planes in the same squadron so 370+ is a fair number.



Agreed pretty much.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The best they got was 332mph, the Zero they tested hit 331.



Not at full-throttle height I assume. Sounds more like about 15,000 feet.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 14, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not talking about a single airframe, but about whole Spitfire V series with Merlin 46 engine - of seven aircraft listed at the table I've linked, neither was able to make 370 mph between 20000 and 22600 ft, let alone going beyond 380. The ones outfitted with float-type carb were barely making 360 mph.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to take into consideration that there really wasn't a ''standard'' MkV, they had three different engines, three different boost ratings, two different rev limits, two different exhaust systems, about four different configurations, both float and injector carbs, fared and unfared mirrors, fixed and whip aerials and by 43 they were getting tired, by 44 they were worn out. When you add a few mph with fishtails and a injector carb then subtract a few from poor paint finish and a fixed aerial there's big differences between them.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not talking about a single airframe, but about whole Spitfire V series with Merlin 46 engine - of seven aircraft listed at the table I've linked, neither was able to make 370 mph between 20000 and 22600 ft, let alone going beyond 380. The ones outfitted with float-type carb were barely making 360 mph.



Yeah taking all of the variables out, I wonder what the math says a Merlin 46 Spitfire should do, given known values with a Merlin 45.

My Merlin horsepower/height data is pretty spartan.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2019)

So what is the deal with the Merlin 45M?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So what is the deal with the Merlin 45M?


simple, they cut the impeller down from 10.25in to 9.5 in and left most (or all) of the rest of the supercharger alone. 

This meant it took less power to turn the impeller but also meant the supercharger provided less boost at a given altitude and engine rpm.

Centrifugal superchargers are also not positive displacement devices. too much clearance between the impeller tips and the housing means some of the air (or a higher percentage) near the housing walls isn't moving with the air near the impeller tips. 

The Merlin 45M (and the other cropped impeller engines) took less power from the crankshaft, heated the intake air less and ran at low altitudes with the Throttle plate open wider, all of which gave more power at low altitudes for the same manifold pressure, but the cropped impeller and large housing could not provide high pressure at altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> See post 887





Stig1207 said:


> Is that still the case adjusting for overclaiming? That 's not always possible, but in the Western Desert at any rate there certainly seems to be a significant amount of overclaiming going by the MAW series.



How do you get that I suggest that there were no aces flying Tomahawks in the Western Desert ????


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't know what you mean by "_overclaiming of 2-3_" but if you mean 200-300% then I don't think there is any evidence for that. Specifically with the Aces as I showed it looks like on that particular day of Nov 22 1941 they underclaimed and the Luftwaffe were the ones doing fairly substantial overclaiming.



IIRC, you earlier have stated that a 3-1 overclaim ratio was the norm in general, with which I agree; so why would a 2-3 overclaim ratio in the Western Desert be surprising?
Nov 22 is hardly repesentive of the whole period; the picture is very different if you look at 29 Nov and 5 + 12 Dec, and the norm is generally somewhere in between those outliers.

Btw, if you do want to use aces as a measure of fighter type success, you should try verifying the victories of the top scoring Allied ace over the desert with known Axis losses.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So what is the deal with the Merlin 45M?



To add to what Sr6 said: the engines with suffix M (45M, 50M) were also operating on greater maximum boost: +18 psi vs. +16 psi. All of this meant perhaps 150-200 HP more power under ~5 thousand feet (with ram) for the Spitfires with the 45M or 50M. Take off power was also modestly increased, the take off boost still being limited to +12 psi.

Merlins 45M and 50M were the closest equivalents of the V-1710 of mid-war, engine powers maxing out at almost 1600 HP down low.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You have to take into consideration that there really wasn't a ''standard'' MkV, they had three different engines, three different boost ratings, two different rev limits, two different exhaust systems, about four different configurations, both float and injector carbs, fared and unfared mirrors, fixed and whip aerials and by 43 they were getting tired, by 44 they were worn out. When you add a few mph with fishtails and a injector carb then subtract a few from poor paint finish and a fixed aerial there's big differences between them.



No problems with that - my main remark was that a Spitfire V flying beyond 380 mph was not a service aircraft, most of the Mk.Vs were lucky to do beat 370 mph mark. There was still a fair number of Mk.Vs produced in 1943, still with float carbs, draggy exhausts, sloppy fit & finish - all of what contributed to them being lucky to attain 370 mph, too.

A Spitfire V with better carb, exhausts, mirror and fit&finish, fully closed U/C and internal BP glass would've probably went 390+ mph at 20000 ft. People at Boscombe Down made it go 380+ mph without the two last mods I've listed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> To add to what Sr6 said:



Does a similar table exist for the Merlin 46? Looking around for the past little while I have a feeling the Merlin 46 curve in my chart should be knocked back about 15 mph ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Does a similar table exist for the Merlin 46?



Provisional power chart for the Merlin 46 and 47: link



> Looking around for the past little while I have a feeling the Merlin 46 curve in my chart should be knocked back about 15 mph ...



Agreed.


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I'd still like to know where the 52mph the Darwin MkV's lost went?.



The Australians got their knickers in a twist about the loss of performance which they ascribed to the Vokes filter. Their tests showed a loss of speed in the order of 30 mph, which was quite different from official figures. This led to the idea that the Australians might produce an alternative filter.





They did try to manufacture a copy of the temperate air intake locally, but it proved rather more difficult than expected and was a failure. Eventually they sent to the UK for drawings of the temperate intake, and clarification of the performance differences expected between the tropicalised and temperate aircraft.






If the Australians were losing 30 mph, as they claimed, it was not due to the Vokes filter, though the 17 mph given above is nearer the 20 mph claimed in one of the Australian reports than the 8 mph originally given by the British.

There were other ways of improving speed. For example, smoothing the leading edge of the wing where the double row of rivets ran span wise by stopping, rubbing down and painting gave 8 mph. This became part of the manufacturing process in 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> simple, they cut the impeller down from 10.25in to 9.5 in and left most (or all) of the rest of the supercharger alone.
> 
> This meant it took less power to turn the impeller but also meant the supercharger provided less boost at a given altitude and engine rpm.
> 
> ...



Given that an aircraft is operating at the same RPM, how does the extra power get translated into torque or forward motion? Via the prop pitch?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> How do you get that I suggest that there were no aces flying Tomahawks in the Western Desert ????



Stig, obviously we communicate in different ways. I frankly do not understand how you failed to notice the relevance of the post you were replying to in 887, i.e.

" Schweik said: 

And the Tomahawks did quite well with the nose guns too, with the AVG, with the Russians (who sometimes removed the wing guns altogether) and *in the Western Desert where quite a few Commonwealth pilots made Ace flying them*."

This is the tie in. Maybe you are more literal minded or something, but it is very clear to me. If you still don't see it, lets agree to disagree on this particular line of debate, as I don't see further discussion being fruitful - and I don't want another thread to get closed because of it. I have started the new thread allowing analysis of the day to day combat results in the Western Desert and that hard data at least we should be able to agree on. Others can draw their own conclusions as to interpretation.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> IIRC, you earlier have stated that a 3-1 overclaim ratio was the norm in general, with which I agree; so why would a 2-3 overclaim ratio in the Western Desert be surprising?



2-3-1 overclaim was an estimated average across the whole war (in terms of time) and all fronts. In different Theaters there were different conditions - for example whether enemy aircraft can or cannot be recovered / examined is very different over the sea or heavy jungle / mountains vs. steppe or desert - and over time and in different Air Forces different standards for verification. Starting out with just another pilot saying he saw the kill, ending with gun camera footage, crash recovery, and intel intercepts. So for example in the utter chaos at Java in 1942, or Russia in the first three weeks of Barbarossa, I think you can expect less accurate claims. Later on and in places like the desert, better accuracy.

To that last point, one interesting thing that shows up in Shores is that some of the verification of Axis losses came from Ultra intercepts and did not appear in the Axis records.



> Nov 22 is hardly repesentive of the whole period; the picture is very different if you look at 29 Nov and 5 + 12 Dec, and the norm is generally somewhere in between those outliers.



That is why I started the other thread, so we can avoid debating our interpretations and focus instead on the data.



> Btw, if you do want to use aces as a measure of fighter type success, you should try verifying the victories of the top scoring Allied ace over the desert with known Axis losses.



I believe this has already been done actually. Russel Brown started the ball rolling with his critique of Joachim Marseilles record (which appears to be about 60% verified, with many more Hurricanes than he thought) and some of the other JG 27 _experten_, which was followed by close looks at the records of the top British Aces, who range from 60%-80% verified, with some actually a bit over (James Stocky Edwards - who was credited with 16 victories in the Desert, appears to have actually gotten between 19 and 22 depending on who you believe, Bobby Gibbes also apparently underclaimed, being credited with 10 he apparently got 12). There will always be _some_ doubt of course since on a given day if 10 were claimed and 8 were actually downed, it can be impossible to determine which Allied pilot actually shot down each of the lost enemy planes. All you can say for sure is that there were enemy losses that correspond with the claims, or not.

But seeing as how most of the top twenty British P-40 Aces generally had 8-10 victories or more, a 60-80% verification rate still keeps them as Aces. Needless to say it's the same on the other side. So I don't actually think it's an issue. If you do feel free to open another thread on it.

On that one day (Nov 22) no less four victories claimed by three British Aces seem to have been verified. Considering that an Ace is just five victories it's fairly significant. We should be through posting almost all of the Tomahawk victories within a few days from now so hopefully it will be clearer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Given that an aircraft is operating at the same RPM, how does the extra power get translated into torque or forward motion? Via the prop pitch?



Yes, prop pitch and/or a different prop better able to handle the extra output. Aircraft with the Merlin 32 usually used a 4 bladed prop.

AIUI, the larger impellers were actually capable of higher boosts than the engine could accept, so by cropping the impeller the engine/supercharger was better matched for low altitudes, where the SC could provide max boost with less energy wasted to drive the SC.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Given that an aircraft is operating at the same RPM, how does the extra power get translated into torque or forward motion? Via the prop pitch?


The extra power would be absorbed by increasing the prop pitch. Less power to run supercharger means more to the prop, essentially it’s like a small engine car not running the air conditioning

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> To add to what Sr6 said: the engines with suffix M (45M, 50M) were also operating on greater maximum boost: +18 psi vs. +16 psi. All of this meant perhaps 150-200 HP more power under ~5 thousand feet (with ram) for the Spitfires with the 45M or 50M. Take off power was also modestly increased, the take off boost still being limited to +12 psi.
> 
> Merlins 45M and 50M were the closest equivalents of the V-1710 of mid-war, engine powers maxing out at almost 1600 HP down low.



That is really interesting since it seems the British were able to get the P-40 F or L ("Kittyhawk II") to 370 mph at 20k ft in testing (though other tests show down around 355 at lower boost). P-40K modified to P-40N standards also famously got to 378 during testing though that too depended a lot on configuration and boost settings. That plus the Australian test makes me wonder if the later model P-40s (F, K and L) were faster than the Spit V generally speaking.

I would expect the Spitfire was better streamlined and has a thinner and slightly shorter wing, a generally more powerful engine (at least at higher altitudes) and is also considerably lighter so that drag is surprising to me. Was that from production issues from rapid ramping up?

I also have a mechanics diary from the 33rd FG who mentioned specifically sanding and polishing the wing leading edges on the fighters. My thought was "why just the leading edges?" But I guess now I know.


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I also have a mechanics diary from the 33rd FG who mentioned specifically sanding and polishing the wing leading edges on the fighters. My thought was "why just the leading edges?" But I guess now I know.



It wasn't just the leading edges.
This is just from a production perspective:






There was also a continuous stream of information to the various RAF commands, but particularly Fighter Command, emphasising the need for careful maintenance of the aircraft and its surface finish when in service.
Some of the bulletins are quite alarming, dealing with anything from bent elevator or aileron shrouds, to use of incorrect fasteners, to simple bent or ill fitting panels. It makes you wonder just how bad maintenance was, and some of the accompanying examples suggest it could be very poor indeed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That is really interesting since it seems the British were able to get the P-40 F or L ("Kittyhawk II") to 370 mph at 20k ft in testing (though other tests show down around 355 at lower boost). P-40K modified to P-40N standards also famously got to 378 during testing though that too depended a lot on configuration and boost settings. That plus the Australian test makes me wonder if the later model P-40s (F, K and L) were faster than the Spit V generally speaking.



The P-40F and L were the versions with Packard Merlin V-1650-1. 
Advantages vs. plain vanilla Spitfire V might be: better carb, ram air intake (no ice guard) & exhausts, fit&finish (although the P-40 probably was not as good as P-51 in that regard - that's IMO), retractable tailwheel, possibly the windscreen. Not sure about cooling system, by 1942 neither was in world class.
Disadvantages: thicker wing, main U/C sticking out when retracted a bit.
(I've listed the stuff that should matter with drag, probably some other details can also be found)
P-40N received a new version of V-1710, with improved altitude power (still not up the V-1650-1 standard, though) , so it should be faster than P-40K and earlier. The P-40N that clocked 378 mph was a lighter & less draggy version, with 2 HMGs deleted (less weapon-related drag) and one fuel tank also removed, as well as other bits and pieces - weight can influence the speed a bit.

WRT speed - the Spitfire V and later P-40s (P-40M, N, plus F and L) were probably as evenly matched as one can imagine, typically between 360 to 370 mph. The P-39N/Q was faster than either, BTW, and P-51A was still faster.



> I would expect the Spitfire was better streamlined and has a thinner and slightly shorter wing, a generally more powerful engine (at least at higher altitudes) and is also considerably lighter so that drag is surprising to me. Was that from production issues from rapid ramping up?



Desire to have as many Spitfires as possible certainly meant that some corners were cut. That is not just a thing of fit&finish, but also some other choices that got to be made - BP glass is easier to fit and retrofit to the outside rather than to inside (corrected with Mk-VII and on, but not retroactively on previous examples), draggy undercarriage, no decision to copy exhausts from Bf 109E, no streamlined rearview mirror etc. Not having good carbs on Merlin already before the ww2 was an unfortunate oversight (impacted not just top speed, but also ceiling and negative-G use).
Spitfire VII and later corrected a lot of this (carb, exhausts, BP glass installation), meaning that Mk.IX was measured to have same Cd0 as the Mk.V, despite receiving much bigger radiators.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The P-40F and L were the versions with Packard Merlin V-1650-1.
> Advantages vs. plain vanilla Spitfire V might be: better carb, ram air intake (no ice guard) & exhausts, fit&finish (although the P-40 probably was not as good as P-51 in that regard - that's IMO), retractable tailwheel, possibly the windscreen. Not sure about cooling system, by 1942 neither was in world class.
> Disadvantages: thicker wing, main U/C sticking out when retracted a bit.
> (I've listed the stuff that should matter with drag, probably some other details can also be found)
> ...



A paper on Spitfire aerodynamics is attached.
Most production Mk VIIs had SU carbs as did early Mk VIIIs and IXs and most XIs. By this time the the SU carbs had the negative G mods.
One of the reasons Rolls Royce fell in love with the P-51 was its superior fit and finish. Hives complaining to Freeman 8 Nov 1942: 
“The manufacturing finish of the Spitfire is bad. This is shown up by the variation from machine to machine in performance, and the controls. We do not think it is sufficient to improve the paintwork, although this is the last thing we should want to stop, but given a continuity of production we should expect the aircraft to be manufactured to a higher quality.”

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Given that an aircraft is operating at the same RPM, how does the extra power get translated into torque or forward motion? Via the prop pitch?


The value of the constant speed prop and its governor are often not appreciated or understood by those who don't work with them regularly. Essentially, they constantly vary the pitch of the propeller to keep the load on the engine matched to its torque at the selected RPM and manifold pressure, thus keeping RPM constant. In combat or other acrobatic flight this is a godsend, as the pilot doesn't have to monitor the tach and jockey throttle to keep revs within limits. Throttle can be adjusted to desired thrust throughout maneuvers without worrying about revs, and the engine can be kept at its most efficient RPM through all changes of airspeed, attitude, and G load.
(Personal prejudice here), but IMO, double acting hydromatic-style props are the best there are. Fast acting, reliable, and relatively immune to cold induced sluggishness, as they are constantly pushing hot engine oil out into the dome. Good down to -40°C/F, where most lubricants start to fail, anyways.
Electric props are a bucket of worms, and the higher you go, the worse they get.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 15, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> One of the reasons Rolls Royce fell in love with the P-51 was its superior fit and finish. Hives complaining to Freeman 8 Nov 1942:
> “The manufacturing finish of the Spitfire is bad. This is shown up by the variation from machine to machine in performance, and the controls. We do not think it is sufficient to improve the paintwork, although this is the last thing we should want to stop, but given a continuity of production we should expect the aircraft to be manufactured to a higher quality.”




The Spitfires life can be summed up by the phrase, ''good enough now is better than perfect later''. The desperate need for them meant it's development always took a second seat to production resulting in it never maturing into the fighter it should have been.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 15, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The value of the constant speed prop and its governor are often not appreciated or understood by those who don't work with them regularly. Essentially, they constantly vary the pitch of the propeller to keep the load on the engine matched to its torque at the selected RPM and manifold pressure, thus keeping RPM constant. In combat or other acrobatic flight this is a godsend, as the pilot doesn't have to monitor the tach and jockey throttle to keep revs within limits. Throttle can be adjusted to desired thrust throughout maneuvers without worrying about revs, and the engine can be kept at its most efficient RPM through all changes of airspeed, attitude, and G load.
> (Personal prejudice here), but IMO, double acting hydromatic-style props are the best there are. Fast acting, reliable, and relatively immune to cold induced sluggishness, as they are constantly pushing hot engine oil out into the dome. Good down to -40°C/F, where most lubricants start to fail, anyways.
> Electric props are a bucket of worms, and the higher you go, the worse they get.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Does anyone know why the Spitfire and Hurricane weren’t fitted with constant speed props from day 1? I know they cost more and are heavier but building a Spitfire or Hurricane with a fixed pitch prop is like buying a high powered sports car fitted with 4 space saver tires instead of high quality tires

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 15, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Spitfires life can be summed up by the phrase, ''good enough now is better than perfect later''. The desperate need for them meant it's development always took a second seat to production resulting in it never maturing into the fighter it should have been.


Agreed. This seems to be the story of many a ww2 aircraft.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 15, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Does anyone know why the Spitfire and Hurricane weren’t fitted with constant speed props from day 1? I know they cost more and are heavier but building a Spitfire or Hurricane with a fixed pitch prop is like buying a high powered sports car fitted with 4 space saver tires instead of high quality tires



AIUI, the US had patent rights to CS prop technology and it took some time to negotiate a licensing deal and for a UK CS prop design to be developed. IIRC by 1939 most UK fighters (and the Skua/Roc) were using a UK designed VP (2) pitch prop which was somewhat superior to a fixed pitch prop, although the CS prop was still much preferred.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Does anyone know why the Spitfire and Hurricane weren’t fitted with constant speed props from day 1? I know they cost more and are heavier but building a Spitfire or Hurricane with a fixed pitch prop is like buying a high powered sports car fitted with 4 space saver tires instead of high quality tires



UK was trying to out-produce Germany in second hand of 1930s, something had to be sacrified to attain that goal. CS and 2-pitch props went to bombers; both Battle and Blenheim have had them, let alone bigger bombers. 
By the time ww2 started, they indeed were out-producing Germany by a large margin (4:1 for whole 1939, if we believe Wikipedia; seems like that UK produced more aircraft in last 4 months of 1939 than Germans for all of 1939)*, even though a lot of that surplus were trainers and some combat types of questionable utility. 

*UK was probably out-producing Germany, Japan and Italy combined from 1939 to 1942 in numbers of aircraft, and in weight of aircraf probably between 1939 and late 1943

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Agreed. This seems to be the sorry of many a ww2 aircraft.



Yeah that is what I think.

First of all thanks *a lot *to everyone who responded in the last several posts - very interesting stuff.

The question about the prop pitch finally rang a bell of clarity for me, it's something I hadn't even realized I'd been wondering about but had been for years. No amount of horsepower would really matter with out proper pitch. I have some followup questions on pitch settings for climb and dive and so forth (manual override?) and which aircraft had the best / most efficient prop pitch control (constant speed was the gold standard I gather, but what other options were there if any?), but I'll save that for later and maybe another thread.

As for the general build quality issues with the Spitfire V, that too is very interesting. This is another thing I'd noticed for a long time, not with Spitfires but with mostly American planes, and some German and Japanese, that I've seen at airshows and museums since I was a kid. The build quality is usually a little rough. The seams between the panels don't line up perfectly, the rivet heads stick out a bit, sometimes there are tiny gaps. I've noticed this with P-40s first and I thought it was just a problem with them, but since then I've seen this on just about every WW2 aircraft I've looked at up close. Nowhere near the kind of smooth surface finish you'd see on a modern car, or even a car from the 1950's.

In other threads we talked about the nightmarish build quality / production issues the Soviets dealt with, especially for the first year or so. I doubt Spitfire problems were anywhere near that scale. But I suspect it was a fairly universal issue to some extent or another. I know the Japanese and Italians had these kinds of problems, I know the Americans did too especially when expanding production to third or fourth party firms. Sometimes the subcontractors just couldn't pull it off. Some government outfits couldn't either like the torpedo manufacturing agency (I forgot what it was called) and some firms like Brewster and to some extent Curtiss (especially toward the end of the war) couldn't get their act together.

So it's interesting to learn that the Spitfire did have this issue as well. Did they Germans have any issues with build quality?


A WW2 fighter aircraft is a sort of a strange device. On the one hand, it probably has a useful service life measured in weeks or months, which may end suddenly at any point. So it's almost disposable from one point of view. Why put all that effort into the finer details for something which in the best possible world will probably be in combat for three months, used for training another six, and then be scrapped after a year? On the other hand it had to be tough enough to endure 5 and 6G turns, operate from sea level to up in the thin air and from temperatures ranging from Tropical to Arctic, and to even withstand a moderate pounding from heavy machine guns and keep going. So they were very strongly made, I think a lot more so than just about any car. This is why so many of them are still around flying 75 years after they were built. (Well, that and some very dedicated restorers).

The finer things like farings on a rearview mirror, the location of an antenna or a little putty to cover a tiny crack, seems trivial. The first time I read about sanding and putty and repainting for speed was in a book about the AVG. At the time I thought it was almost a superstitious gesture. But now I know better. These aircraft move only the air and they have only the bite of the propeller to pull them along. Everything that catches the air slows them down. The book itself said they improved speed by 10 mph by sanding and waxing, but I thought that was hyperbole. It really emphasizes the importance of good mechanics and also mechanics who can and will go a bit beyond standard practices of the time.

All in all very interesting folks, thanks. The knowledge in here is impressive.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The P-40F and L were the versions with Packard Merlin V-1650-1.



I'm well aware but the V-1650-1 was an American version (so probably slightly different) of the Merlin XX right? So that is different from a Spit V which used a Merlin 45 or 46 or 45M right? I thought the Spit V had a higher critical altitude.



> Advantages vs. plain vanilla Spitfire V might be: better carb, ram air intake (no ice guard) & exhausts, fit&finish (although the P-40 probably was not as good as P-51 in that regard - that's IMO), retractable tailwheel, possibly the windscreen. Not sure about cooling system, by 1942 neither was in world class.
> Disadvantages: thicker wing, main U/C sticking out when retracted a bit.
> (I've listed the stuff that should matter with drag, probably some other details can also be found)



Yes P-40s had the fared rearview mirror, internal instead of external armored glass, and a fully retractable tailwheel, but as you note, main wheels didn't fully retract and had the landing gear faring sticking out. Plus some had an IFF or nav radio stucking out too underneath. And that big scoop. Plus I think P-40 is thicker overall. Most P-40s had bomb shackles in the field and retained the ring and bead sight which surely also incurred drag.



> P-40N received a new version of V-1710, with improved altitude power (still not up the V-1650-1 standard, though) , so it should be faster than P-40K and earlier. The P-40N that clocked 378 mph was a lighter & less draggy version, with 2 HMGs deleted (less weapon-related drag) and one fuel tank also removed, as well as other bits and pieces - weight can influence the speed a bit.



Right but all versions of the P-40 had lower and higher drag / weight configurations like that. P-40L was four guns out of the factory.



> WRT speed - the Spitfire V and later P-40s (P-40M, N, plus F and L) were probably as evenly matched as one can imagine, typically between 360 to 370 mph. The P-39N/Q was faster than either, BTW, and P-51A was still faster.



Interesting. Yes on the P-39 though for some reason they seemed to struggle to get rated performance in the field (at least in American use) for reasons I never fully understood. Maybe that was another way the Russians got more out of them. P-51A was super fast but suffered from bad ailerons, fixed in later versions. The A version didn't seem to be a very good air to air combat aircraft.



> Desire to have as many Spitfires as possible certainly meant that some corners were cut. That is not just a thing of fit&finish, but also some other choices that got to be made - BP glass is easier to fit and retrofit to the outside rather than to inside (corrected with Mk-VII and on, but not retroactively on previous examples), draggy undercarriage, no decision to copy exhausts from Bf 109E, no streamlined rearview mirror etc. Not having good carbs on Merlin already before the ww2 was an unfortunate oversight (impacted not just top speed, but also ceiling and negative-G use).
> Spitfire VII and later corrected a lot of this (carb, exhausts, BP glass installation), meaning that Mk.IX was measured to have same Cd0 as the Mk.V, despite receiving much bigger radiators.



Spit VIII and IX seemed to be worlds better than everything else in the Allied inventory, at least for a while.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So it's interesting to learn that the Spitfire did have this issue as well. Did they Germans have any issues with build quality?



The through line seems to be when you have factories/populations already under duress and crank production to emergency levels -- surprise surprise -- quality issues arise.

RE: Germany, from Mike Williams:

_Conditions in Germany during the last year of the war, however, were not conducive to aircraft achieving maximum theoretical performance levels. Hans Knickrehm of I/JG 3 recalled the condition of new Me 109 G-14/AS’s received by his group in October, 1944:_

_The machines that were delivered were technically obsolete and of considerably lowered quality. The engines proved prone to trouble after much too short a time, because the factories had had to sharply curtail test runs for lack of fuel. The surface finish of the outer skin also left much to be desired. The sprayed-on camouflage finish was rough and uneven. The result was a further reduction in speed. We often discovered clear cases of sabotage during our acceptance checks. Cables or wires were not secured, were improperly attached, scratched or had even been visibly cut...._

_At a conference in Berlin on 20 January 1945, with the Chief Engineer of the Luftwaffe, it was reported that the Me 109 airframe was extraordinarily bad and performance outrageously low. Daimler-Benz noted that there was no point in continually increasing engine power when the airframes were getting worse due to sloppy manufacturing. A comparison between the Me 109 and the Mustang was devastating...._

_It didn’t help matters that ground crews, who might have ameliorated these problems to some degree, were being transferred to the infantry in significant numbers. The primitive conditions existing at Luftwaffe airfields was an additional complication. Bombing and strafing attacks further taxed the ground crew's ability to maintain the aircraft anywhere near the degree necessary to even approach theoretical performance levels....._

Here's an anecdote from an ADFU pilot when he first crossed paths with Faber's 190 (when German production was comparatively relaxed):

_With some disappointment, I found that the 190 had already had its black crosses and swastikas replaced by British roundels and a hastily applied coat of RAF camouflage. In the few places that had been missed the beautifully smooth original finish could be felt. The 190 was a perfect example of precise German design and workmanship. Unlike our Spitfires, the panels were so well fitted that they looked like one piece._

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 15, 2019)

Had several hundred modern fighters gone to Malaya in August 1940 as CIGS Dill had wanted, we might have seen the ultimate Zero vs. Spitfire engagement. Though most opposition would have been Oscars, not Zeros.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 15, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Does anyone know why the Spitfire and Hurricane weren’t fitted with constant speed props from day 1? I know they cost more and are heavier but building a Spitfire or Hurricane with a fixed pitch prop is like buying a high powered sports car fitted with 4 space saver tires instead of high quality tires



As I understand it all of the supplies of Constant speed props went to the bombers first, as they required them to take off with full loads.

Only the first 89 Spits produced had two blade propellers. 

The first Hurricane flown with a two pitch three bladed prop was in Aug ,1938, the first with a constant speed prop was January , 1939.

Here's the breakdown on propeller development in fighter command for 1940. From "The Narrow Margin", Dempster and Wood, 1961. 

By June 1940 all Hurricanes and Spitfires had three bladed, two pitch props.

By August 15, 1940 1051 Spitfires and Hurricanes in the field were equipped with constant speed propellers with automatic boost control. Production lines were also being converted to constant speed props. 

Keep in mind that automatic boost control made the engines much easier to manage in flight and combat, this feature was lacking on many later American fighters such as the Brewster Buffalo, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk I, Martlet ect. 

The RAF was at the forefront of propeller technology in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2019)

Later mark Kittyhawks had automatic boost control (I think from K onward) but I know that this was in a way a mixed blessing, as they had to be tinkered with in order to do overboosting. Something about cutting a wire. I'm not certain about the Merlin engined ones (F and L) but I think they did too.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2019)

slaterat said:


> The RAF was at the forefront of propeller technology in 1940.



It was, yes, although the DH props were of American origin - their 'Hydromatic' and counterweight props had appeared on bombers before fitting to fighters, but these were licence built Ham Std units. Rotol was the exception in Britain, but had limited application initially. The Rotol two position prop was first fitted to Spitfires with 54 Sqn in November/December 1939. This was initially limited to 54 Sqn however and the two position DH props were introduced in the Spring of 1940 - these were bracketed counter weight props. The DH and Rotol C/S props were fitted round about the same time as each other, from June/July 1940.

Bear in mind that the Bf 109 Emil, with a (pilot operated) variable pitch, not constant speed, prop entered service proper (apart from a limited number of E-Os in December 1938) in the Summer of 1939. VDM's first C/S props were designed in 1938. Later Bf 109Es had the awkwardly mounted pitch change lever on the instrument panel removed, formerly requiring the Bf 109 pilot to grow an extra hand to operate it during tight manoeuvring. British test pilots were surprised by this oddity of design when testing the type. The Friedrich had a C/S prop from the outset, work beginning in the Spring of 1940 on its development.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 15, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Later Bf 109Es had the awkwardly mounted pitch change lever on the instrument panel removed, formerly requiring the Bf 109 pilot to grow an extra hand to operate it during tight manoeuvring




lol


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Spitfires life can be summed up by the phrase, ''good enough now is better than perfect later''. The desperate need for them meant it's development always took a second seat to production resulting in it never maturing into the fighter it should have been.



I agree and disagree. Spitfire development was constantly evolving and the various marks and ease by which modifications could be made and hurried into production meant that it was very much given top priority, not to mention the considerable leaps in performance that expeditious measures such as the Sixty Series Merlins and the Griffons gave the type. Ironically, both the Spit IX and the Spitfire XIV that swung the Spitfire's performance ahead of its contemporaries were both stop-gaps. 

As for the claim it never matured? Odd how it was one of the only WW2 fighters in production before the beginning and after the end of WW2 and produced in a large number of marks and sub-marks. Bear in mind that over 22,000 Spitfires were built. No US built fighter matches that number and of the best and greatest WW2 fighters, only the Bf 109 exceeds it. The Griffon engine gave the Spitfire a performance edge over its contemporaries. In Air Fighting Development Unit report No.117 dated 16 June 1944 the Spit XIV was evaluated against the Tempest, the P-51C, the Bf 109G and the Fw 190A. at height it was superior to all, although against the P-51C only marginally and the latter, not unexpectedly had a greater range, but the Spitfire held its own and proved superior in speed, rate of climb and dive. Against the Fw 190 it outperformed it in every aspect except rate of roll, against the Bf 109G, the Spitfire was superior in every way.

To claim it didn't mature into what it could have been is completely blind to its history.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2019)

Let's also consider for a moment that the Mustang first entered service in january 1942 with the RAF, the design having taken advantage of the most current aerodynamic knowledge available to designers, so that by 1944 and the P-51C and 'D it was a world beater, yet, the Spitfire, the first of which first flew in 1936, in its 1944 incarnation, and structurally there wasn't much in it between the Mk.I and the Mk.XIV, only minor refienements, engine notwithstanding, could out perform the P-51.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2019)

slaterat said:


> The RAF was at the forefront of propeller technology in 1940.


ROFLMAO


The British Air Ministry (and a few others in Britain) had to dragged, kicking and screaming, to even get within rifle shot of current propeller technology in 1940. 
The British may have been ahead of Lithuania 

Roy Fedden of Bristol teamed up with RR to form Rotol in the teeth of opposition of both the air ministry and Bristols board of directors. The Bristol board was convinced the market for adjustable pitch (let alone constant speed) props was too small in England to be worth tooling up for and DH could easily supply the market. 
Fedden and RR could see that the higher powered engines and faster planes would need something better than even two pitch props (all Bristol engines from the late 30s on had provisions, at least brackets and oil passages, sometimes plugged to fit variable pitch propellers, at least the export engines. 

in 1938 there were something like 18 different airlines around the world using constant speed, fully feathering propellers in daily use on passenger carrying planes. 
2 years later the British are just fitting constant speed props to their first line fighters and many of their bombers were still being fitted with 2 pitch props and the ones that got constant speed props weren't getting ones that would feather. They got a prop shaft brake, the dead or malfunctioning engine was put into coarse pitch and a brake was applied to keep the prop from turing. Please note that many of the early British 2 pitch props or constant speed props had a pitch change range of 20 degrees while many american planes (like Tomahawks) had a pitch change range of 30 degrees. 

Too many British airmen flying bombers and maritime recconasance died due to crappy propellers for anyone to claim the British were at the forefront of propeller technology in 1940.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Roy Fedden of Bristol teamed up with RR to form Rotol in the teeth of opposition of both the air ministry and Bristols board of directors. The Bristol board was convinced the market for adjustable pitch (let alone constant speed) props was too small in England to be worth tooling up for and DH could easily supply the market.
> Fedden and RR could see that the higher powered engines and faster planes would need something better than even two pitch props (all Bristol engines from the late 30s on had provisions, at least brackets and oil passages, sometimes plugged to fit variable pitch propellers, at least the export engines.



Interesting history.

Rotol constant speed propellers installed on Hurricane Is in 1940 had a pitch range from 21 to 56 degrees, for a total range of 35 degrees.

Hurricane L-2026 Trials Report

These are the propellers that Hurricanes are flying with in Aug ,1940.

Over a year later, Kittyhawk Is, still didn't have automatic boost control.

Everyone who follows these things , knows that the Air Ministry made lots of very stupid decisions, fortunately there were many smart innovative and entrepreneurial people to compensate for this. Think of Hawker tooling up for 1000 Hurricanes , without an order, probably saved the free world.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 16, 2019)

Automatic boost control doesn't really have much to do with prop development (for our purposes here, anyway). Curtiss had constant-speed props on their fighters before the P-36 even, did they not?


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 16, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> To claim it didn't mature into what it could have been is completely blind to its history.



The Spitfire's development line went from the MkI then II then V and IX, if it had gone from the MkIII, a totally different aircraft we would have had the MkVIII and then the XIV instead. The MkIII air frame was a generation ahead of the MkII, two speed engine, shorter cleaner wings, retractable tail wheel, covered main gear and internal bullet proof windscreen. The MkIII gave the RAF an honest 385mph fighter with 650 mile range in 1941, 415 mph in 1942 accompanied by the Griffon powered XII and XIV from 1942 onwards. The interim models were good planes but they weren't a match for the ''production'' models.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2019)

stona said:


> See p648 and on, Chapter 11 'Aftermath' and various appendices.


Thanks for that


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> ...
> The MkIII gave the RAF an honest 385mph fighter with 650 mile range in 1941
> ....



Already in 1940.


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 16, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> It was, yes, although the DH props were of American origin - their 'Hydromatic' and counterweight props had appeared on bombers before fitting to fighters, but these were licence built Ham Std units. Rotol was the exception in Britain, but had limited application initially. The Rotol two position prop was first fitted to Spitfires with 54 Sqn in November/December 1939. This was initially limited to 54 Sqn however and the two position DH props were introduced in the Spring of 1940 - these were bracketed counter weight props. The DH and Rotol C/S props were fitted round about the same time as each other, from June/July 1940.



Not quite I think:

"A new type of "Spitfire" fitted with a "Rotol" constant speed airscrew was collected..." - No. 19 Squadron Operations Record Book, 1 November 1939
"The Squadron commenced to re-equip with Rotol Spitfires..." - No. 54 Squadron Operations Record Book, 10 December 1939
"Aircraft of 54 Squadron were fitted with the Rotol constant speed airscrew on which we had been doing trials when the fighting started." - Alan Deere, Nice Lives, page 55
Spitfire N.3171. Merlin III - Rotol Constant Speed Airscrew. Comparitive Perfromance Trials. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment. 19th March 1940.
Rotol Airscrews for Spitfire, HQ Fighter Command, 16 June 1940
"The aeroplane may be fitted with one of the following airscrew controls" (a) de Havilland two position (b) de Havilland constant speed, or (c) Rotol (35 deg. ) constant speed." - AP 1565A, Spitfire I Aeroplane, June 1940
Hurricane L.2026. (Merlin III) (Rotol Constant Speed Airscrew) Comparitive Perfromance Trials, Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment 12th June 1940.
Spitfire Conversion of 2 Pitch De Havilland Airscrews to Constant Speed, HQ Fighter Command, 17 June 1940
Spitfire I fitted with De Havilland Constant Speed Airscrew, 22 June 1940
No. 92 Squadron Operations Record Book, 25 June 1940
609 Squadron Operations Record Book, 26 June 1940
No. 611 Squadron Operations Record Book, 28 June 1940
No. 74 Squadron Operations Record Book, 28 June 1940
Flight, May 23, 1940: The Latest Rotol Airscrew
"Rotol constant-speed airscrew" - W/C Ian Gleed D.F.C., Arise to Conquer, (Random House, New York 1942) pp. 62-63.
"A new Hurricane was delivered to the Squadron, equipped with a constant speed airscrew..." - No. 1 Squadron Operations Record Book, 18 April 1940
I was flying a new aeroplane with a Rotol constant-speed prop..." - Paul Richey DFC, Fighter Pilot (Redwood Press, Wiltshire 1990) p 93.
"Huricane R3310 with Rotol Airscrew..." - No. 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, 13 April 1940
"The squadron can now put up 12 Rotol Hurricanes if required." - No. 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, 15 May 1940
Hugh Halliday, No. 242 Squadron, The Canadian Years, (Canada's Wings, Ontario, 1981). p.78.
Wing Commander Tom Neil, DFC, AFC, AE, Gun Button to 'Fire', (William Kimber, London 1987), pg 48.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2019)

So by around 1941 seems like most fighters had CS propellers, was there anything after that?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2019)

Just blundered across something which answered another nagging question I'd had for a long time. We all know about the infamous Vokes filter, with some debate as to how bad it was, then replaced by the "Aboukir" filter which was superior. I always wondered why Kittyhawks didn't seem to have this kind of problem. I was just reading an interview with Bobby Gibbes and he mentioned something interesting about filters. He said "Buck Abou Kir" developed an air filter for the Kittyhawks which was later adopted by Curtiss Wright! Gibbes himself used to test fly the aircraft with the new filters. Gibbes said that prior to the new filter being adopted, engine life was down to 60-70 hours due to dust, (which isn't much better than what the Russians were reportedly getting with P-40s). With the filter he said it went up to about 120 hours. Gibbes also noted that a German pilot told him the German engines were failing after 20-30 hours.
_
"*Yes. Well turning to the more technical side of it in terms of servicing aircraft, how good were those facilities? *

(20.00) Well back .... We used to have two flights plus a base camp, and if any major damage was done the aircraft would be serviced by the base camp. But basically, out in the field, out in the desert, we'd ... each flight would do its own maintenance. They couldn't do anything really major but they kept things flying. Motors used to chop out after sixty or seventy hours. They were finished. We had an engineer called Buck Abou Kir - Shirley Abou Kir's father - and he designed an air filter, and I did the test flying for his air filter. Later that air filter was adopted by Curtiss Wright and fitted into all the Kittyhawks. I think it was from Buck's filter - probably got a few mods - but that .... Our engine hours went up to about 120 then. I was talking to a German pilot who was commanding officer of JG 27 in North Africa. He said the Messerschmitt engines didn't .... They got no more than twenty or thirty hours before they would cut out. "_

Tried googling this Abou Kir, I found this person Shirley Abicair, daughter of a Wing Commander in the RAAF but it doesn't give his name. I know there was a town called Abou Qir or Abukir in Egypt where they had a major RAF air base, and I always thought that was the origin of the name of the filter. Not sure what the actual link is here...

S

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm well aware but the V-1650-1 was an American version (so probably slightly different) of the Merlin XX right? So that is different from a Spit V which used a Merlin 45 or 46 or 45M right? I thought the Spit V had a higher critical altitude.



Apart from using US-spec prop spline, different carb and IIRC different type of supercharger drive (Wright-designed instead of Farman licence), rest was pretty much the same.
For altitude power (in this case, say, 13000 ft and above), Merlin XX and 45 have had about same power, probably in single digits percantage. Merlin 46 have had a bigger impeller (10.85" vs. 10.25 in), and it was making a bit more power above ~20000 ft, and a bit less under ~18000 ft than Merlin 45. The Mk.46 sacrificed a lot of power under 10000 ft, and was not produced in great numbers.
Merlin 45M (M means here that impeller was cut down to 9.50" diameter) went the opposite way - it sacrificed hi-alt power to gain low-alt power. 
As one can see 1-speed S/Ced engines means compromises to be made; the variable-speed, as well as 2- and 3-speed S/Ced egines are more flexible in altitude-power regard.
Spit V have had a high critical altitude, low-drag wing and pointy nose, however the small details kept it from being top fighter from mid-1941 on.



> Right but all versions of the P-40 had lower and higher drag / weight configurations like that. P-40L was four guns out of the factory.



I don't agree that there was such a choice - as-produced, the P-40E was exclusively a 6-HMG overweight fighter, while P-40B was a fighter of reasonable weight. P-40L and N started as improved types from the get go, the N reverted to full fuel & gun laod pretty quick.



> Interesting. Yes on the P-39 though for some reason they seemed to struggle to get rated performance in the field (at least in American use) for reasons I never fully understood. Maybe that was another way the Russians got more out of them. P-51A was super fast but suffered from bad ailerons, fixed in later versions. The A version didn't seem to be a very good air to air combat aircraft.



P-51A was produced in very small numbers (310 total?), so an accurate assesment is hard to make IMO.
Early P-39s the AAF used were not that good, especially once past 13000 ft. The P-39 that went beyond 380 mph was too late to matter - USAAF needed range, and P-39 was not up to the task. However they came in just in time for Soviets, that will need more than a year to produce indigenous fighter that can beat the P-39N/Q.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2019)

He also had an interesting comment about the Italians and the MC 202:

"*Were the Germans in your estimation better pilots than the Italians, or was it simply that they had better aircraft? *
_
No, I think possibly, if anything, the Italian might have been a better pilot than the German. He is certainly a very very good aerobatic pilot. The Germans probably were stauncher, they'd push on a bit more than the Italian. The Germans had better aeroplanes than the Italians, although* the Macchi 202 was probably a better plane than the Messerschmitt*. It was really a fine aeroplane, and if they had been flown by Germans, we probably would have even been worse off. As it was, we handled them all right. But they would turn with us - the Messerschmitt wouldn't - and it put a rather different complex on our combat methods. "_


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Apart from using US-spec prop spline, different carb and IIRC different type of supercharger drive (Wright-designed instead of Farman licence), rest was pretty much the same.
> For altitude power (in this case, say, 13000 ft and above), Merlin XX and 45 have had about same power, probably in single digits percantage. Merlin 46 have had a bigger impeller (10.85" vs. 10.25 in), and it was making a bit more power above ~20000 ft, and a bit less under ~18000 ft than Merlin 45. The Mk.46 sacrificed a lot of power under 10000 ft, and was not produced in great numbers.
> Merlin 45M (M means here that impeller was cut down to 9.50" diameter) went the opposite way - it sacrificed hi-alt power to gain low-alt power.
> As one can see 1-speed S/Ced engines means compromises to be made; the variable-speed, as well as 2- and 3-speed S/Ced egines are more flexible in altitude-power regard.
> Spit V have had a high critical altitude, low-drag wing and pointy nose, however the small details kept it from being top fighter from mid-1941 on.



Interesting. I'd been given to understand that the Spitfire V had a considerably higher combat ceiling / critical altitude. At any rate, I would expect the Spit V to have very good acceleration as it had a power to mass ratio of around .20 to .23 depending, which is excellent for any aircraft in the war. Better, generally speaking than the Bf 109 or MC 202 types operating at the same time, better than the P-40 and the other British fighters, and certainly better than any Japanese fighter operating in 1941-43. So it may have had a better combat speed than the top speed figure implies.



> I don't agree that there was such a choice - as-produced, the P-40E was exclusively a 6-HMG overweight fighter, while P-40B was a fighter of reasonable weight. P-40L and N started as improved types from the get go, the N reverted to full fuel & gun laod pretty quick.



It's actually a bit more complex than that. Light vs. heavy, or you might say fighter vs. fighter bomber variations of the P-40 were being done in the field as far back as Java, the Philippines and Darwin in early 1942, when they first started taking guns, ammunition and fuel out and other things to lighten the aircraft so they could climb better during interceptions. P-40s were overloaded with full fuel, six guns with full ammunition, sway bars and an external tank. This gives a climb rate of about 2,000 feet per minute or less. With four guns, half fuel, 200 rounds per gun, and a few other things taken out (apparently some oil cooler armor which is repeatedly mentioned though this still gets debated) and higher boost it could be up to 3,000 fpm or more.

The P-40D / Kittyhawk I was originally a four gun model, the US didn't use any but some 560 went to the RAF. Some had 6 guns but some had 4. The F models were stripped by US mechanics down to four guns, with several other things stripped out. This was then copied by Curtiss with the L, which came standard with four guns, 200 rounds per gun and the forward wing fuel tank removed. Both types would be given six guns if they were using them more for fighter bomber missions. This also sometimes depended on the unit. For example 325th FG which flew mostly escort missions for a long time was using four guns, whereas 324th was always using six guns. When 325th started doing more FB missions they added the extra guns and ammunition in.

The very early P-40N-5-CU through N-10-CU were 'interceptor' versions with 4 guns and several other things stripped out - including some like removing the starter which were unpopular changes. These were the 378 mph version. Then there were later versions (N-15-CU through N-35-CU) with a lower rated engine and much heavier configuration which were intended as fighter bombers (this was basically the only mission for the P-40N in British use as the Kittyhawk IV for example). Fully loaded these had a top speed of ~ 340 mph. In the CBI and Pacific however there was still a need for faster and higher flying (CBI over the Himalayas) or climbing (New Guinea / Solomons) versions so the field stripping started again, and Curtiss responded with other fast four gun versions with the higher rated engine (N-40-CU). These were fast like the N-5 and N-10.

The M was intended for export as a fighter bomber (most went to the British). The K was kind of it's own niche with the high-rated (1,500+ hp) low altitude Allison V-1710-73 and it was pretty fast even with six guns.

However all of those changes could be and were done in the field. If they were facing a lot of air to air combat with fighters or needed to scramble to intercept raids it was routine to take 2 guns out and then other things.



> P-51A was produced in very small numbers (310 total?), so an accurate assesment is hard to make IMO.



Well by my understanding there were 150 NA-91 / P-51 (no letter) / Mustang IA, around 700 NA-99 / P-51A / Mustang II, and 500 A-36 "Apache" dive bombers from what I understand, so that is around 1,350 produced. The Mustang IA and II was in somewhat wide use by the British who liked them as recon / day intruder planes, but were also flown by some US units mostly in the CBI where it was hoped to be a kind of savior. They had a poor combat record in air to air combat, only one Ace for example out of all of those aircraft. We had a long discussion about it on here and it turned out the problem was small ailerons, which were improved in the P-51B onward.



> Early P-39s the AAF used were not that good, especially once past 13000 ft. The P-39 that went beyond 380 mph was too late to matter - USAAF needed range, and P-39 was not up to the task. However they came in just in time for Soviets, that will need more than a year to produce indigenous fighter that can beat the P-39N/Q.



Some of those later model P-39s were around in the Med and though initially (after a couple of bad maulings) consigned to coastal patrol, later were used rather widely as fighter-bombers in Italy under fairly hairy circumstances. Which I think they did reasonably well but they never seemed to find a niche as fighters except in Russia.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's actually a bit more complex than that. Light vs. heavy, or you might say fighter vs. fighter bomber variations of the P-40 were being done in the field as far back as Java, the Philippines and Darwin in early 1942, when they first started taking guns, ammunition and fuel out and other things to lighten the aircraft so they could climb better during interceptions. P-40s were overloaded with full fuel, six guns with full ammunition, sway bars and an external tank. This gives a climb rate of about 2,000 feet per minute or less. With four guns, half fuel, 200 rounds per gun, and a few other things taken out (apparently some oil cooler armor which is repeatedly mentioned though this still gets debated) and higher boost it could be up to 3,000 fpm or more.
> 
> The P-40D / Kittyhawk I was originally a four gun model, the US didn't use any but some 560 went to the RAF. Some had 6 guns but some had 4. The F models were stripped by US mechanics down to four guns, with several other things stripped out. This was then copied by Curtiss with the L, which came standard with four guns, 200 rounds per gun and the forward wing fuel tank removed. Both types would be given six guns if they were using them more for fighter bomber missions. This also sometimes depended on the unit. For example 325th FG which flew mostly escort missions for a long time was using four guns, whereas 324th was always using six guns. When 325th started doing more FB missions they added the extra guns and ammunition in.
> 
> The very early P-40N-5-CU through N-10-CU were 'interceptor' versions with 4 guns and several other things stripped out - including some like removing the starter which were unpopular changes. These were the 378 mph version. Then there were later versions (N-15-CU through N-35-CU) with a lower rated engine and much heavier configuration which were intended as fighter bombers (this was basically the only mission for the P-40N in British use as the Kittyhawk IV for example). Fully loaded these had a top speed of ~ 340 mph. In the CBI and Pacific however there was still a need for faster and higher flying (CBI over the Himalayas) or climbing (New Guinea / Solomons) versions so the field stripping started again, and Curtiss responded with other fast four gun versions with the higher rated engine (N-40-CU). These were fast like the N-5 and N-10.



Field modification != version. One is done in field (doh), another is what actually manufacturer produed.
There was no 6 gun P-40D. All P-40Ns were powered by, for all intents and purposes, same engine - same rpm, same boost allowed, same critical altitude, same take off power, same WER.



> The M was intended for export as a fighter bomber (most went to the British). The K was kind of it's own niche with the high-rated (1,500+ hp) low altitude Allison V-1710-73 and it was pretty fast even with six guns.



It was pretty fast at low altitudes. That's okay, if not what USAAF really wanted by 1942.



> However all of those changes could be and were done in the field. If they were facing a lot of air to air combat with fighters or needed to scramble to intercept raids it was routine to take 2 guns out and then other things.



Kinda points out that 'short-nose' P-40s needed much more power than it had, especially at altitude (15000 ft and up) - between 8300-8670 lbs, it weighted about same as the Fw 190. 
Removing fuel tanks is self-defeating, even if removing the guns is not.



> Well by my understanding there were 150 NA-91 / P-51 (no letter) / Mustang IA, around 700 NA-99 / P-51A / Mustang II, and 500 A-36 "Apache" dive bombers from what I understand, so that is around 1,350 produced. The Mustang IA and II was in somewhat wide use by the British who liked them as recon / day intruder planes, but were also flown by some US units mostly in the CBI where it was hoped to be a kind of savior. They had a poor combat record in air to air combat, only one Ace for example out of all of those aircraft. We had a long discussion about it on here and it turned out the problem was small ailerons, which were improved in the P-51B onward.



You do know that P-51, A-36 and P-51 were very different aircraft?
310 of Mustang II/P-51A produced, 1st delivered in March 1943, 1st use Sept 1943.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Field modification != version. One is done in field (doh), another is what actually manufacturer produed.
> There was no 6 gun P-40D.



In this case, while it's true that the field modification is not the same as the version, the two very much overlapped. P-40L is just the factory version of a field modified P-40F from the second half of the production run. It could be and was reconfigured like an "original" P-40F in a few hours. So I really don't see the difference. One of the features of the P-40 by the time the mid-run series came out was that it was very much a known quantity and what could be done with it could vary quite a bit. Original specs also limit bomb load to one 250 lb or 500 lb bomb on center line and some 40 lb bombs on the wings, but in the field they put 1,000 lb bombs on the centerline and sometimes also 2 x 500 lb bombs on the wings, and various other combinations. Also rockets. All field variations, but also standardized.

My understanding is that there _was_ a four gun P-40D- not for the US but for the British, though it's unclear how many were delivered as such. It was also possible to put two guns back in if it came with four since there was provision for another pair at some point in the production run.



> All P-40Ns were powered by, for all intents and purposes, same engine - same rpm, same boost allowed, same critical altitude, same take off power, same WER.



My understanding is that they used different versions of the V-1710 ranging from *1,300 hp* for takeoff (V-1710-81 / F20R) on the N1 through N 10, to *1200 hp* for takeoff (V-1710-99 / F26R) for N -15 through N 35, back to *1,350 hp* for takeoff (V-1710-115 (F31R) on the N-40. There were other differences, some were optimized (gear ratio) for a higher critical altitude, others for harder running (higher boost). There was of course overlap but that was the general tradeoff. WEP power ranges from 1480 hp for the -99 to closer to 1,550 hp for the 115. The boost control on the -99 prevented overboosting.

Internally of course I'm sure they were very similar but in terms of actual use, there were differences.



> It was pretty fast at low altitudes. That's okay, if not what USAAF really wanted by 1942.



Very true, but the USAAF wasn't the only customer. The British liked them (though they didn't get many), the Australians got relatively a lot of them and loved them. Same for the Russians - the P-40K was the variants they had the best results with and the most aces and HSU flying them. Not sure about the New Zealanders. US units also did get a lot out of the -K variant as it seemed to be the most successful for the 23rd FG and the 49th FG, both units that often fought at low altitude.

As we have discussed before, there clearly was a niche for low -medium altitude fighters, hence the cropped wing / cropped impeller Spitfires.



> Kinda points out that 'short-nose' P-40s needed much more power than it had, especially at altitude (15000 ft and up) - between 8300-8670 lbs, it weighted about same as the Fw 190.
> Removing fuel tanks is self-defeating, even if removing the guns is not.



Removing fuel (and fuel tanks) was apparently considered a normal tactic for many aircraft when they had to scramble. It was also done with Hurricanes and Buffalos in the SW Pacific.



> You do know that P-51, A-36 and P-51 were very different aircraft?
> 310 of Mustang II/P-51A produced, 1st delivered in March 1943, 1st use Sept 1943.



A-36 (500 produced) _was_ different because it had airbrakes, but the P-51A, Mustang IA and II were not very different except for armament IMO. And there were enough of those produced and into combat for a realistic evaluation.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> ...
> My understanding is that there _was_ a four gun P-40D- not for the US but for the British, though it's unclear how many were delivered as such. It was also possible to put two guns back in if it came with four since there was provision for another pair at some point in the production run.



The P-40D was a 4-gun type.



> My understanding is that they used different versions of the V-1710 ranging from *1,300 hp* for takeoff (V-1710-81 / F20R) on the N1 through N 10, to *1200 hp* for takeoff (V-1710-99 / F26R) for N -15 through N 35, back to *1,350 hp* for takeoff (V-1710-115 (F31R) on the N-40. There were other differences, some were optimized (gear ratio) for a higher critical altitude, others for harder running (higher boost). There was of course overlap but that was the general tradeoff. WEP power ranges from 1480 hp for the -99 to closer to 1,550 hp for the 115. The boost control on the -99 prevented overboosting.
> Internally of course I'm sure they were very similar but in terms of actual use, there were differences.



Boost control allowed 'carefree' overboosting; no over-boosting = no WER.
The V-1710-81, -99 and -115 were all with S/C gear ratio 9.60:1, take off power 1200 HP, mil power 1125 HP at 14500-15000 ft. WER was 1480 HP at 7500 ft (going lower can allow for more boost = more power, if engine can take it).





> Removing fuel (and fuel tanks) was apparently considered a normal tactic for many aircraft when they had to scramble. It was also done with Hurricanes and Buffalos in the SW Pacific.



With Buffaloes - probably it was the case. With Hurricanes - nothing to remove, it was already shorter ranged than the P-39, that Gen Kenney loathed (he was barely satisfied with range of P-40).



> A-36 (500 produced) _was_ different because it had airbrakes, but the P-51A, Mustang IA and II were not very different except for armament IMO. And there were enough of those produced and into combat for a realistic evaluation.



P-51A and Mustang IIwere the same aircraft - one with US name, other with British name. Engine with critical alt at ~15000 ft (1125 HP there). Has drop tanks.
Mustang IA (P-51) was cannon-armed version of Mustang I (~XP-51). Engine with critical alt at 12000 ft (1150 HP there). No drop tanks.
A-36 - powered by low-alt V-1710. 

All of them performed differently at any given altitude, P-51A being the best of the lot in fighter role, not just due to 410+ mph speed.
I'd certainly suggest the two books: 'American hundred thousand' and 'Vee's for victory'.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 16, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Just blundered across something which answered another nagging question I'd had for a long time. We all know about the infamous Vokes filter, with some debate as to how bad it was, then replaced by the "Aboukir" filter which was superior. I always wondered why Kittyhawks didn't seem to have this kind of problem. I was just reading an interview with Bobby Gibbes and he mentioned something interesting about filters. He said "Buck Abou Kir" developed an air filter for the Kittyhawks which was later adopted by Curtiss Wright! Gibbes himself used to test fly the aircraft with the new filters. Gibbes said that prior to the new filter being adopted, engine life was down to 60-70 hours due to dust, (which isn't much better than what the Russians were reportedly getting with P-40s). With the filter he said it went up to about 120 hours. Gibbes also noted that a German pilot told him the German engines were failing after 20-30 hours.
> 
> _"*Yes. Well turning to the more technical side of it in terms of servicing aircraft, how good were those facilities? *_
> 
> ...



Hi

I doubt if the "Buck Abou Kir" story is true, mainly as No. 103 MU at ABOUKIR dealt with this sort of problem as in the Spitfire. Many sources mention the MU being concerned with changing the 'Vokes' intake, eg. reference the Spitfire, Morgan and Shacklady in 'Spitfire, The History' pages 154-155, there is the following: 

"The large Vokes tropical intake was not liked by the services and it was not long before unofficial modifications began to appear, the most successful designed and installed by that most resourceful team at No 103 MU at Aboukir. They trimmed the filter back to a much smaller unit, one that was more efficient and drag reducing. It was named the Aboukir filter and the Vokes Aero-Vee, fitted to the Mk IX Spitfire, was based on this local modification."

The Mk VIII had the smaller type filter. I doubt if a filter fitted to the P 40 was too much of a problem for them.

Dust problems also arose in Normandy causing severe engine wear to the Napier Sabres of the Typhoon force operating from the forward airstrips, a 'filter' was fitted to the engine to solve this problem, this was done by Napier, although it had to go through a modification process to completely solve the problem. Again I see no severe difficulties with 103 MU fitting a filter to the P 40 intake as well. Although it is probably hard to tell from general photographs of the aircraft if there is a filter fitted to the P 40 as only a close up image of the Typhoon intake will show its filter, and a Mk VIII Spitfire's is basically invisible, unlike the Vokes on the Spitfire V. The Bf 109G's filter is a quite distinct addition as well and can be visible on images, so I suspect most aircraft operating in desert type conditions would have a filter fitted although maybe not immediately visible.

The names mentioned in the quote are too similar to 103 MU's location to be a coincidence.

Mike

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The P-40D was a 4-gun type.



Ok we are agreed then. So it was one of four manufactured P-40 variants with four guns: D, L and early N.



> Boost control allowed 'carefree' overboosting; no over-boosting = no WER.
> The V-1710-81, -99 and -115 were all with S/C gear ratio 9.60:1, take off power 1200 HP, mil power 1125 HP at 14500-15000 ft. WER was 1480 HP at 7500 ft (going lower can allow for more boost = more power, if engine can take it).



Right, and usually tension between pilots who sometimes wanted more boost (especially if intense air to air combat or repeated scrambles) vs. aircraft and engine company and the military hierarchy who wanted to keep engines running for more than 60 hours. I think the -81 allowed a higher WEP setting than the -99 did, and the 115 went back to the high setting, basically. Of course if a pilot wanted to override the boost limitation, especially in say Australian service or in American units in remote places like China or Burma, they could just have the mechanic do what they wanted. Or even put in a different engine for that matter.

I thought there was some slight variation in the gear ratios between the three types but I'll take your word for it.



> With Buffaloes - probably it was the case. With Hurricanes - nothing to remove, it was already shorter ranged than the P-39, that Gen Kenney loathed (he was barely satisfied with range of P-40).



Well, they routinely took out a pair of cannon in the Hurricane IIcs, and up to 4 -6 x .303s in the earlier mks, in attempts to save weight. That was done both in the Pacific and in the Western Desert.



> P-51A and Mustang IIwere the same aircraft - one with US name, other with British name. Engine with critical alt at ~15000 ft (1125 HP there). Has drop tanks.
> Mustang IA (P-51) was cannon-armed version of Mustang I (~XP-51). Engine with critical alt at 12000 ft (1150 HP there). No drop tanks.
> A-36 - powered by low-alt V-1710.
> 
> ...



I have both Americas Hundred Thousand (which I think isn't as good as everyone said it was) and Vees for Victory.

My point being that none of the above Allison engined variants of the P-51 did that well in air to air combat, or in my opinion lived up to their potential. The problem wasn't the Allison but was rather with the ailerons, apparently. I think if they had made NA-91 through 99 types with the bigger / better ailerons they could have had an excellent low altitude fighter out of it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Right, and usually tension between pilots who sometimes wanted more boost (especially if intense air to air combat or repeated scrambles) vs. aircraft and engine company and the military hierarchy who wanted to keep engines running for more than 60 hours. I think the -81 allowed a higher WEP setting than the -99 did, and the 115 went back to the high setting, basically. Of course if a pilot wanted to override the boost limitation, especially in say Australian service or in American units in places like China or Burma, they could have the mechanic do what they wanted. Or even put in a different engine.



There is slim and no chance that different engines were installed on pilot's preference, and Slim has alsready left the town.
You can see at the table that -81 and -99 have had same boost ratings. Mechanic's doing with engine what pilots preferred instead of what they were trained and ordered to do? Sounds great until engine is wrecked in mid-air.



> I thought there was some slight variation in the gear ratios between the three types but I'll take your word for it.



Don't take my word for it, check at Vee's for victory.



> Well, they routinely took out a pair of cannon in the Hurricane IIcs, and up to 4 -6 x .303s in the earlier mks, in attempts to save weight. That was done both in the Pacific and in the Western Desert.



?? You:
_Removing fuel (and fuel tanks) was apparently considered a normal tactic for many aircraft when they had to scramble. It was also done with Hurricanes and Buffalos in the SW Pacific. _ 

Fuel != guns.



> I have both Americas Hundred Thousand (which I think isn't as good as everyone said it was) and Vees for Victory.



Even though they contain a mistake or two, those are great books.



> My point being that none of the above Allison engined variants of the P-51 did that well in air to air combat, or in my opinion lived up to their potential. The problem wasn't the Allison but was rather with the ailerons, apparently. I think if they had made NA-91 through 99 types with the bigger / better ailerons they could have had an excellent low altitude fighter out of it.



The V-1710 was part of the problem, had they installed V-1650-1 it would've been a prime Allied fighter in 1942-43. Another part of the problem was that P-51A was too late and too few to matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 16, 2019)

Mike Williams said:


> Not quite I think:



Actually, I dunno why, but I'm slightly annoyed by the fact that your only contribution to this conversation so far is to correct something I posted... :C

But thank you for the extra information, I only wish I had access to that sort of thing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2019)

I would note that not filling fuel tanks was a pretty normal tactic in the early part of the war, and was part of the planning. The Buffalo for instance having weight charts showing either 110 gallons or 160 gallons. They just didn't fill the two wing tanks full. They didn't take anything out since the Buffalo (aside from the F2A-3) only had two fuel tanks and they were actually sealed compartments using the front and rear spars as the front and back wall of the tank/s. A bit hard to take out without the wing falling apart.  
The P-36/Mohawk used the tank behind the pilot as a ferry tank, it was never intended for combat. With the longer heavier V-12 engines the tank behind the pilot became part of the balance weight to maintain the CG. They might not fill it but they sure weren't going to take it out. 
The weight charts for the F4F and F4U also show less than full tanks and less than full ammo although I don't think they were every used in combat that way (or at least not much) 

As for the late P-40s, the engines were functionally identical, the different dash numbers indicated changes to the engine controls. The last engine having essentially the single lever control some people rave about the Germans having.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 16, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The Spitfire's development line went from the MkI then II then V and IX, if it had gone from the MkIII, a totally different aircraft we would have had the MkVIII and then the XIV instead. The MkIII air frame was a generation ahead of the MkII, two speed engine, shorter cleaner wings, retractable tail wheel, covered main gear and internal bullet proof windscreen. The MkIII gave the RAF an honest 385mph fighter with 650 mile range in 1941, 415 mph in 1942 accompanied by the Griffon powered XII and XIV from 1942 onwards.



Yeah, I know this. Doesn't change my criticism at all about your comments. The Mk.III was developed by joe Smith and had a Merlin with a two speed supercharger and other refinements that went into other variants, it's clipped wings in the 'V and retractable tailwheel into the Mk.VIII for example, but the Merlin 45, although having a single stage supercharger offered greater poower and higher manifold pressures and this was put in the 'V. Remember, the performance the 'III offered was that of a prototype, which didn't have guns, ammo or armour, so its performance was not representative of what it would have been in service. It was overtaken by events and the Air Ministry's desire to adopt the Mk V as an interim. One of the prototypes of the Mk.III became the first Spitfire to be fitted with a 60 Series Merlin, which promised greater performance again than existing Spitfires. By the time it was to have been put into production, the edge it might have had in 1940/41 would have been lost to the Fw 190. The 'V and 'IX were based on the same airframe; putting them into production as an expeditious measure made far more sense in terms of the swiftly developing war. Also, the HF.VII and Mk.VIII with refinements and 60 Series Merlin offered much more over time and it was a Mk.VIII that became the prototype of the 'XIV.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 16, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Doesn't change my criticism at all about your comments.




The MkIII air frame was better than the MkII in every way, as good as the IX was, the MkVIII was better, it was aerodynamically cleaner with a greater internal fuel load, the two things the Spit needed most. I'll stand by my comments that the Spit wasn't developed into the plane it could have been.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, I know this. Doesn't change my criticism at all about your comments. The Mk.III was developed by joe Smith and had a Merlin with a two speed supercharger and other refinements that went into other variants, it's clipped wings in the 'V and retractable tailwheel into the Mk.VIII for example, but the Merlin 45, although having a single stage supercharger offered greater poower and higher manifold pressures and this was put in the 'V. Remember, the performance the 'III offered was that of a prototype, which didn't have guns, ammo or armour, so its performance was not representative of what it would have been in service.



I'd mostly disagree.
Spitfire III sported an internal BP glass (IIRC worth 6-7 mph vs. external), fully retractable & covered U/C (again less drag = more speed), plus of course the Merlin XX - a best fighters' engine of 1940 in the world. Being a prototype, the fit&finish was as good as possible. That was not proceeded with had a lot to do with everyone needing/wanting Merlin XX, mostly the Hurricane so it can close the performance gap vs. Bf 109E, so there was a lack of XXs.
Merlin 45 (= roughly Merlin XII with improved ram air inlet from Merlin XX) was not offering greater power under 10000 ft and above 13000 ft vs. Merlin XX, and was a bit later engine (6 months?).
Granted, a part of 400 mph claimed speed for the Spit III was due not being outfitted with guns.



> It was overtaken by events and the Air Ministry's desire to adopt the Mk V as an interim. One of the prototypes of the Mk.III became the first Spitfire to be fitted with a 60 Series Merlin, which promised greater performance again than existing Spitfires. By the time it was to have been put into production, the edge it might have had in 1940/41 would have been lost to the Fw 190. The 'V and 'IX were based on the same airframe; putting them into production as an expeditious measure made far more sense in terms of the swiftly developing war. Also, the HF.VII and Mk.VIII with refinements and 60 Series Merlin offered much more over time and it was a Mk.VIII that became the prototype of the 'XIV.



Having a 390 mph combat-worthy Spitfire III is an improvement over the 365-375 mph SPitfire V against the 390-410 mph Fw 190 and Bf 109F-4. A bit greater fuel tank can also help with greater cruise speeds, and clipped wings left less of an advantage for the Fw 190 wrt. rate of roll.
In 1942, install the Merlin 60 series for extra 20 mph.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> by 1939 most UK fighters (and the Skua/Roc) were using a UK designed VP (2) pitch prop which was somewhat superior to a fixed pitch prop,


The two speed prop is a good intermediate step between fixed pitch and constant speed, with the benefit that after making the necessary mods to install it, you're most of the way there. Prop pitch changes are made by the application of pressurized engine oil through two galleries bored into the spine shaft, one driving course and one driving fine. This requires a high pressure oil pump to drive it and a shuttle valve that sends pressure to one gallery or the other or to both equally. This shuttle valve is attached to the prop pitch lever. You now have a prop that can be a "climb" or a "cruise" prop, but in either position, behaves like a conventional fixed pitch prop, meaning the pilot must control RPMs with the throttle.
You now have a prop that has everything it needs to be converted to a constant speed installation by replacing the shuttle valve with a prop governernor. This device sends oil pressure to the appropriate gallery, changing pitch to correct whenever revs deviate from the desired speed.


Schweik said:


> I have some questions on pitch settings for climb and dive and so forth (manual override?) and which aircraft had the best / most efficient prop pitch control (constant speed was the gold standard I gather, but what other options were there if any?)


IIn most cases there is no way for a manual override to work, as the governor itself is a pretty robust, simple device, not much given to failure. The most likely failure would be a rupture of a seal in the propeller or spline shaft/crank case interface, releasing the pressurized oil, defeating a manual control system, and driving the prop to its coarse or fine pitch limits where it will act as a fixed pitch prop.


slaterat said:


> By June 1940 all Hurricanes and Spitfires had three bladed, two pitch props.
> By August 15, 1940 1051 Spitfires and Hurricanes in the field were equipped with constant speed propellers with automatic boost control. Production lines were also being converted to constant speed props.


This sort of implies that Automatic Boost Control is somehow related to propeller control. It's not. In fact, a reliable constant speed prop reduces the need for boost control, as boost excursions are generally tied to RPM excursions, at least with direct drive superchargers. Fluid coupled drives are another matter. The only other cause for an overboost (direct drive only) is overenthusiastic throttle jockeying while ignoring the Manifold Pressure gage. That's like ignoring Vne, Gmax, or Bingo fuel. Take care of your ride and she'll take care of you.


slaterat said:


> The RAF was at the forefront of propeller technology in 1940.


MANIFESTUS ABSURDUM! Yeah, they could have been, if certain ass-tute individuals hadn't decided that the benefits of that investment weren't worth the expense. That's right up there with cavalry officers making procurement decisions for the Air Corps.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes on the P-39 though for some reason they seemed to struggle to get rated performance in the field (at least in American use) for reasons I never fully understood.


I believe they struggled to get rated performance, because they were originally rated under somewhat "optimistic" conditions and configuration, rather than realistic field conditions. Larry Bell tended to be that way.
The Russians liked to reduce weight and drag by deleting wing guns, some of the electronics and some fuel, and they discovered they could get away with overboosting their Allisons, turning it into a "hotrod".
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## stona (Dec 17, 2019)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> I doubt if the "Buck Abou Kir" story is true, mainly as No. 103 MU at ABOUKIR dealt with this sort of problem as in the Spitfire.
> 
> Mike



Which is exactly what I thought when I read the account.

Personal memory is extremely fallible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You now have a prop that can be a "climb" or a "cruise" prop, but in either position, behaves like a conventional fixed pitch prop, meaning the pilot must control RPMs with the throttle.



Different countries or companies also handled the set up of the two pitches a bit different. In some cases instead of "climb" or "cruise" it was "take-off" and "everything else."
The manual for an early Spitfire for instance telling the pilot to shift to coarse pitch after take-off and wheels up at about 140mph. The French Caudron racer and even the DH 88 used props that automatically shifted to coarse once a certain airspeed had been reached.





flat disc on prop hub was pushed back and allowed air to bleed out of a bladder that held the prop in fine pitch. 

BTW the first Spitfires to use the DH 2 position airscrew may have had a pitch range of 32½° - 45° or 12 1/2 degrees. 
The first Hurricanes to get DH 2 position air screws had a pitch range of 20 degrees.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 17, 2019)

stona said:


> Which is exactly what I thought when I read the account.
> 
> Personal memory is extremely fallible.



What type of air cleaner arrangement did the P 40 and Zero have that made them immune to dust?


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Actually, I dunno why, but I'm slightly annoyed by the fact that your only contribution to this conversation so far is to correct something I posted... :C
> 
> But thank you for the extra information, I only wish I had access to that sort of thing.


Nothing personal intended. I’ve studied the introduction of constant blade props in some depth and had material to share that clarified the narrative.


----------



## stona (Dec 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> What type of air cleaner arrangement did the P 40 and Zero have that made them immune to dust?



The biggest advantage for the P-40 was the position of the intake. The Merlin's up draught carburettor obviously caused the position of the intake to be under the Spitfire.

The P-40 was not immune to dust, but I don't now what the filter arrangement was and I'm not at home.

I'm not the person to comment on the 'Zero'.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> What type of air cleaner arrangement did the P 40 and Zero have that made them immune to dust?


The Spitfire drew air from under the engine, updraft carb. The P40 drew air from on top of the engine, down draft carb. Essentially it would be like driving a truck down a dusty dirt road and having the air intake under the truck behind the front axle (Spitfire) or having the air intake on top of the hood (P40). I have no idea where the Zero or Wildcat drew their air from.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2019)

The P-40 wasn't immune to dust/dirt. It just didn't suffer as bad as the Merlin, engine life dropped to around 1/3-1/2 instead of 1/4 or so.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 17, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Having a 390 mph combat-worthy Spitfire III is an improvement over the 365-375 mph SPitfire V against the 390-410 mph Fw 190 and Bf 109F-4. A bit greater fuel tank can also help with greater cruise speeds, and clipped wings left less of an advantage for the Fw 190 wrt. rate of roll.
> In 1942, install the Merlin 60 series for extra 20 mph.



Where the Mk.III wings actually clipped, or re engineered to be shorter and stiffer, sort of like the Mk.21?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 17, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The Spitfire drew air from under the engine, updraft carb. The P40 drew air from on top of the engine, down draft carb. Essentially it would be like driving a truck down a dusty dirt road and having the air intake under the truck behind the front axle (Spitfire) or having the air intake on top of the hood (P40). I have no idea where the Zero or Wildcat drew their air from.



Hello Pinsog,

Carburetor intake on A6M2 is here:






Carburetor intake on A6M3 & A6M5 is here:





- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Where the Mk.III wings actually clipped, or re engineered to be shorter and stiffer, sort of like the Mk.21?



A 3.5 ft section was removed from each side of the 'normal' Spitfire wing. Wing area reduced to 220 sq ft.
Per 'Spitfire, the history', by Morgan and Shacklady, pg. 127.
Pg. 128: The wing area is slightly reduced without interfering with the main structural members,...


----------



## taly01 (Dec 17, 2019)

> .... I'll stand by my comments that the Spit wasn't developed into the plane it could have been.



Of the 3 planes in this thread the Spitfire was the best developed, so much that the last "Spitfires" 20.x series had nothing left of the original 1936 design as the wings, fuselage and engine were changed. 

The Fw190 was developed to its maximum but its end development the long nose Fw190D->Ta152 was stalled by Germanys war situation, and it also had little left of the original 1938 Fw190 concept by then.

The Zero definately was under-developed, never getting the engine upgrade to cope with increased weight and speeds necessary. A 1945 Zero had fallen well behind global standards unlike the Spitfire and Fw190. 
Zero development took a mis-step in 41-42 with the new clipped wing A6M3 model 32 with a slightly boosted Sakae 21 motor (interesting performance benefit/flaws very similar to the clipped Spitfire V) improved high speed handling but worse sustained turn and not really better speed at all heights. The insane range demands of Guadalcanal led development down another wrong path to the A6M3 model 22 that put longer wing and more fuel back for early 1943 (just as newer bases were been made that made it not necessary) and now along with the increasing numbers of P-38's the Corsair began appearing in large numbers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 17, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The Spitfire drew air from under the engine, updraft carb. The P40 drew air from on top of the engine, down draft carb. Essentially it would be like driving a truck down a dusty dirt road and having the air intake under the truck behind the front axle (Spitfire) or having the air intake on top of the hood (P40). I have no idea where the Zero or Wildcat drew their air from.






Having the intake on the top is preferred but looking at this photo only the first plane would get clean air, all the ones behind would be sucking dust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 17, 2019)

Hello Pat303,

Actually this was an issue that was addressed in later model P-40s, I believe starting with the P-40M.
Please see item 9 in the attached image.
There was a bypass that pulled air through a filter when necessary.
The holes in the side of the cowl near the Spinner are the identifying feature though with modern aircraft, it isn't an indication because the panels are interchangeable and older aircraft may have had the panel replaced.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 17, 2019)

taly01 said:


> Of the 3 planes in this thread the Spitfire was the best developed, so much that the last "Spitfires" 20.x series had nothing left of the original 1936 design as the wings, fuselage and engine were changed.



I agree that the Spitfire was EVENTUALLY developed as far as it could practically be taken, but the types that did _almost_ all the heavy lifting during the war years were "interim" types. Models knowingly lacking features and refinements were thrust into service for fear of leaving a gap. 
In another universe, as was stated on this thread previously, the Mk.III would have followed the BOB era Mk.II's, and to be superseded by the Mk.VIII. I am not sure what development model the Mk.XIV was an interim for, perhaps the Mk.XVIII or 21? If the UK had the breathing room available, perhaps the Mk.V developmental "low point" and subsequent performance deficit wouldn't have happened

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In most cases there is no way for a manual override to work, as the governor itself is a pretty robust, simple device, not much given to failure. The most likely failure would be a rupture of a seal in the propeller or spline shaft/crank case interface, releasing the pressurized oil, defeating a manual control system, and driving the prop to its coarse or fine pitch limits where it will act as a fixed pitch prop.



So when I read about changing the prop pitch for a climb, that was one of the two speed props?

Climbing or diving do not necessarily correlate precisely with speed, right? Or do they I'm not sure? pitch changes seem necessary or at least beneficial. Diving I guess means you are likely to faster and of course you'll pull back on the throttle. But I wasn't sure about climbing.



> I believe they struggled to get rated performance, because they were originally rated under somewhat "optimistic" conditions and configuration, rather than realistic field conditions. Larry Bell tended to be that way.
> The Russians liked to reduce weight and drag by deleting wing guns, some of the electronics and some fuel, and they discovered they could get away with overboosting their Allisons, turning it into a "hotrod".
> Cheers,
> Wes



Yeah a lot of these birds seem to be right on the tipping point of high vs. low performance, balancing on just about 500 lbs or so.

But the P-39 seems a little more so. On paper, very fast - 380 mph on up even from the earlier versions, but you don't read about phenomenal climb performance in places like New Guinea, where I think they did do some field stripping and so forth. I'm not sure if they did in North Africa, but why wouldn't they? They stripped everything else even Spitfires.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2019)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> I doubt if the "Buck Abou Kir" story is true, mainly as No. 103 MU at ABOUKIR dealt with this sort of problem as in the Spitfire. Many sources mention the MU being concerned with changing the 'Vokes' intake, eg. reference the Spitfire, Morgan and Shacklady in 'Spitfire, The History' pages 154-155, there is the following:
> 
> Mike



Interesting, and I partly agree with you, but it's quite interesting that this Australian celebrity Shirely Aboucir had a father who was an officer in the RAAF, an odd coincidence. It might be an overlapping of two things that sound similar. Gibbes was an old man when he did that interview but I've listened to and read a lot of those pilot interviews and quite a few of them had a pretty good memory (some didn't, admittedly), and Gibbes in particular was a pretty sharp guy with a good memory. He designed and build his own aircraft in his 70's and flew until he was 85. So he wasn't all that addled...

I'd like to know who this guy - who ever Shirley Abicairs father was, I did find an interview where she mentioned he was an RAAF Wing Commander at East Sale, Victoria.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So when I read about changing the prop pitch for a climb, that was one of the two speed props?


Perhaps, sorry we can't really give a better answer, but it sometimes depends on the plane. Some of these planes used a fine pitch for take-off and initial climb out, prop might work at best climb speed (160-185mph IAS) but be too fine for combat use (trying to climb at 250mph for instance).

for a very poor analogy try thinking of the prop as a transmission in a car/truck. (prop also takes the place of the tires but that is a different thing) a single pitch prop is like a single speed transmission, you can only go so fast before you hit the readline on the engine OR you lug the engine and struggle like hell at low speeds and climbing. A two pitch prop is like a two speed transmission, if you keep high gear as is for speed you need a compromise low gear for taking off and climbing at low speed (the most serious compromise made with most fixed pitch props on military planes) and then a big gap when you go to high gear (coarse pitch), how well does the 3000rpm V-12 run at 2000rpm? 

The variable pitch or constant speed props allowed for an infinite variation between the high and low limits. like a 12-18 speed transmission in a truck. In theory you could always keep the engine at best power and never have to lug it. 

The 109E used a controllable variable pitch prop, pilot had an electric rocker switch to adjust the pitch as he saw fit for different flight conditions. but he did have quite a range to choose from. It was more than many newbie pilots could deal with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Perhaps, sorry we can't really give a better answer, but it sometimes depends on the plane. Some of these planes used a fine pitch for take-off and initial climb out, prop might work at best climb speed (160-185mph IAS) but be too fine for combat use (trying to climb at 250mph for instance).
> 
> for a very poor analogy try thinking of the prop as a transmission in a car/truck. (prop also takes the place of the tires but that is a different thing) a single pitch prop is like a single speed transmission, you can only go so fast before you hit the readline on the engine OR you lug the engine and struggle like hell at low speeds and climbing. A two pitch prop is like a two speed transmission, if you keep high gear as is for speed you need a compromise low gear for taking off and climbing at low speed (the most serious compromise made with most fixed pitch props on military planes) and then a big gap when you go to high gear (coarse pitch), how well does the 3000rpm V-12 run at 2000rpm?
> 
> ...


Absolutely perfect analogy/example

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 17, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> In another universe, as was stated on this thread previously, the Mk.III would have followed the BOB era Mk.II's, and to be superseded by the Mk.VIII. I am not sure what development model the Mk.XIV was an interim for, perhaps the Mk.XVIII or 21? If the UK had the breathing room available, perhaps the Mk.V developmental "low point" and subsequent performance deficit wouldn't have happened









The Aero-Vee filter on this MkIX was designed for the MkVIII, which was based on the MkIII. Had the UK had some breathing space the Spitfire could have followed the MkIII development line instead of the interim models it wouldn't have suffered from a lack of range, roll performance and dusted engines.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 17, 2019)

Does anyone know if this is the Aboukir filter?, and I wonder how the pilot got out?.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So when I read about changing the prop pitch for a climb, that was one of the two speed props?
> 
> Climbing or diving do not necessarily correlate precisely with speed, right? Or do they I'm not sure? pitch changes seem necessary or at least beneficial. Diving I guess means you are likely to faster and of course you'll pull back on the throttle. But I wasn't sure about climbing.



Hello Schweik,

Perhaps this graph might make things a bit more clear about what the issues are with a two pitch propeller as compared to a constant speed propeller.

Since I don't happen to know what the propeller parameters were on the two pitch propellers for the Spitfire, I used what I believe to be correct for the later constant speed propellers: 
Diameter 9.5 feet
Reduction 1.646:1
Engine RPM is 3000

The Red Line is 30 degrees Pitch
The Blue Line is 45 degrees Pitch
The numbers added below is forward speed in MPH for engine speed of 3000 RPM.

If you look at each flight condition you have:
Take Off (I am guessing about 90 MPH)
The Fine Pitch (30) is better but still not very good as compared to what might be available from an even finer pitch of 20-25 degrees. Coarse Pitch (45) is clearly pretty inefficient.

Climb (I am guessing about 160 MPH)
The Fine Pitch (30) is better but not when compared to what might be available from an even finer pitch of 25 degrees. Coarse Pitch (45) is clearly pretty inefficient.
The solution would be to climb at a higher airspeed and bring the propeller into an area of higher efficiency but of course that also increases drag. It is a nice balancing act.

Maximum Speed (Perhaps 350 MPH)
The Fine Pitch (30) can no longer provide any Thrust. The Coarse Pitch (45) is also not ideal but will at least pull the aircraft.

From this graph, the efficiency of the Fine Pitch (30) propeller drops to Zero at about 330-340 MPH forward speed.
This is because the blades have reached Zero degrees Angle of Attack relative to their airflow. If the aircraft goes any faster, the airflow begins driving the propeller to overspeed.

Hope this makes sense and you can see how all the other angles in between make such a difference in a constant speed propeller.

- Ivan.


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 18, 2019)

re Wing Commander Abicair

Full name was Alexander Joseph Abicair

Pre-RAAF service he was an auto and civilian aircraft mechanic.

Served with the RAAF from the mid-1930s (I think) and was a Corporal with No 1 Sqdn RAAF in 1939. At some point between 1939 and 1943 he was promoted to Flying Officer. Promoted to Attack Wing (No 1 Sqdn?) Commander in May 1944. Ended the war as C/O of a Training/Operational Training Wing. Served as C/O of 486 Maintenance Squadron from August 1946 until retirement. As far as I have found he served the entire war in the Australian SW Pacific theater, so probably not associated with the Aboukir filter.

At some point he was awarded the MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) for war-time services to the Australian & American air forces.

There is a book about him titled "Abby: Portrait of a Common Man" by Tony Smith (aka Anthony Smith), but I have not been able to find a readily available copy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The French Caudron racer and even the DH 88 used props that automatically shifted to coarse once a certain airspeed was reached.


In the 1930s there were several attempts to make "fully automatic" variable pitch props that had spring loaded free swiveling blades with no force-type operating mechanism. The idea was that by using spring loading, counterweights, and carefully shaped blades, a balance of centrifugal and aerodynamic forces would adjust the blades constantly to the most efficient pitch angle for the airspeed and engine RPM. Great idea; tricky sumbitch to execute. They worked mostly OK on straight and level planes like transports and distance racers, but couldn't cope with the rapidly changing loads of aerobatics or combat. I saw an acro practice session by an overweight, overpowered death trap of a Stampe biplane with one of those props and I could hear RPM overshoots and wild fluctuations as he wrung it out. He was attempting to duplicate and out match a routine that a Pitts Special with a constant speed prop had just flown, and the soundtrack was jarring and nail-biting. The contest director, no stranger to Stampes and to over eager flying fools, had him DQ'd and grounded.
Now back to WWII.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 18, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Perhaps this graph might make things a bit more clear about what the issues are with a two pitch propeller as compared to a constant speed propeller. By
> Since I don't happen to know what the propeller parameters were on the two pitch propellers for the Spitfire, I used what I believe to be correct for the later constant speed propellers:


You numbercruncher types fall into pitfalls like this when you try to snapshot a fluidly dynamic process like this so you can graphically depict it. By referring to a constant speed parameter while quantifying what are essentially two or several separate "fixed pitch" propellers, you risk leaving the uninitiated or the uncertain with the impression that RPM will somehow remain at 3,000 throughout this. That's fine for theory, as long as it's clear that it's not expected in the real world.
I've been around this bush a thousand times with students, and most of them are dazed, dazzled, and confused by the numerical approach.
Schweik, when a fixed pitch airplane starts to go downhill with no change in throttle setting, the thrust of the propeller is augmented by the "thrust" of gravity, so airspeed increases. Now if throttle is constant and gravity is aiding thrust, the propeller isn't working as hard and it's resistance to the engine's torque is reduced, so now torque exceeds resistance and RPM increases. Same thing in reverse going uphill. Now if you had begun this process cruising at your engine's peak torque RPM and that dropped off in your climb, you have just suffered a drop in your torque and your horsepower, slowing both your airspeed and your climb rate. Wouldn't it be nice if some invisible hand were to give you back your lost RPM, horsepower, airspeed and climb rate by twisting your prop blades to a finer pitch and getting you back up to 3,000 RPM? "Thanks, Guv'nor!"
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You numbercruncher types fall into pitfalls like this when you try to snapshot a fluidly dynamic process like this so you can graphically depict it.



NumberCruncher Types? Hey! I resemble that remark!

Seriously though: Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the example. I do see what you are describing and have "experienced" it while flying Albatros and Fokker types from the Great War in the simulators.

As you point out, the RPM would constantly be changing which means that the Advance Ratio would also be changing and the efficiency graphs would be stretched or squeezed proportionately.
As for determining how quickly RPM would change, one would have to be able to calculate the Propeller Power Coefficient using air density and instantaneous engine output..... 

Computers can approximate it pretty well. God does it perfectly every time.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 18, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> re Wing Commander Abicair
> There is a book about him titled "Abby: Portrait of a Common Man" by Tony Smith (aka Anthony Smith), but I have not been able to find a readily available copy.



There are three copies at BookFinder.com: New & Used Books, Rare Books, Textbooks, Out of Print Books


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ROFLMAO
> They got a prop shaft brake, the dead or malfunctioning engine was put into coarse pitch and a brake was applied to keep the prop from turning.



And a prop shaft brake turns the propeller into a very effective air brake which causes the aircraft to yaw badly which in turn increases drag resulting in an even greater degradation in ability of the aircraft to maintain height and the pilot to maintain control

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 18, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> And an prop shaft brake turns the propeller into a very effective air brake which causes the aircraft to yaw badly which in turn increases drag resulting in an even greater degradation in ability of the aircraft to maintain height and the pilot to maintain control


And a windmilling prop at ANY pitch setting fighting 12 or 14 cylinders of engine compression gives you ten times MORE drag, so a shaft brake is better than nothing, but a sorry excuse for lack of a feathering propeller. In the days of multi engine planes with fixed pitch or unfeatherable props, ANY engine failure resulted in a barely controlled "drift down" maneuver with "three churnin', one draggin', and both pilots standin' on the rudder pedals". The drag from the windmilling prop and asymmetric flight was more than the remaining engine(s) could handle, even at full throttle, and maintain altitude and a safe airspeed.
My instructor drove that home to me by getting us out over the Gulf of Mexico and pulling the Apache's right engine back to idle, then shutting off the fuel to kill the engine and wouldn't let me feather it. It was all I could do to keep the speed above Vyse, the sink rate under 300 feet per minute, and the airplane from turning right, even at full throttle on the left engine. If I flew faster, I sank faster; if I flew slower, I would start to lose directional control and have to sacrifice some altitude to get my speed back. We flew all the way back to base in drift down mode, where my tormentor let me restart the right engine, but insisted it stay at idle, where he surreptitiously pulled the circuit breaker on the standby hydraulic pump, forcing me to hand pump the landing gear down while wedged in my seat, left leg muscles cramping from the rudder pressure, and the plane yawing left and right as I fought to keep it straight. I swear the man had a death wish. But I learned a lot!
The landing wasn't very pretty.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 18, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Computers can approximate it pretty well. God does it perfectly every time.


Ivan, take a break from your computer and go buy yourself a couple flying lessons for Christmas in a "legacy" type fixed pitch airplane. Have fun!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And a windmilling prop at ANY pitch setting fighting 12 or 14 cylinders of engine compression gives you ten times MORE drag, so a shaft brake is better than nothing, but a sorry excuse for lack of a feathering propeller. In the days of multi engine planes with fixed pitch or unfeatherable props, ANY engine failure resulted in a barely controlled "drift down" maneuver with "three churnin', one draggin', and both pilots standin' on the rudder pedals". The drag from the windmilling prop and asymmetric flight was more than the remaining engine(s) could handle, even at full throttle, and maintain altitude and a safe airspeed.
> My instructor drove that home to me by getting us out over the Gulf of Mexico and pulling the Apache's right engine back to idle, then shutting off the fuel to kill the engine and wouldn't let me feather it. It was all I could do to keep the speed above Vyse, the sink rate under 300 feet per minute, and the airplane from turning right, even at full throttle on the left engine. If I flew faster, I sank faster; if I flew slower, I would start to lose directional control and have to sacrifice some altitude to get my speed back. We flew all the way back to base in drift down mode, where my tormentor let me restart the right engine, but insisted it stay at idle, where he surreptitiously pulled the circuit breaker on the standby hydraulic pump, forcing me to hand pump the landing gear down while wedged in my seat, left leg muscles cramping from the rudder pressure, and the plane yawing left and right as I fought to keep it straight. I swear the man had a death wish. But I learned a lot!
> The landing wasn't very pretty.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Was that a military or civilian instructor? Was he doing it to make you better or just being a jerk?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2019)

Some of the overpowered  American transports of the 30s 




had feathering propellers as early as 1936. The lockheed 10 with 450hp Wasp Junior engines was supposed to have a single engine ceiling of 4,000ft. With 550hp Wasps the single engine ceiling was supposed to be 9,000ft. 
The British going sub hunting with Avro Ansons with wooden fixed pitch props and claiming twin engine "safety" needs a lot of explaining.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 18, 2019)

Cosmotabis said:


> *At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero*
> That was the P-38 Lighting.



In April 45 the USAAF tested an almost new A6M5, *with known defects*, against defect free P-38, P-47 and P-51.




Findings include





The above airframe discrepancies are not identified but there is this engine defect which would have affected performance















*You stated opinion but not the facts.*

Even in 1945, when the Japanese aircraft industry was on its knees, the A6M was still markedly superior to the P-38 in a number of areas


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Was that a military or civilian instructor? Was he doing it to make you better or just being a jerk?


He was a retired career Marine pilot working as a civilian DOD employee and instructing on the side, a "triple dipper" and a no-nonsense aviator. He knew how to drive you right up to the edge, then calmly talk you back. Left you with lessons you wouldn't soon forget.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> In April 45 the USAAF tested an almost new A6M5, *with known defects*, against defect free P-38, P-47 and P-51.
> View attachment 564458
> 
> Findings include
> ...


"Superior" is such an infinitely elastic word. If you try hard enough you can find some parameter in which to call just about any fighter superior to just about any other. Not to belabor the obvious, but in any comparison of a particular parameter, what matters is how was it able to contribute to success in combat given the other variables of tactics, doctrine, pilot skill, etc.
The pre-introduction P38 was clearly superior to the Zero in several important performance parameters, and as MiTasol pointed out, inferior in a couple others, right up to the end of the war. So were most other contemporary allied fighters. Freshly minted P38 pilots had an advantage over their predecessors in the "know thine enemy" department and had the doctrine and tactics to maximise their advantages. The P39 and P40 pilots had to learn the hard way that the "turn and burn" tactics they were taught were not the way to survive the Zero. Somehow it seems in hindsight that it took longer for this lesson to penetrate the USAAF training system than the USN's.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 19, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> *You stated opinion but not the facts.*
> 
> Even in 1945, when the Japanese aircraft industry was on its knees, the A6M was still markedly superior to the P-38 in a number of areas




You missed the part that said at low speed, what 1945 fighter pilot flying a Spit XIV P47D P51D capable of doing over 400mph would get into a turning fight with a Zero under 200mph?.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You missed the part that said at low speed, what 1945 fighter pilot flying a Spit XIV P47D P51D capable of doing over 400mph would get into a turning fight with a Zero under 200mph?.


Where would we be without armchair aviators?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Where would we be without armchair aviators?



Lost.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Where would we be without armchair aviators?



Clogging up a different forum with our inane drivel? Perhaps one dedicated to piano-playing cats?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Where would we be without armchair aviators?



Seeing as this is a WW2 Aircraft forum, it pretty much makes all of us , except for a very few, armchair aviators.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Seeing as this is a WW2 Aircraft forum, it pretty much makes all of us , except for a very few, armchair aviators.


Good point!


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You missed the part that said at low speed, what 1945 fighter pilot flying a Spit XIV P47D P51D capable of doing over 400mph would get into a turning fight with a Zero under 200mph?



Firstly I was replying to the claim that _*At the beginning of the war there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero. That was the P-38 Lighting. * _ I was not comparing the A6M to the Spit XIV, P47D or P51D although the latter two are in the same report. 

However, what pray tell happens to your 400 mph when you enter a tight turn of any sort - other than when putting your nose seriously down? Your 400mph is history from the moment you start your turn, and, as the TAIC report shows if you are in a P-38 chasing a zero in a climbing spiral after 1 1/2 turns he has you in his gun sight. The TAIC report is clear for all three AAF types - hit then dive away immediately. Fortunately for us the Japanese never fixed the high stick forces at high speed problem or the A6M or it would have been an even more lethal unit.

As someone else suggested earlier to another poster, I would suggest you spend a few dollars and shout yourself some flying lessons or maybe a hard ride in an aerobatic aircraft and see for yourself how fast speed decays once you leave the straight and level and start pulling even moderate Gs.

You will then realize why the TAIC report includes ... _Only_ _when AAF fighters slowed *or turned after a pass *could the Zeke get in a shot._ 

Also, even though the P-38 first flew three months before the Zeke, the A6M was in active service long before the P-38. I am dismissing the RAF Lightnings because they did not have counter rotating engines and turbos so are not "true" P-38s and the RAF soon realized their error on those omissions.

I hate quoting Wiki because it is full of errors but it says _The first Lightning to see active service was the F-4 version, a P-38E in which the guns were replaced by four K17 cameras.[63] They joined the 8th Photographic Squadron in Australia on 4 April 1942.[36] Three F-4s were operated by the Royal Australian Air Force in this theater for a short period beginning in September 1942.
On 29 May 1942, 25 P-38s began operating in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska.
On 9 August 1942, two P-38Es of the 343rd Fighter Group, 11th Air Force, at the end of a 1,000 miles (1,600 km) long-range patrol, happened upon a pair of Japanese Kawanishi H6K "Mavis" flying boats and destroyed them,[36] making them the first Japanese aircraft to be shot down by Lightnings. _

The Pacific war was 9 days short of 6 months old when the first P-38 entered the combat zone on May 29 and those early P-38s were notorious hangar queens. 

The A6M series never had that reputation and had been in combat with the AVG in China long before Pearl Harbour *and* had destroyed hundreds of USAAF aircraft before 9 August 1942.

Regarding the P-47 and P-51 Neither of those were in US service in 1941 but, being later designs having the benefits of the RAFs combat experience against Germany incorporated in their designs, both were superior to the P-38 in many aspects in the comparison, although the A6M was always a threat if the pilot did not stick their nose down and accelerate away. The TAIC report is clear for all three AAF types - hit then dive away immediately. Fortunately for us the Japanese never fixed the high stick forces at high speed problem, which may have been as simple as a servo tab, and never fixed the slow dive problem, which was more likely a major redesign, or the A6M or it would have been an even more lethal unit. The Allies in comparison developed the Spitfire 1 and P-51A into very different and vastly better aircraft than the first models in service, and developed every other major type far more than the Japanese developed the A6M series.

*So*_ At the beginning of the war_ _there was one fighter that was markedly superior to the Zero. That was the P-38 Lighting_* is not supported by any facts and thus remains opinion.*


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 20, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> The Pacific war was 8 days short of 6 months old at on May 29 and those early P-38s were notorious hangar queens. The A6M series never had that reputation and had been in combat with the AVG in China long before Pearl Harbour and had destroyed hundreds of USAAF aircraft before 9 August 1942.[/B]



The A6M had been in combat in China long before Pearl Harbor but it had NOT been in combat with the AVG. The AVG's first combat occurred on 20 Dec 1941. In fact, the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The A6M had been in combat in China long before Pearl Harbor but it had NOT been in combat with the AVG. The AVG's first combat occurred on 20 Dec 1941. In fact, the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat.



My error. Thank you for the correction.

The A6M was however well and truly in combat in significant numbers in China and on 7 Dec 41 and the first USAAF P-38 combat appears to have been 9 August 1942 (if Wiki is correct).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 20, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> As someone else suggested earlier to another poster, I would suggest you spend a few dollars and shout yourself some flying lessons or maybe a hard ride in an aerobatic aircraft and see for yourself how fast speed decays once you leave the straight and level and start pulling even moderate Gs.



Or maybe I will take advice from one of the members on here who is a fighter pilot and not fight to my enemy's strength, as an example, getting into a low speed turning fight with a Zero.



buffnut453 said:


> Clogging up a different forum with our inane drivel? Perhaps one dedicated to piano-playing cats?



And your experience flying WW2 combat aircraft is exactly the same as the rest of us so step down from your high horse.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> And your experience flying WW2 combat aircraft is exactly the same as the rest of us so step down from your high horse.


Did I just hear the pot call the kettle black? See that lump in buffnut's cheek? That's his tongue, man. Not everybody is deathly serious all the time. Oops, like I'm being right now. Here, please hold the reins while I dismount. Got a mounting step handy? It's a long way down from up here!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Or maybe I will take advice from one of the members on here who is a fighter pilot and not fight to my enemy's strength, as an example, getting into a low speed turning fight with a Zero.


Or a low speed turning fight with a Cessna Acrobat in your T34. Same dynamic, smaller scale, lighter G loads. "Know thine enemy!"


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 20, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> And your experience flying WW2 combat aircraft is exactly the same as the rest of us so step down from your high horse.



No high horse here, mate, which is why I said "our inane drivel". Those who lack our fascination with aviation history tend to look on, with pitying shakes of the head, at the detail we cite in our discussions. To many non-aviationists, our discussions are, at best, boring and, at worst, pointless, inane drivel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> No high horse here, mate, which is why I said "our inane drivel". Those who lack our fascination with aviation history tend to look on, with pitying shakes of the head, at the detail we cite in our discussions. To many non-aviationists, our discussions are, at best, boring and, at worst, pointless, inane drivel.


If only we had been in charge, things would have been different.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Did I just hear the pot call the kettle black? See that lump in buffnut's cheek? That's his tongue, man. Not everybody is deathly serious all the time. Oops, like I'm being right now. Here, please hold the reins while I dismount. Got a mounting step handy? It's a long way down from up here!
> Cheers,
> Wes



Righto, totally misread the context of these posts, I'll pull my head in.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If only we had been in charge, things would have been different.



No truer words could be spoken... er... typed.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 21, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I agree that the Spitfire was EVENTUALLY developed as far as it could practically be taken, but the types that did _almost_ all the heavy lifting during the war years were "interim" types. Models knowingly lacking features and refinements were thrust into service for fear of leaving a gap.
> In another universe, as was stated on this thread previously, the Mk.III would have followed the BOB era Mk.II's, and to be superseded by the Mk.VIII. I am not sure what development model the Mk.XIV was an interim for, perhaps the Mk.XVIII or 21? If the UK had the breathing room available, perhaps the Mk.V developmental "low point" and subsequent performance deficit wouldn't have happened



Many of the Mk III features were gradually introduced, for example the C wing had the revised undercarriage geometry and internal bullet proof glass became standard.
The real problem was what Quill called the great sausage factory, Castle Bromwich. It basically produced the Mk I type airframe for the entire war. Mass production has its downsides. When it finally switched in 1945 it was to the radically different F21. The Supermarine factories converted to the superior Mk VII airframe in 1943.
The unfortunate aspect of favoring quantity over quality is that it gave Sholto Douglas the chance to waste 100s of Spitfires and pilots over France.
The Mk XIV was interim to the ultimate Spitfire to be produced by Supermarine, the Mk XVIII. The F 21 was intended for CB.
The reason the Merlin 45 was introduced was due to a shortage of equipment to produce the gears for the 2 speed drive. As I learned in my machine design class years ago gears are difficult to design and must be very precisely manufactured.
One other significant difference between the XX and the 45 that gets overlooked is the propeller reduction gearing. The XX had the standard bomber ratio of .42 while the 45 used the standard fighter ratio of .477. The reason for the lower propeller speed was to compensate for the larger propellers used on bombers (max tip speed). There must have been a bit of a performance hit for the Mk II Hurricane using the XX. The V-1650-1 did use the .477 ratio. The first Spitfire IXs used the Merlin 61 with the .42 ratio but quickly switched to the 63 with the proper ratio.
In order to get the Spitfire V into service as quickly as possible Rolls Royce converted 500 Merlin IIIs to 45s and installed them in Mk I and II airframes.
Incidentally the Spitfire F 21 had a longer undercarriage allowing a larger diameter propeller and therefore it used the Griffon 61 with a .451 ratio whereas the Mk XIV used the 65 with a .51 ratio.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Fortunately for us the Japanese never fixed the high stick forces at high speed problem.


Quite likely a torsional rigidity issue with the Zero's light weight construction. Deflecting an aileron forcefully at high speed has been sometimes known to actually twist a wing, changing its AOA at the tip, with unpleasant results.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pinsog (Dec 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Quite likely a torsional rigidity issue with the Zero's light weight construction. Deflecting an aileron forcefully at high speed has been sometimes known to actually twist a wing, changing its AOA at the tip, with unpleasant results.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I thought the Zero couldn’t roll because the ailerons were too big for the pilot to move at high speed? Pilot simply didn’t have the strength to move them at high speed? But they were awesome at low speed.

If that’s not right please correct me.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 21, 2019)

Hi Wes and Pinsog
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle but certainly agree with Wes that wing flexing from aileron input is a known and often dangerous problem. I do however have issues with the repeated claim that the A6M series was made from excessively light materials. When you compare the A6M with American aircraft (except the P-39 rear fuselage) the difference is huge but when compared to the Spitfire fuselage the skins and structure are similar, except over the fuel tank where the Spitfire has a heavy skin but no structure. The Spitfire wing has a massive leading edge skin by anyone's standards but behind the spar it is again similar to the A6M series.

Pinsog - adding a servo tab would have overcome this problem which is why I originally said that the solution *may *have been as simple as that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I thought the Zero couldn’t roll because the ailerons were too big for the pilot to move at high speed? Pilot simply didn’t have the strength to move them at high speed? But they were awesome at low speed.
> 
> If that’s not right please correct me.


That is correct, but somebody mentioned "boosting" them with a servo tab, a relatively simple solution and one Horikoshi Jiro would surely have adopted if it didn't have drawbacks. I was speculating about possible drawbacks.
If you're not familiar, a servo tab is a small hinged trailing edge tab similar to a trim tab that uses the energy of the relative wind to help deflect a control surface into a high energy slip stream. The drawback to having a "boosted" aileron like this is that it applies exponentially greater loads to its attach fittings and supporting structure. Torsional rigidity is one of the most difficult parameters to achieve in wing design while minimizing weight.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> When you compare the A6M with American aircraft (except the P-39 rear fuselage) the difference is huge but when compared to the Spitfire fuselage the skins and structure are similar, except over the fuel tank where the Spitfire has a heavy skin but no structure. The Spitfire wing has a massive leading edge skin by anyone's standards but behind the spar it is again similar to the A6M series.


Which is why the Spit had durability issues when adapted to carrier ops.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> when compared to the Spitfire fuselage the skins and structure are similar


With three main differences that affect seaborne durability.
1) Lighter weight of the Zero meant slower landing speeds and softer touchdowns.
2) The round, conical fuselage shape of the Zero gave greater resistance to buckling than the oval cross section of the Spit, especially with regard to lateral loads.
3) The narrow landing gear of the Spit encouraged more tipping and swerving under arrestment, imposing more lateral loads on the after fuselage.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With three main differences that affect seaborne durability.
> 1) Lighter weight of the Zero meant slower landing speeds and softer touchdowns.
> 2) The round, conical fuselage shape of the Zero gave greater resistance to buckling than the oval cross section of the Spit, especially with regard to lateral loads.
> 3) The narrow landing gear of the Spit encouraged more tipping and swerving under arrestment, imposing more lateral loads on the after fuselage.
> ...


I would also add a bouncy undercarriage not corrected until the Seafire XVII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 21, 2019)

This thread is noteworthy as it compares two short-ranged European land-based fighters to a long-ranged naval fighter, akin to comparing a Grumman F6F Hellcat to a Lavochkin La-7. Two very different roles and aircraft requirements. Perhaps the more apt comparison with the Zero is the Seafire or Firefly.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> This thread is noteworthy as it compares two short-ranged European land-based fighters to a long-ranged naval fighter, akin to comparing a Grumman F6F Hellcat to a Lavochkin La-7. Two very different roles and aircraft requirements. Perhaps the more apt comparison with the Zero is the Seafire or Firefly.


Or you could look at it as two highly touted fighters that evolved to a great extent in their lifetimes vs one who didn't didn't change all that much. Or you could rate them by the size of their fan clubs. Or by their kill counts, or by their appearances in popular media, or....ad infinitum.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 21, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Or you could look at it as two highly touted fighters that evolved to a great extent in their lifetimes vs one who didn't didn't change all that much.


Contrary to the IJN, the IJAF, like the RAF and Luftwaffe kept updating their fighter fleet. Though unlike the Spitfire, the IJAF replaced instead of evolved its fighters. Could the Oscar, or Zero for that matter have been continuously evolved? Was there the available space and stretch in the designs?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 21, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Contrary to the IJN, the IJAF, like the RAF and Luftwaffe kept updating their fighter fleet. Though unlike the Spitfire, the IJAF replaced instead of evolved its fighters. Could the Oscar, or Zero for that matter have been continuously evolved? Was there the available space and stretch in the designs?


ISTM that if you opt for the light weight approach you're limiting the stretchability of your design unless you're willing and able to constantly re-engineer your design and revamp your production lines.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> To many non-aviationists, our discussions are, at best, boring and, at worst, pointless, inane drivel.


In the model railroad world, which I also inhabit, people like us are called "rivet counters".
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Contrary to the IJN, the IJAF, like the RAF and Luftwaffe kept updating their fighter fleet. Though unlike the Spitfire, the IJAF replaced instead of evolved its fighters. Could the Oscar, or Zero for that matter have been continuously evolved? Was there the available space and stretch in the designs?



They certainly could. The A6M8 received the Kinsei in 1945 in form of two prototypes - there is no reason IMO that they could not do it much earier (limited by actual availability of the engines, of course). Installation of a better engine meant that performance figures were restored back to 360 mph despite the improvement in firepower and protection (the Zero 52c went down to 335 mph because of that).
Or, install the Ha-41 or Ha-109 on either aircraft. Water injection in time, not too late.
The Ki-43 could've used another pair of HMGs installed in the wing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The Ki-43 could've used another pair of HMGs installed in the wings.


At what cost in performance?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At what cost in performance?



I don't know exactly, but the protruding barrels of two 20mm cannon was judged by RAE to cost 6.25 mph on Spitfires.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I don't know exactly, but the protruding barrels of two 20mm cannon was judged by RAE to cost 6.25 mph on Spitfires.


Two HMGs probably wouldn't protrude that much, but what about their weight, along with ammunition, mounting brackets, feed and charging systems and structural reinforcement, all in a super lightweight fighter whose stock in trade is eye-watering agility?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Two HMGs probably wouldn't protrude that much, but what about their weight, along with ammunition, mounting brackets, feed and charging systems and structural reinforcement, all in a super lightweight fighter whose stock in trade is eye-watering agility?
> Cheers,
> Wes



Super lightweights will loose the air war where performance, firepower and protection were deciding factors (= most of ww2). There is a reason why I've suggested that Ki-43 (and Zero) receive either Kinsei, or Ha-41/109 engine in the 1t place.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2019)

It wasn't all fighter vs fighter combat. According to one book the tactic worked out by the Japanese to counter the B-24 Liberator was multiple aircraft attacking from the front in succession and then circling around and repeating the firing passes on the same target aircraft in the formation. 

Two low powered 12.7mm guns with 250rpg are a lousy armament for bomber interception. Yes /he Ki-43 did shoot down allied bombers but the poor armament ment that you needed more fighters to shoot down relatively few bombers. 

Heck, even a 7.7 in each wing would have been an improvement in firepower.

The Ki -43 used a 3 spar wing? Perhaps there wasn't enough room in the wing?

The Japanese screwed up with the Ki-44. It should have had a big wing, sort of an intermediate between the Ki-43 and the Ki-84 or Ki-84 lite if you prefer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 22, 2019)

With an empty weight of 3,704 lbs, can we agree that the Zero was the best WW2 fighter under 2 short tons?

The under 4,000 lb. (empty) family would include the Koolhoven F.K.58, Fokker D.XXI, Heinkel He 100, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Caudron C.714, Ambrosini SAI.207, Polikarpov I-16, Dewoitine D.500, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat CR.42. Of these, the Caudron, Koolhoven and Gladiator (and Sea Gladiator, the FAA’s last <2 ton fighter) could have faced the Zero if deployed to SEA in 1940-41, whilst the Fokker did fight the Zero over DEI. None of these other lightweight fighters can match the Zero. Certainly the US’ attempt was rubbish. 

Let’s put Hermes and some fighter into Force Z. In a close dogfight, does the Sea Gladiator have a chance? It’s more agile than the Zero, and with four guns has the firepower to damage the Zero.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That is correct, but somebody mentioned "boosting" them with a servo tab, a relatively simple solution and one Horikoshi Jiro would surely have adopted if it didn't have drawbacks. I was speculating about possible drawbacks.
> If you're not familiar, a servo tab is a small hinged trailing edge tab similar to a trim tab that uses the energy of the relative wind to help deflect a control surface into a high energy slip stream. The drawback to having a "boosted" aileron like this is that it applies exponentially greater loads to its attach fittings and supporting structure. Torsional rigidity is one of the most difficult parameters to achieve in wing design while minimizing weight.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Thank you for the explanation. The Zero might also have had a problem with structural failure if it were able to deflect its ailerons enough at high speed. Do you have an opinion on that?


----------



## pinsog (Dec 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> With an empty weight of 3,704 lbs, can we agree that the Zero was the best WW2 fighter under 2 short tons?
> 
> The under 4,000 lb. (empty) family would include the Koolhoven F.K.58, Fokker D.XXI, Heinkel He 100, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Caudron C.714, Ambrosini SAI.207, Polikarpov I-16, Dewoitine D.500, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat CR.42. Of these, the Caudron, Koolhoven and Gladiator (and Sea Gladiator, the FAA’s last <2 ton fighter) could have faced the Zero if deployed to SEA in 1940-41, whilst the Fokker did fight the Zero over DEI. None of these other lightweight fighters can match the Zero. Certainly the US’ attempt was rubbish.
> 
> Let’s put Hermes and some fighter into Force Z. In a close dogfight, does the Sea Gladiator have a chance? It’s more agile than the Zero, and with four guns has the firepower to damage the Zero.


Anything can shoot down anything if it’s in range. The problem with a Gladiator vs a Zero is the Zero pilot should be smart enough to boom and zoom and not try a close in turning dogfight. Also, I believe Force Z when attacked was out of range of the Zero so the real question would be whether a Gladiator had enough speed and firepower to stop, shootdown or disrupt the 2 engine bombers that attacked Force Z. Any fighter is probably better than no fighter at all, but I would not want to be in a Gladiator attacking a bomber with defensive guns and 4 303’s aren’t the best 2 engine bomber killing armament out there either, but I do look forward to hearing others opinion on this as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Anything can shoot down anything if it’s in range. The problem with a Gladiator vs a Zero is the Zero pilot should be smart enough to boom and zoom and not try a close in turning dogfight. Also, I believe Force Z when attacked was out of range of the Zero so the real question would be whether a Gladiator had enough speed and firepower to stop, shootdown or disrupt the 2 engine bombers that attacked Force Z. Any fighter is probably better than no fighter at all, but I would not want to be in a Gladiator attacking a bomber with defensive guns and 4 303’s aren’t the best 2 engine bomber killing armament out there either, but I do look forward to hearing others opinion on this as well.



I suspect the Gladiator would be outpaced by the Japanese bombers. The Buffalos had enough problems catching the fast Japanese bombers. For the Gladiators, the proposition is probably a non-starter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Thank you for the explanation. The Zero might also have had a problem with structural failure if it were able to deflect its ailerons enough at high speed. Do you have an opinion on that?


That's probably why Horikoshi didn't go that route. Remember, when he was designing the Zero 300 MPH was (at least in Asia) considered REAL FAST, and the I16 was state of the art. It probably wasn't til circa Battle of Midway that the high speed roll rate deficiency became recognized at MHI as a serious problem, and adding a servo tab would require redesigning and strengthening the wing structure, adding weight, and disrupting production to incorporate the changes. With the benefit of hindsight that appears a missed opportunity, but you and I weren't there to give advice.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The problem with a Gladiator vs a Zero is the Zero pilot should be smart enough to boom and zoom and not try a close in turning dogfight.


True enough, but would they? Doctrine and training and fighter pilot culture can be hard to shake off for young guns full of swagger and mythology about their mount and it's invincibility in a knife fight. 
Traditional oriental cultures, and Japanese in particular, tended to reward conventional thinking and discourage individual innovation, especially under pressure. "Respect your Sensei and his lessons!"
The Sakai Saburos and Nichizawa Hirioshis who survived their early battles developed enough experience, prestige, and confidence to think outside the box they were raised in and become a little more flexible in their tactics.
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and my family has had a little more exposure to Japanese culture than most.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Japanese screwed up with the Ki-44. It should have had a big wing, sort of an intermediate between the Ki-43 and the Ki-84 or Ki-84 lite if you prefer.



Install the Ha 41 (and later the Ha 109) on the Ki 43 and you don't need to design the Ki 44 in the 1st place?


----------



## pinsog (Dec 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> True enough, but would they? Doctrine and training and fighter pilot culture can be hard to shake off for young guns full of swagger and mythology about their mount and it's invincibility in a knife fight.
> Traditional oriental cultures, and Japanese in particular, tended to reward conventional thinking and discourage individual innovation, especially under pressure. "Respect your Sensei and his lessons!"
> The Sakai Saburos and Nichizawa Hirioshis who survived their early battles developed enough experience, prestige, and confidence to think outside the box they were raised in and become a little more flexible in their tactics.
> Anyway, that's the way I see it, and my family has had a little more exposure to Japanese culture than most.
> ...


I believe they would. I read the Zeros wanting to close in dogfight is actually a myth and against early war fighters they tended to boom and zoom, the marines at Guadalcanal were amazed that the Zero’s at Guadalcanal didn’t just park on their tail and stay there but instead they dove, shot and climbed away.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's probably why Horikoshi didn't go that route. Remember, when he was designing the Zero 300 MPH was (at least in Asia) considered REAL FAST, and the I16 was state of the art. It probably wasn't til circa Battle of Midway that the high speed roll rate deficiency became recognized at MHI as a serious problem, and adding a servo tab would require redesigning and strengthening the wing structure, adding weight, and disrupting production to incorporate the changes. With the benefit of hindsight that appears a missed opportunity, but you and I weren't there to give advice.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I agree with all of that. In fact, in my opinion, the major fault of the Zero wasn’t necessarily lack of armor or self sealing tanks, I think it’s main problem was lack of high speed roll. It was the only way an early war allied fighter could disengage unless his buddy chased the Zero off. In a dive past 300 mph or so any allied fighter could roll and evade the Zero. Also, in a 300+ mph dive the Zero could not roll to evade a fighter behind him. That’s a real problem that was exploited, especially by the high roll rate P40 which aside from a higher top speed down low, didn’t have a lot of cards to play.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Install the Ha 41 (and later the Ha 109) on the Ki 43 and you don't need to design the Ki 44 in the 1st place?


depends if you can get a decent gun in the wing of Ki-43 and IF you can get the dive speed of the Ki-43 up with the bigger engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> depends if you can get a decent gun in the wing of Ki-43 and IF you can get the dive speed of the Ki-43 up with the bigger engine.



I know that it does not prove much, but other people did it with bigger guns and smaller wings. Soviets stuffed the Shvak cannon in the tiny wings of the I-16, Spanish installed the big HS 404 in the wings of their Buchons. MK 108 within the outer wing of the Fw 190.
What was the limit of Ki 43's dive speed?


----------



## Greyman (Dec 22, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> What was the limit of Ki 43's dive speed?



The manual has 600 km/h IAS -- but the limitations throughout the manual seem to be pretty conservative.

That said I seem to recall engine overspeeding being a greater hindrance to the maximum dive speed than the airframe, not sure though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2019)

The I-16 started with a gun bay in each wing, granted it was for a 7.62 machine gun, the cowl guns came later.

Part of it depends on how much retooling or redesign of the wing the company and/or country is will to do.

picture from old thread of a Buchon's wing





The Spanish 109 had a complete new wing with two spars to hold the cannon. This pic is from meiermotors who is currently restoring a Buchon.
cimmex 

Spain after WW II was in a strange position. Limited resources and licences or domestic production of only few items.

most anything can be done it you throw enough time and money at it. The question is should it be done. Design new wing structure for the Ki-43 (and install engine weight a lot more) or just design new plane with all the features you want building off the knowledge you gained with the Ki 43.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> the marines at Guadalcanal were amazed that the Zero’s at Guadalcanal didn’t just park on their tail and stay there but instead they dove, shot and climbed away.


Bear in mind, the Zeroes at Guadalcanal were teetering on bingo fuel and couldn't afford to get drawn into any extended dance routines.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> Part of it depends on how much retooling or redesign of the wing the company and/or country is will to do.
> ...
> most anything can be done it you throw enough time and money at it. The question is should it be done. Design new wing structure for the Ki-43 (and install engine weight a lot more) or just design new plane with all the features you want building off the knowledge you gained with the Ki 43.



Japanese have had a major problem in turning any aircraft that was new & advanced into useful thousand, let alone thousand*s* of actual in-service A/C. Before 1943, they produced a grand total of less than 180 Ki-44s. In 1943, 500+ examples were made, or 1/10th of the production of P-47s in 1943. That is no way to stand any chance in an air war.
'My' Ki-43 on steroids will be slower than Ki-44, but it should be easier to produce in numbers that actually matter, while offering an improvement of performance vs. the historical Ki 43 of the era.

Japanese aircraft procurement of ww2 is a sorry saga of it's own, despite their good engines and (or because?) many promissing designs. Merits an own thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2019)

The Japanese built only 773 Ki-43s before 1943 and then 1546 in 1943 and 2,693 (2742?) in 1944. 
Yes that number pales in comparison to the US production but building around 4200 Ki-43s in 1943-44 shows the Japanese were wasting a lot of effort. 
The difference in weight was only a few hundred pounds although a big wing version would weigh a few hundred pounds more. Both used a 14 cylinder engine but the engine in the Ki 44 is the same one you want to use in the upgraded Ki 43. 

It seems we want the same thing, a four gun airplane that will do around 360mph, dive better and still maneuver close to the Ki-43. we just disagree as to "upgrade" the Ki 43 with the new engine and wing structure or build a new plane based on (but not really using many parts) the Ki 44 before the KI 84 shows up. It might give them a bit more time to work on the Ki 84 or at least it's engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Japanese built only 773 Ki-43s before 1943 and then 1546 in 1943 and 2,693 (2742?) in 1944.
> Yes that number pales in comparison to the US production but building around 4200 Ki-43s in 1943-44 shows the Japanese were wasting a lot of effort.



They certainly did.



> The difference in weight was only a few hundred pounds although a big wing version would weigh a few hundred pounds more. Both used a 14 cylinder engine but the engine in the Ki 44 is the same one you want to use in the upgraded Ki 43.
> 
> It seems we want the same thing, a four gun airplane that will do around 360mph, dive better and still maneuver close to the Ki-43. we just disagree as to "upgrade" the Ki 43 with the new engine and wing structure or build a new plane based on (but not really using many parts) the Ki 44 before the KI 84 shows up. It might give them a bit more time to work on the Ki 84 or at least it's engine.



Well put.

OTOH - I do wonder how well the Japanese Army would've been servied with a licence-built Fw 190 that has Japanese engine(s) and guns. Basically - step 1 being an up-engined & up-armed Ki 43, and step 2 being a switch to the 'Ki 190' by mid/late 1943.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 23, 2019)

Hello Tomo Pauk,

I don't believe adding wing armament to the Ki-43 would have worked well because as Shortround6 already mentioned, the wing was a multi spar design and would have needed some serious redesign to allow guns and ammunition. There were also fuel tanks located between the spars.
Adding extra weight outboard on the wings would also have degraded the excellent roll rate.
The Ki-43 also seemed to be rather slow for the installed power especially when compared to equivalent models of the A6M, so it may not have had quite as much development potential without a pretty thorough redesign. and if one decides to take that path, it probably makes more sense to design a new aircraft than apply patches to a lightweight airframe.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> I don't believe adding wing armament to the Ki-43 would have worked well because as Shortround6 already mentioned, the wing was a multi spar design and would have needed some serious redesign to allow guns and ammunition. There were also fuel tanks located between the spars.
> Adding extra weight outboard on the wings would also have degraded the excellent roll rate.



I'm not sure that much of the redesign will be needed - a 3-spar design lets one to effectively reinforce the spars on the wing station where the gun will be installed. Fuel tanks were not going more outboard than the U/C attachment point.
One HMG per side will not hamper the rate of roll _that_ much.



> The Ki-43 also seemed to be rather slow for the installed power especially when compared to equivalent models of the A6M, so it may not have had quite as much development potential without a pretty thorough redesign. and if one decides to take that path, it probably makes more sense to design a new aircraft than apply patches to a lightweight airframe.
> 
> - Ivan.



The A6M with protection installed (version 52c) was slower than Ki-43 with protection installed.
Japanese big problem was their constant trying to solve probems with new aircraft types for any conceivable role, as if the rules of economies of scale were not applying to them. Interceptor needed - have both IJN and IJA buy a design each, but just in hundreds. Floatplane fighter needed (needed???) - design a specific type. Fast recon - design & produce two types. Two engined fighters - yes, 4, 5 or 6 types. Two engined bombers - half a dozen.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 23, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The A6M with protection installed (version 52c) was slower than Ki-43 with protection installed.
> Japanese big problem was their constant trying to solve probems with new aircraft types for any conceivable role, as if the rules of economies of scale were not applying to them. Interceptor needed - have both IJN and IJA buy a design each, but just in hundreds. Floatplane fighter needed (needed???) - design a specific type. Fast recon - design & produce two types. Two engined fighters - yes, 4, 5 or 6 types. Two engined bombers - half a dozen.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

I am not entirely convinced that a redesign of the wing structure to mount a pair of HMG would have been quite so easy, but I do see your point that the weight penalty would not be terribly great.

I also have seen a bunch of speeds quoted for the A6M5. Are we in agreement that 351 MPH is a reasonable maximum speed for a regular A6M5? How fast do you believe the A6M5 Model 52c was and do you happen to remember what reference that speed came from?

You are making assumptions that the Japanese Navy and Army did any kind of "planning" together at all. The two services probably hated each other worse than they hated the actual enemy. Their procurement was about as independent as that of two separate nations but unfortunately they were both dependent on the same limited industrial base. Their aerial cannons and machine guns were not the same and almost none of their ammunition was interchangeable. Even their fuel standards were not quite the same.

Floatplane fighters were a somewhat uniquely Japanese type, but they were needed because of the lack of airfield construction capability. American CBs were able to land power equipment and lay down PSP airfields quickly but the Japanese had no similar ability and would have no other fighter cover if not for Floatplanes.
As for the many types of bombers and such, some of it is also a matter of a succession of designs over many years with the lack of quantity of production being a limitation of the industrial capability.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> I am not entirely convinced that a redesign of the wing structure to mount a pair of HMG would have been quite so easy, but I do see your point that the weight penalty would not be terribly great.
> 
> I also have seen a bunch of speeds quoted for the A6M5. Are we in agreement that 351 MPH is a reasonable maximum speed for a regular A6M5? How fast do you believe the A6M5 Model 52c was and do you happen to remember what reference that speed came from?



I've attached the data sheet, kindly provided by Shinpachi long time ago.
The 52c was almost 25 km/h slower than 52 (lighter, no protection). The speed decrease was also due to the switch from LMGs (two) to HMGs (3 total).



> You are making assumptions that the Japanese Navy and Army did any kind of "planning" together at all. The two services probably hated each other worse than they hated the actual enemy. Their procurement was about as independent as that of two separate nations but unfortunately they were both dependent on the same limited industrial base. Their aerial cannons and machine guns were not the same and almost none of their ammunition was interchangeable. Even their fuel standards were not quite the same.



I know that IJN and IJA were not planning together until it was too late, that was a major hurdle indeed.



> Floatplane fighters were a somewhat uniquely Japanese type, but they were needed because of the lack of airfield construction capability. American CBs were able to land power equipment and lay down PSP airfields quickly but the Japanese had no similar ability and would have no other fighter cover if not for Floatplanes.
> As for the many types of bombers and such, some of it is also a matter of a succession of designs over many years with the lack of quantity of production being a limitation of the industrial capability.
> - Ivan.



Re. floatplane fighters - okay, if they are needed that much, how about IJN take a page from themselves: there was a floatplane version of the Zero, and it was also used by land-based IJN units. Couple that with Mitsubishi designing a specific fighter type (land-based interceptor) and result is that there is no heir to Zero, while Raiden was produced in pittyful numbers, let alone the Shinden. 
So, better have Kawainshi and Mitsubishi desing the next-gen CV fighter (hopefuly without the extended shaft for prop), and then produce the winner in serious numbers (both by Mitsubishi and Kawainshi) so there is enough of aircraft to outfit both carrier-based units, land-based IJN units, and modify a few dozen of them into floatplane fighters.
Limitations of industrial capability are not helped by switching from one type of aircraft to another.


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 23, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> With an empty weight of 3,704 lbs, can we agree that the Zero was the best WW2 fighter under 2 short tons?
> 
> The under 4,000 lb. (empty) family would include the Koolhoven F.K.58, Fokker D.XXI, Heinkel He 100, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Caudron C.714, Ambrosini SAI.207, Polikarpov I-16, Dewoitine D.500, Gloster Gladiator and Fiat CR.42. Of these, the Caudron, Koolhoven and Gladiator (and Sea Gladiator, the FAA’s last <2 ton fighter) could have faced the Zero if deployed to SEA in 1940-41, whilst the Fokker did fight the Zero over DEI. None of these other lightweight fighters can match the Zero. Certainly the US’ attempt was rubbish.
> 
> Let’s put Hermes and some fighter into Force Z. In a close dogfight, does the Sea Gladiator have a chance? It’s more agile than the Zero, and with four guns has the firepower to damage the Zero.



If I'm not mistaken, I-16 (Chinese) also did fight the Zero - in 1940 with disastrous results. But probably the pilot's training was the decisive factor.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 23, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> If I'm not mistaken, I-16 (Chinese) also did fight the Zero - in 1940 with disastrous results. But probably the pilot's training was the decisive factor.


I'm not sure, was the Zero in service in 1940? As a naval fighter, did it have much to do with the China campaign? I would have thought that was more the purview of the IJAF and their Nakajima Ki-27 Nate and Kawasaki Ki-10 Perry.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 23, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I'm not sure, was the Zero in service in 1940? As a naval fighter, did it have much to do with the China campaign? I would have thought that was more the purview of the IJAF and their Nakajima Ki-27 Nate and Kawasaki Ki-10 Perry.



Per Wikipedia (reasonably correct for once):

"The first Zeros (pre-series of 15 A6M2) went into operation with the 12th Rengo Kōkūtai in July 1940.[19] On 13 September 1940, the Zeros scored their first air-to-air victories when 13 A6M2s led by Lieutenant Saburo Shindo attacked 27 Soviet-built Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, shooting down all the fighters without loss to themselves. By the time they were redeployed a year later, the Zeros had shot down 99 Chinese aircraft[20] (266 according to other sources)"


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 23, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I've attached the data sheet, kindly provided by Shinpachi long time ago.
> The 52c was almost 25 km/h slower than 52 (lighter, no protection). The speed decrease was also due to the switch from LMGs (two) to HMGs (3 total).



Hello Tomo Pauk,

I am much more suspicious about the accuracy of the data in that spreadsheet than you apparently are.
Here are a couple examples of why:
The maximum speed of the A6M3 Model 22 (Column H) is 292 Knots which happens to be its maximum speed under "Normal Power" according to the manual. That this was a Model 22 can be confirmed by the wingspan which is 12 meters; The Model 32 would have had 11 meter wingspan and maximum speed of 290 Knots under "Normal Power".
Under the same "Normal Power" conditions the A6M5 Model 52 should be capable of only 294 Knots but is listed here in Column I as 305 Knots which is its actual maximum speed as we understand it and NOT at "Normal Power".
Note also that the A6M5 Model 52c is listed as equipped with a Sakae 31 with slightly reduced power at critical altitude and also different propeller pitch ranges. Was this really accurate for a Model 52c? The engine differences would account for a lot more than a few pounds of armour and a couple HMG.



tomo pauk said:


> Re. floatplane fighters - okay, if they are needed that much, how about IJN take a page from themselves: there was a floatplane version of the Zero, and it was also used by land-based IJN units. Couple that with Mitsubishi designing a specific fighter type (land-based interceptor) and result is that there is no heir to Zero, while Raiden was produced in pittyful numbers, let alone the Shinden.
> So, better have Kawainshi and Mitsubishi desing the next-gen CV fighter (hopefuly without the extended shaft for prop), and then produce the winner in serious numbers (both by Mitsubishi and Kawainshi) so there is enough of aircraft to outfit both carrier-based units, land-based IJN units, and modify a few dozen of them into floatplane fighters.
> Limitations of industrial capability are not helped by switching from one type of aircraft to another.



As I see it, the A6M2-N was sufficient, but not really a great design. It was agile enough but was only a 300 MPH fighter. The successor A7M Reppu suffered many delays. Perhaps it was due to efforts on the J2M. With sufficient engineering talent,, it should not have been a problem working on two concurrent fighter designs but the A7M also depended on a Mitsubishi engine that ran into development problems. Not sure what relevance the J7W Shinden has to these timelines.

Regarding the next-gen CV fighter, that design already belonged to Mitsubishi as the A7M. If there needed to be a competing design, there should have been another company assigned to the task. If the issue of an extension shaft for the propeller is a reference to the J2M Raiden's development problems, then one has to consider that the entire concept of the aircraft was that of using a ridiculously large diameter "Bomber" engine (Kasei) of proven design and making it all work by giving it enough streamlining with a long pointy nose. It would not have worked at all without the extension shaft.
Other aircraft went with a smaller diameter engine (Homare) with nominally greater horsepower but unfortunately those installations tended to have even less reliability and actual power in the field as the war dragged on and in the end some aircraft such as Ki 84 were even redesigned to use lesser powered engine such as the Kinsei.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> I am much more suspicious about the accuracy of the data in that spreadsheet than you apparently are.
> Here are a couple examples of why:
> ...



Table is translation of data tables from the two books about Zero by Bunrin Do. We can take it for what it's worth.



> As I see it, the A6M2-N was sufficient, but not really a great design. It was agile enough but was only a 300 MPH fighter. The successor A7M Reppu suffered many delays. Perhaps it was due to efforts on the J2M. With sufficient engineering talent,, it should not have been a problem working on two concurrent fighter designs but the A7M also depended on a Mitsubishi engine that ran into development problems. Not sure what relevance the J7W Shinden has to these timelines.
> 
> Regarding the next-gen CV fighter, that design already belonged to Mitsubishi as the A7M. If there needed to be a competing design, there should have been another company assigned to the task. If the issue of an extension shaft for the propeller is a reference to the J2M Raiden's development problems, then one has to consider that the entire concept of the aircraft was that of using a ridiculously large diameter "Bomber" engine (Kasei) of proven design and making it all work by giving it enough streamlining with a long pointy nose. It would not have worked at all without the extension shaft.
> Other aircraft went with a smaller diameter engine (Homare) with nominally greater horsepower but unfortunately those installations tended to have even less reliability and actual power in the field as the war dragged on and in the end some aircraft such as Ki 84 were even redesigned to use lesser powered engine such as the Kinsei.
> ...



Diameter of the Kasei was not ridiculoulsy large. At 52.5 in, it was same as of the R-2800. Going for extension shaft not just introduced problems with vibrations, it upped the dry engine weight bs ~220 lbs, and required that Mitsubishi devotes engineering staff to design the ectual engine version. Kasei certainly worked as 'plain Jane' engine.
What materialized as the J2M needed to be designed as next-gen carrier-based fighter (waiting for A7M will not cut it), that can be also deployed at land bases and can receive floats so there is a better floatplane fighter to pick up from the A6M2-2.
Not going for counter-rotating version of the Kasei for the rex again means less strain on Mitsubishi engine design & prototype shop.

The N1K was also not that speedy - 300 mph.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Table is translation of data tables from the two books about Zero by Bunrin Do. We can take it for what it's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now me, I'd develop the N1K2-J into the N1K2-A as a carrier fighter if it had better performance than the A6M8, but would it? Or would the performance improvement be marginal?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Now me, I'd develop the N1K2-J into the N1K2-A as a carrier fighter if it had better performance than the A6M8, but would it? Or would the performance improvement be marginal?



Historically, the lineage goes roughly this way: N1K1 Kyofu (floatplane fighter) -> N1K1-J Shiden (landplane conversion, as denoted by 'J', Nakajima Homare instead of the Mitsubishi Kasei; stalky main U/C) -> N1K2-J Shiden-kai (wersion with wing lowered down and shorter & sturdier U/C gear). Ideally, the entry model will be a low-wing airframe similar to the Shiden-kai, engine being the series 10 Kasei of 1500+ HP; next step might be instalaltion of the 20 series Kasei of 1800-1900 HP.
The next-gen fighter also needs to adress other Zero's weaknesses - no folding wing, loss of performance when protection and extra firepower is added, slow rate of roll at high speeds. The 1500-1900 HP engines can buy that in a timely manner.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Historically, the lineage goes roughly this way: N1K1 Kyofu (floatplane fighter) -> N1K1-J Shiden (landplane conversion, as denoted by 'J', Nakajima Homare instead of the Mitsubishi Kasei; stalky main U/C) -> N1K2-J Shiden-kai (wersion with wing lowered down and shorter & sturdier U/C gear). Ideally, the entry model will be a low-wing airframe similar to the Shiden-kai, engine being the series 10 Kasei of 1500+ HP; next step might be instalaltion of the 20 series Kasei of 1800-1900 HP.
> The next-gen fighter also needs to adress other Zero's weaknesses - no folding wing, loss of performance when protection and extra firepower is added, slow rate of roll at high speeds. The 1500-1900 HP engines can buy that in a timely manner.


Agreed, but the Kinsei delivered about 1800/1900 hp with WEP, so about the same as the Kasei with MW injection, same as the Homare if it was working properly. The A6M8 may be the best option.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Agreed, but the Kinsei delivered about 1800/1900 hp with WEP, so about the same as the Kasei with MW injection, same as the Homare if it was working properly. The A6M8 may be the best option.



Kansei was making 1500 HP with water injection by 1945, the Kasei did it in 1944 with 1900 HP? Something needs to plug the gap in 1943-44.

The altitude power can also be compared: 1350 HP at ~13500 ft ft for Kasei 13, 14 and 15, vs. 1050 HP for the best Kinsei of 40's series. Or, 1250 HP for Kesei 13, 14, and 15 at 20000 ft. All figures are for 'military power' per US nomenclature, without water injection.
With water injection, Kasei early 20's series was supposed to do ~1730 HP at 16800 ft, the Kinsei 50's ~1240 HP at 18500.
Again, with w/i, The Kasei 27 was good for 1700 HP at 20300 ft, while Kinsei 60's series did 1490 HP at 16700.

Basically, the bigger Kasei was making without water injection the same or better power than what Kinsei did with water inejction. The take off and altitude power of Kasei was much better.

Advantage of Kasei vs. Homare will be earlier availability (and reliability) - aircraft powered by Kasei were in use before 1942.

<post edited due to name mix-up>

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Kasei was making 1500 HP with water injection by 1945, the Kinsei did it in 1944 with 1900 HP? Something needs to plug the gap in 1943-44.
> 
> The altitude power can also be compared: 1350 HP at ~13500 ft ft for Kinsei 13, 14 and 15, vs. 1050 HP for the best Kasei of 40's series. Or, 1250 HP for Kinsei 13, 14, and 15 at 20000 ft. All figures are for 'military power' per US nomenclature, without water injection.
> With water injection, Kinsei early 20's series was supposed to do ~1730 HP at 16800 ft, the Kasei 50's ~1240 HP at 18500.
> ...


Has something gone wrong in the names? The most powerful Kinsei engines were the 60 series ( Ha-112-II, Ha-33-62) which gave 1,500 or 1,560 ps for take off with water injection. Are you talking about the Kinsei's big brother with 18 cylinders the Ha-43 or MK9?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2019)

The K*in*sei's big brother was the K*a*sei.

Still 14 cylinders but 42 liters instead of 32.3 liters. 
It powered the G4M and H8K among others, the Japanese considered it a large engine but it was no larger than the Wright R-2600, the BMW 801 or the Bristol Hercules. 

I do think Tomo mixed up the names???


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 24, 2019)

My use of brother is possibly the wrong word as indeed the Kinsei and Kasei were the same generation. However, the 14 cylinders of the Kinsei 60 series were very similar to the 18 of the Ha-43 (unified) or MK9 (Navy). There was probably some development and the MK9 could take 520mmHg (50.4"), which was more than the Kinsei 50 series with 330mm (42.9"). Alas I don't know the boost of the Kinsei 60 series. Simply multiplying 1560 by 18 and dividing by 14 gives 2,000 ps but the MK9C gave around 2,200 ps.

PS. I just noticed that the MK9 could run at 2900 rpm compared to 2600 rpm for the Ha-112 II, which explains the extra power.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2019)

The HA-43 did use the smaller cylinders and because of that it had several advantages over the Kasei which was of roughly the same displacement.(0.3 liters out of 42 liters?) 
The slightly smaller bore means it is a little easier to cool, the cylinder wall to cylinder volume is more favorable and the path from the center of the piston to the cylinder wall is a bit shorter. 
The Shorter stroke _may_ mean the engine/s with the shorter stroke can operate at a higher rpm than the long stroke cylinders in the Kasei, many sources do not give the RPM making this a bit difficult. 
But it appears the Kasei on the later engines was limited to 2600rpm for take-off and 2500rpm for actual flying while the HA-43 was running at 2900rpm?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 25, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Table is translation of data tables from the two books about Zero by Bunrin Do. We can take it for what it's worth.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Bunrin Do is somewhat intermittent in reliability at best. The data on maximum speeds simply defies logic when matched against other sources such as the tests of Koga's A6M2 and captured manuals.



tomo pauk said:


> Diameter of the Kasei was not ridiculoulsy large. At 52.5 in, it was same as of the R-2800. Going for extension shaft not just introduced problems with vibrations, it upped the dry engine weight bs ~220 lbs, and required that Mitsubishi devotes engineering staff to design the ectual engine version. Kasei certainly worked as 'plain Jane' engine.
> What materialized as the J2M needed to be designed as next-gen carrier-based fighter (waiting for A7M will not cut it), that can be also deployed at land bases and can receive floats so there is a better floatplane fighter to pick up from the A6M2-2.
> Not going for counter-rotating version of the Kasei for the rex again means less strain on Mitsubishi engine design & prototype shop.
> 
> The N1K was also not that speedy - 300 mph.



I do not believe the Kasei would have been a viable fighter engine in its original versions. The developments for the version that was eventually installed in the J2M not only added the extension shaft and cooling fan but also added about 250 HP.
Without the extra streamlining from the extension shaft, I don't believe the performance would have been nearly as good.
As for the J2M as a carrier fighter or a floatplane, I don't believe either would be a workable concept. The J2M was fairly short ranged even though it carried about 700 liters of internal fuel. It was really a point defence interceptor. As a contrast the A6M3-22 and A6M5-52 carried 570-590 liters depending on sources.

The N1K Kyofu wasn't that fast either, but it WAS about 30-35 MPH faster than a A6M2-N and had about 500 feet per minute better climb.

How many of these alternative directives and plans are a result of perfect hindsight and already knowing what did NOT work?
I am not convinced that too many alternatives would have worked much better with the design resources that were available.

The Japanese aircraft industry would have been much more effective if they had concentrated development on air defence instead of long range power projection from about 1940-1941, but at the time, they probably had other ideas as to how a short victorious war was going to go.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 25, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> Has something gone wrong in the names? The most powerful Kinsei engines were the 60 series ( Ha-112-II, Ha-33-62) which gave 1,500 or 1,560 ps for take off with water injection. Are you talking about the Kinsei's big brother with 18 cylinders the Ha-43 or MK9?





Shortround6 said:


> The K*in*sei's big brother was the K*a*sei.
> 
> Still 14 cylinders but 42 liters instead of 32.3 liters.
> It powered the G4M and H8K among others, the Japanese considered it a large engine but it was no larger than the Wright R-2600, the BMW 801 or the Bristol Hercules.
> ...



Yes, I'll edit the post(s?).


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 25, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Bunrin Do is somewhat intermittent in reliability at best. The data on maximum speeds simply defies logic when matched against other sources such as the tests of Koga's A6M2 and captured manuals.



Not every speed test went the same, even when nominally same version of aircraft and engine were tested, on same boost. Same timng happened in other countries, with variances of 10 mph recorded. 
Adding weight and drag should slow an aircraft down, and will lower it's RoC, provided the thrust was not improved a good deal.



> I do not believe the Kasei would have been a viable fighter engine in its original versions. The developments for the version that was eventually installed in the J2M not only added the extension shaft and cooling fan but also added about 250 HP.



Not 250 HP, but ~50 HP. Not having extension shaft does not mean we loose extra power. 
Granted, 'my' Japanese fighter will be slower by 5-10 mph, but it will be climbing better, and more importantly, it should be available in better numbers so it can replace Zero.
Probably the best Kasei version was the 'normal' type, installed on the latest Betty bombers, 1480 HP at 21600 ft per TAIC doc.



> Without the extra streamlining from the extension shaft, I don't believe the performance would have been nearly as good.
> As for the J2M as a carrier fighter or a floatplane, I don't believe either would be a workable concept. The J2M was fairly short ranged even though it carried about 700 liters of internal fuel. It was really a point defence interceptor. As a contrast the A6M3-22 and A6M5-52 carried 570-590 liters depending on sources.



I've never suggested the J2M to be converted into a carrier-borne fighter. IJN needs to request a new carrier-borne fighter, not a land-based interceptor.



> The N1K Kyofu wasn't that fast either, but it WAS about 30-35 MPH faster than a A6M2-N and had about 500 feet per minute better climb.



If you really want a floatplane fighter, make such a version of the next-gen carrier-borne fighter, instead of developing a brand new type for such a task.



> How many of these alternative directives and plans are a result of perfect hindsight and already knowing what did NOT work?
> I am not convinced that too many alternatives would have worked much better with the design resources that were available.
> 
> The Japanese aircraft industry would have been much more effective if they had concentrated development on air defence instead of long range power projection from about 1940-1941, but at the time, they probably had other ideas as to how a short victorious war was going to go.
> ...



Japanese know that Entente out-produced Germany and A-H by large margin back in ww1. They know that Germany and UK are making aircraft in thousands by 1940, and by extension that USA will be able to make as much as those two countries combined. They also know their industry can't match it. Yet, instead of ruthless reduction of types of aircraft during 1940-43 so there is a gain from economy of scales, they try to solve almost each task with a dedicated aircraft type (times two since there are two military services).

I have no problems with Japanese making a good effort on long range aviation. Their mistake was that early long-range fighter types, powered by 1000-1200 HP engines, were not replaced by new long-range types powered by 1500-1900 HP engines, with improved protection, firepower, dive speed and rate of roll, nor the early types have gotten any engine power increase worth talking about until too late.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 25, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Not every speed test went the same, even when nominally same version of aircraft and engine were tested, on same boost. Same timng happened in other countries, with variances of 10 mph recorded.
> Adding weight and drag should slow an aircraft down, and will lower it's RoC, provided the thrust was not improved a good deal.
> 
> 
> ...


Economies work best with multiple independent suppliers. Communist countries realised this in the end.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 25, 2019)

There is a difference between multiple independent suppliers that can bid on contracts and duplication of specifications and too many specifications. Both army and navy putting out specifications for long range, maneuverable fighters, and point interceptors, at the same time. 4 different programs, plus float fighters, 
Then the twin engine bomber programs. There was too much duplication of effort for a country the size of Japan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a difference between multiple independent suppliers that can bid on contracts and duplication of specifications and too many specifications. Both army and navy putting out specifications for long range, maneuverable fighters, and point interceptors, at the same time. 4 different programs, plus float fighters,
> Then the twin engine bomber programs. There was too much duplication of effort for a country the size of Japan.


I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 25, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Not every speed test went the same, even when nominally same version of aircraft and engine were tested, on same boost. Same timng happened in other countries, with variances of 10 mph recorded.
> Adding weight and drag should slow an aircraft down, and will lower it's RoC, provided the thrust was not improved a good deal.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

I have no argument that test results could differ substantially, but when a maximum speed for an aircraft matches EXACXTLY what is stated in the manual for the type under less than maximum power, then one has to question whether that was REALLY the maximum performance. I have actually never found a reliable maximum speed listing for the A6M3 series.
The performance numbers in the spreadsheet for A6M2 also match the US testing of an aircraft known to be in less than perfect condition.



tomo pauk said:


> Not 250 HP, but ~50 HP. Not having extension shaft does not mean we loose extra power.
> Granted, 'my' Japanese fighter will be slower by 5-10 mph, but it will be climbing better, and more importantly, it should be available in better numbers so it can replace Zero.
> Probably the best Kasei version was the 'normal' type, installed on the latest Betty bombers, 1480 HP at 21600 ft per TAIC doc.



The point I was trying to make was that the developments on the engine were not just to add an extension shaft. There were quite a few more improvements in the versions used in the Raiden over other Kasei engines.
According to TAIC, the Kasei 23 used in J2M3 was capable of 1560 HP @ 18,100 feet and 1785 HP @ 16,600 feet and 1870 HP @ Sea Level.
With a bit less power and without the pointy nose and forced air cooling, I believe your alternative fighter would lose a lot more than 5-10 MPH in speed.



tomo pauk said:


> If you really want a floatplane fighter, make such a version of the next-gen carrier-borne fighter, instead of developing a brand new type for such a task.
> c
> 
> The N1K Kyofu was one of the few really successful programs. Unfortunately the need for the type was overtaken by changes in the strategic situation.
> ...


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 25, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The point I was trying to make was that the developments on the engine were not just to add an extension shaft. There were quite a few more improvements in the versions used in the Raiden over other Kasei engines. With a bit less power and without the pointy nose and forced air cooling, I believe your alternative fighter would lose a lot more than 5-10 MPH in speed.



Your heavier engine with shaft and fan now needs the firewall moved even further aft or a lot of additional weight in the tail. That will probably cost a lot more than 5-10 mph also


----------



## taly01 (Dec 26, 2019)

> . The Zero might also have had a problem with structural failure if it were able to deflect its ailerons enough at high speed. Do you have an opinion on that



The early A6M2 Zero had serious problems with wing strength and aileron flutter at high speeds and some were lost in testing while trying to find its limits! The book "Zero: Combat and Development" by Robert Mikesh (from MotorBooks International) covers the complicated history of aileron mass balancers and aileron reverse assist tabs. By the time of the A6M5 all these "do-hickeys" were engineered out by good design.



> It seems we want the same thing, a four gun airplane that will do around 360mph, dive better and still maneuver close to the Ki-43. .......



The IJAAF did have the solution fighting in the front line by mid-43, the Ki-61, but its engine turned out to be an unreliable maintenance nightmare!
One of the US post war surveys deduced ~65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving *old* (correction) designs until 1944, this turned out to be a big error.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2019)

taly01 said:


> The IJAAF did have the solution fighting in the front line by mid-43, the Ki-61, but its engine turned out to be an unreliable maintenance nightmare!
> One of the US post war surveys deduced ~65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving new designs until 1944, this turned out to be a big error.



Did you mean "65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving new designs until 1944"
or 65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving new designs until 1944"
Just wondering as I am a bit confused by the statement. 

The Engine used in the Ki-44 had potential for the the mid war years but the Japanese made the wing and fuel capacity of the Ki 44 too small. The Ki 44 was in production at the right time (in small numbers) but it's limited fuel capacity (short range) and high landing speed limited it's utility. A hypothetical plane with a wing roughly the same size as the Ki-43 and Ki 84 and a fuel capacity about 1/2 way inbetween to suit the power of it's engine might have been of much more utility than the Ki 44s extra few mph but limited deployability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The point I was trying to make was that the developments on the engine were not just to add an extension shaft. There were quite a few more improvements in the versions used in the Raiden over other Kasei engines.
> According to TAIC, the Kasei 23 used in J2M3 was capable of 1560 HP @ 18,100 feet and 1785 HP @ 16,600 feet and 1870 HP @ Sea Level.
> With a bit less power and without the pointy nose and forced air cooling, I believe your alternative fighter would lose a lot more than 5-10 MPH in speed.



'My' fighter will loose even more speed, since I want 1st and foremost a fighter that can 1st suplant and then replace Zero in all of it's iterations (carrier-based 1st, then as land-based fighter, then as a floatplane conversion) in a timely manner. And I want it all on the fighter - 4 cannons, protection for fuel and pilot, useful fuel tankage + drop tanks, good/very good/excellent speed, RoC, dive and roll; folding wing, and preferably the butterfly flaps. Designing a fighter around Kasei can provide all of that, Sakae will not cut it, and Homare is too late.



> The N1K Kyofu was one of the few really successful programs. Unfortunately the need for the type was overtaken by changes in the strategic situation.



Okay, we'll install floats on 100 of the next-gen fighters so that mission is covered. 



> You and I are actually in agreement. IF they had any sense, they never would have entered the war to begin with.
> It was not something that could be won with the balance of industrial power, but my understanding was that they believed it would be a quick war with a negotiated peace as had happened twice before in wars with China and Russia.



Japan never fought against several major powers in the same time, and they knew well that industry capacity of China was non-existing when compared with UK, let alone USA. Granted, Japanes going to war against 'West' in 1941 is a topic of it's own.



> Those early long range fighters never got replaced at all. Long range isn't really necessary when one is doing nothing but defending.
> - Ivan.



Deciding to just defend only means relinquishing initiative to the enemy. Long range is essential in the Asia/Pacific vast expanses, since it can allow for concentration of forces. Short range fighters based at Kyushu will have hard time to help out above Honshu and vice-versa. Defence of the Ryukyus demands long-range fighters, so does the air fight ove China.


----------



## taly01 (Dec 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Did you mean "65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving new designs until 1944"
> or 65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving new designs until 1944"
> Just wondering as I am a bit confused by the statement.



Ooopps I meant to write, a US post war survey deduced ~65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving *old* designs until 1944, this turned out to be a big error.


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2019)

taly01 said:


> Ooopps I meant to write, a US post war survey deduced ~65% of Japanese aircraft design was spent on improving *old* designs until 1944, this turned out to be a big error.


I would be interested to know what the UK and German figures would be. Think of the effort put into Hurricanes, Spifires, Wellingtons and if you take the start as Dec 1941, Stirling's, Halifax's Manchester's/Lancaster's Typhoons and no doubt others. As for the German its a similar story, 109, 190, Ju88 He111 Do17, 215, 217, and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2019)

Glider said:


> I would be interested to know what the UK and German figures would be. Think of the effort put into Hurricanes, Spifires, Wellingtons and if you take the start as Dec 1941, Stirling's, Halifax's Manchester's/Lancaster's Typhoons and no doubt others. As for the German its a similar story, 109, 190, Ju88 He111 Do17, 215, 217, and so on.



Part of it may be that some of the Japanese "improvements" were of a minor nature. Once the Ki 43 got a two speed supercharger it was essentially frozen. A few minor tweaks? 
Some different Ki 61s but mostly just changing the guns around. Some of their bombers show the same thing. The attempts to upgrade the A6M's engine after fitting the two speed supercharger didn't seem to work. 
The Spitfire got much more powerful engines. The Wellington got better engines but was pretty much replaced in the primary theater. 

I would also note that many of the projects started after _1942 _(as in pen went to paper in 1943) failed to reach squadron service in any numbers by 1945 in most air forces.


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of it may be that some of the Japanese "improvements" were of a minor nature. Once the Ki 43 got a two speed supercharger it was essentially frozen. A few minor tweaks?
> Some different Ki 61s but mostly just changing the guns around. Some of their bombers show the same thing. The attempts to upgrade the A6M's engine after fitting the two speed supercharger didn't seem to work.
> The Spitfire got much more powerful engines. The Wellington got better engines but was pretty much replaced in the primary theater.
> 
> I would also note that many of the projects started after _1942 _(as in pen went to paper in 1943) failed to reach squadron service in any numbers by 1945 in most air forces.



I agree with your point. If the 'minor tweaks' took little effort then more (in percentage terms) should have been available for new designs. No one would deny that the Spit 14 was a very different animal to the Mk 1 and the same goes for the 109 and 190. Its difficult to think of a similar change to a Japanese aircraft so the percentage of effort spent by the German and British aviation development teams developing existing designs, would be much bigger than 61%


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of it may be that some of the Japanese "improvements" were of a minor nature. Once the Ki 43 got a two speed supercharger it was essentially frozen. A few minor tweaks?
> Some different Ki 61s but mostly just changing the guns around. Some of their bombers show the same thing. The attempts to upgrade the A6M's engine after fitting the two speed supercharger didn't seem to work.



Part of the problem (a very big part if the German staff in Japan are to be believed) was that no-one wanted to take responsibility for any changes. This is from page 21/22 of German translations of activities in Japanese aircraft production 7 September 1945. Report No. 9-a(50), USSBS Index Section 6 - 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション

A better translation of the title might be _*Translations of German activities i*n Japanese aircraft production_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Part of the problem (a very big part if the German staff in Japan are to be believed) was that no-one wanted to take responsibility for any changes. This is from page 21/22 of German translations of activities in Japanese aircraft production 7 September 1945. Report No. 9-a(50), USSBS Index Section 6 - 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション
> 
> A better translation might be _Translations of German activities in Japanese aircraft production_
> 
> View attachment 565107


This reminds me of working for Fujitsu-ICL in the 1980's.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 26, 2019)

Another of Japans problems, according to the Germans was discussed on pages 16/17 of the same file.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2019)

Well, giving them the construction rights for the Jumo 222 engine was one way to ensure they would not dominate Germany after the axis won WW II


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 27, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Your heavier engine with shaft and fan now needs the firewall moved even further aft or a lot of additional weight in the tail. That will probably cost a lot more than 5-10 mph also



Hello MiTasol,

Historically, that was the development path for the J2M Raiden and it seemed to work pretty well. The firewall does not appear to be particularly far aft. This design resulted in one of the fastest Japanese fighters of the war.
Here is a diagram to show what the layout actually was.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 27, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> 'My' fighter will loose even more speed, since I want 1st and foremost a fighter that can 1st suplant and then replace Zero in all of it's iterations (carrier-based 1st, then as land-based fighter, then as a floatplane conversion) in a timely manner. And I want it all on the fighter - 4 cannons, protection for fuel and pilot, useful fuel tankage + drop tanks, good/very good/excellent speed, RoC, dive and roll; folding wing, and preferably the butterfly flaps. Designing a fighter around Kasei can provide all of that, Sakae will not cut it, and Homare is too late.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

I do not believe these objectives are all achievable with the amount of power of the Mitsubishi Kasei engine. Of course we may have different ideas on what "useful fuel tankage" means, and what constitutes proper protection for the pilot and fuel, but just keep in mind that the Raiden carried a relatively large amount of fuel for a Japanese fighter and still didn't have great range with the Kasei engine. Its speed was excellent for a J-fighter but only adequate when compared to its adversaries.



tomo pauk said:


> Okay, we'll install floats on 100 of the next-gen fighters so that mission is covered.



The "mission" was no longer required by the time the program was completed. THAT was the point I was trying to make.



tomo pauk said:


> Deciding to just defend only means relinquishing initiative to the enemy. Long range is essential in the Asia/Pacific vast expanses, since it can allow for concentration of forces. Short range fighters based at Kyushu will have hard time to help out above Honshu and vice-versa. Defence of the Ryukyus demands long-range fighters, so does the air fight ove China.



Regardless of whether it was ideal, this is what actually happened. There were no long range successors to A6M and Ki 43.
I believe that was what the choice of swapping the Sakae engine for the Kinsei on the A6M fighter really meant and this was why the choice was made so late. Without the Sakae engine in the A6M, the Japanese Navy no longer had a long range fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 27, 2019)

Another page from the same document (p209) shows the German understanding of what the A6M5 was and could do. Note the automatic fire extinguisher for the fuel. A lighter option to self seal tanks and of unknown (*to me*) capabilities. I would like to know more how it was supposed to work and how effective it was

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 27, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> I do not believe these objectives are all achievable with the amount of power of the Mitsubishi Kasei engine. Of course we may have different ideas on what "useful fuel tankage" means, and what constitutes proper protection for the pilot and fuel, but just keep in mind that the Raiden carried a relatively large amount of fuel for a Japanese fighter and still didn't have great range with the Kasei engine. Its speed was excellent for a J-fighter but only adequate when compared to its adversaries.



Amout of fuel was not that large once we account for engine power that was 50+-% greater than Zero, Ki-43 or -61. 390+180 internal is in the ballpark with what Japanese fighters with 1000-1100 HP carried, while fuel in drop tank was less than Ki 43 or Ki 61 carried. 'Useful range' should be about 90% of what Zero was doing.
Kasei was making better power than any Japanse engine before Homare emerged. 1500-1800+ HP is a lot more than Ha 40 was capable for. That engine powered rangy Ki-61 that nobody considered as a pushover in air combat.
Having a fighter whose performance is adequate is a big an advantage vs. having a fighter whose performance is inadequate.



> The "mission" was no longer required by the time the program was completed. THAT was the point I was trying to make.



No problems. We will waste no time to convert the production line from a floatplane fighter design into a 'classic' fighter (since the production line already makes those), unlike what happended with the Kawainshi fighters' saga.



> Regardless of whether it was ideal, this is what actually happened. There were no long range successors to A6M and Ki 43.
> I believe that was what the choice of swapping the Sakae engine for the Kinsei on the A6M fighter really meant and this was why the choice was made so late. Without the Sakae engine in the A6M, the Japanese Navy no longer had a long range fighter.
> - Ivan.



Of course they don't have a long range fighter once Zero gets a proper engine - a direct result of IJN wasting time and resources into niche aircraft instead of crucial thing: the timely replacement for the Zero.
Ki-84 was almost as rangy as Ki-43.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 27, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Amout of fuel was not that large once we account for engine power that was 50+-% greater than Zero, Ki-43 or -61. 390+180 internal is in the ballpark with what Japanese fighters with 1000-1100 HP carried, while fuel in drop tank was less than Ki 43 or Ki 61 carried. 'Useful range' should be about 90% of what Zero was doing.
> Kasei was making better power than any Japanse engine before Homare emerged. 1500-1800+ HP is a lot more than Ha 40 was capable for. That engine powered rangy Ki-61 that nobody considered as a pushover in air combat.
> Having a fighter whose performance is adequate is a big an advantage vs. having a fighter whose performance is inadequate.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Internal fuel capacity was nearly identical for J2M and A6M3-22 and A6M5-52 at around 570 liters. The J2M COULD carry up to a 400 liter drop tank which was larger than any carried by the A6M series. The fuel capacity of the Ki 61-I is not a great comparison because depending on the exact model, it could vary from 500 liters up to 750 liters.
The Ki 61-I may not have been a "pushover", but it also was not particularly competitive in any aspect of its performance either. At best, it was adequate against competition such as a P-40 and totally outclassed by later aircraft. It would have been great had it been available in 1941.

I still don't see how you can expect decent performance from the same engine as on J2M while adding all of the additional features needed to make it into a good carrier fighter with excellent range.



tomo pauk said:


> No problems. We will waste no time to convert the production line from a floatplane fighter design into a 'classic' fighter (since the production line already makes those), unlike what happended with the Kawainshi fighters' saga.



The Kawanishi line of development created possibly the best all around fighter operated by the Japanese Navy. The alternative you are describing SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED is very hard to compare when there can be no details or specifics.



tomo pauk said:


> Of course they don't have a long range fighter once Zero gets a proper engine - a direct result of IJN wasting time and resources into niche aircraft instead of crucial thing: the timely replacement for the Zero.
> Ki-84 was almost as rangy as Ki-43.



The Ki 84 used the same engine and carried the same fuel load as the N1K2-J. The N1K2-J had substantially less range than the A6M fighters as has been described in interviews with surviving Japanese pilots.

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 27, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Internal fuel capacity was nearly identical for J2M and A6M3-22 and A6M5-52 at around 570 liters. The J2M COULD carry up to a 400 liter drop tank which was larger than any carried by the A6M series. The fuel capacity of the Ki 61-I is not a great comparison because depending on the exact model, it could vary from 500 liters up to 750 liters.
> The Ki 61-I may not have been a "pushover", but it also was not particularly competitive in any aspect of its performance either. At best, it was adequate against competition such as a P-40 and totally outclassed by later aircraft. It would have been great had it been available in 1941.
> ...


Not sure I'd agree that the ki61 was not competitive with later designs unless by later designs you mean verry late in the Pacific war stuff, p51, late model f4u etc.
Even then although for sure it was not as good I don't think I'd say it wasn't competitive at all.
As near as I can tell it had verry similar performance to a late F/ early G series 109.
I don't think anyone would argue those were not competitive with mid war designs and even later ones to a degree.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Not sure I'd agree that the ki61 was not competitive with later designs unless by later designs you mean verry late in the Pacific war stuff,





michael rauls said:


> As near as I can tell it had verry similar performance to a late F/ early G series 109.
> I don't think anyone would argue those were not competitive with mid war designs


Huh? Different arena, different combat conditions, demands and expectations, sounds like a non sequitur comparison to me. It would seem to make more sense to gauge competitiveness in light of the time and place and opposition in question rather than some arbitrary universal scale. Or maybe I'm just out in left field. Wouldn't be the first time.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Internal fuel capacity was nearly identical for J2M and A6M3-22 and A6M5-52 at around 570 liters. The J2M COULD carry up to a 400 liter drop tank which was larger than any carried by the A6M series. The fuel capacity of the Ki 61-I is not a great comparison because depending on the exact model, it could vary from 500 liters up to 750 liters.
> The Ki 61-I may not have been a "pushover", but it also was not particularly competitive in any aspect of its performance either. At best, it was adequate against competition such as a P-40 and totally outclassed by later aircraft. It would have been great had it been available in 1941.
> ...



Ki-61 carried circa 750 liters internally, unless people opted not to fill all internal tanks, or removed an internal tank. It also carried two drop tanks, so it was easily better in that regard than J2M. Once we facture in the greater power (and thus consumption) of the Kasei vs. Ha-40, no woder the range was short vs. what Ki-61 offered.
What Ki 61 needed by late 1943/early 1944 was a substantial increase of engine power, that didn't happened until 1945. 
I can expect decent performance of 'my' fighter since it will have 50+% more engine power than the current carrier-borne fighter.



> The Kawanishi line of development created possibly the best all around fighter operated by the Japanese Navy. The alternative you are describing SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED is very hard to compare when there can be no details or specifics.



We can arrive at some specifics. Like the wing profile and area, expected weight, engine power, and then go from there.



> The Ki 84 used the same engine and carried the same fuel load as the N1K2-J. The N1K2-J had substantially less range than the A6M fighters as has been described in interviews with surviving Japanese pilots.
> 
> - Ivan.



The biggest fuel load for the N1K2-J that I was able to find is 1064 liters (281 US gal), that includes 400L drop tank. Biggest fuel load for the Ki-84 is 359 US gals, that includes 175 gals in two drop tanks.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 28, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Huh? Different arena, different combat conditions, demands and expectations, sounds like a non sequitur comparison to me. It would seem to make more sense to gauge competitiveness in light of the time and place and opposition in question rather than some arbitrary universal scale. Or maybe I'm just out in left field. Wouldn't be the first time.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I should have made more clear I was referring to performance stats, climb, dive , top speed etc. Which is what the poster I was answering seemed to be referring to.


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ....snip...
> I still don't see how you can expect decent performance from the same engine as on J2M while adding all of the additional features needed to make it into a good carrier fighter with excellent range. ...snip...
> - Ivan.


I think that I agree in practice. However, I have been playing at designing the perfect fighter with a Kasei and it is not very hard because the Kasei length, diameter and weight are all less than those of the R-2800. Thus I simply imagine mounting a Kasei in a Grumman Bearcat, which assumes that information on the design of the Fw 190 v5 had been sent to Japan on the Raider Komet and arrived by November 1940.

The initial Ha-32-13 Kasei for the Raiden prototype gave 1460 ps at 2450 rpm for take off and 1420 ps at 2000 metres and 2200 rpm or 1300 ps at 6000 metres at 2200 rpm. The R-2800-22W used by the Grumman Bearcat prototype was rated at 2,100 hp for take off and 1,600 hp at 16,000 ft. The Bearcat prototype attained 393 mph at sea level and 424 mph at 17,300 ft. If we take the ratio of 1600 to 1300 as 1.2308 (neglecting the effect of ps vs. hp and the different altitudes), we might expect to only lose about 9% of maximum speed using the v cubed approximation. Thus we might expect a Bearcat with a Kasei-13 equivalent engine (without the extension shaft) to have a maximum speed of at least 389 mph at around 6,000 metres.

The prototype Bearcat had 160 US gallons of internal fuel (606 litres) although that was increased to 183 gallons (693 litres) in the production aircraft. As the Raiden had around 570 litres, a Bearcat derivative should go further.

We will have to move something to maintain the CoG as the Kasei is significantly lighter than the R-2800. I doubt if a Japanese oil cooler design from 1941 will be as efficient as that of the Bearcat. Fortunately, we don't need to design a new airfoil as the Bearcat's NACA 23018 was used in the Brewster F2A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 29, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Not sure I'd agree that the ki61 was not competitive with later designs unless by later designs you mean verry late in the Pacific war stuff, p51, late model f4u etc.
> Even then although for sure it was not as good I don't think I'd say it wasn't competitive at all.
> As near as I can tell it had verry similar performance to a late F/ early G series 109.
> I don't think anyone would argue those were not competitive with mid war designs and even later ones to a degree.



Hello Michael Rauls,

The Ki 61-I was faster than a Me 109E but not nearly as fast as a Me 109F or G and only had the engine power of the 109E.
Its climb rate was quite low and power to weight ratio was relatively low.
Firepower was mediocre at best with 4 MG except for two versions. One was the 400 aircraft that mounted the MG 151/20 that were imported by submarine from Germany. Unfortunately after those guns were used up, there were no more coming.
The other version with good firepower was the Ki 61-Id which mounted a pair of Ho-5 20 mm cannon in the cowl. There was not enough space to mount these guns in earlier aircraft but unfortunately the Ki-61-Id also gained extra armor and was the heaviest of all and had no more engine power than any of the other versions.

So, basically with the Ki 61, you have an aircraft that handles well and can dive but can't climb well, isn't particularly fast, can't accelerate, and is not nearly as maneuverable as other J-fighters.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 29, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Ki-61 carried circa 750 liters internally, unless people opted not to fill all internal tanks, or removed an internal tank. It also carried two drop tanks, so it was easily better in that regard than J2M. Once we facture in the greater power (and thus consumption) of the Kasei vs. Ha-40, no woder the range was short vs. what Ki-61 offered.
> What Ki 61 needed by late 1943/early 1944 was a substantial increase of engine power, that didn't happened until 1945.
> I can expect decent performance of 'my' fighter since it will have 50+% more engine power than the current carrier-borne fighter.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Regarding the internal fuel load of the Ki 61-I, you are simply incorrect. Early aircraft seemed to carry the larger fuel loads, but the wing tanks varied in size and the fuselage tank was not always installed especially in later aircraft.

EDIT for more detail

The Ki 61-Ia had the following
2 x 190 liter Wing Tanks
1 x 170 liter Wing Center Tank
1 x 200 liter Fuselage Tank
-----------------------------
Total 750 liters

Ki 61-Ib had three variations
early production was same as -Ia (s/n 501-513)
mid production deleted the fuselage 200 liter tank for a new total of 550 liters (s/n 514-649)
late production (s/n 650-1092) had the following
2 x 170 liter Wing Tanks
1 x 160 liter Wing Center Tank
No Fuselage Tank
----------------------------
Total 500 liters

Ki 61-Ic had the following
2 x 170 liter Wing Tanks
1 x 160 liter Wing Center Tank
No Fuselage Tank
----------------------------
Total 500 liters

Ki 61-Id had the following
2 x 170 liter Wing Tanks
1 x 160 liter Wing Center Tank
1 x 95 liter Fuselage Tank
----------------------------
Total 595 liters

The two drop tanks carried by the Ki 61 were only 200 liter capacity each, so it carries no more fuel in drop tanks than the J2M did.

When you say "needed by late 1943", I take this to mean "needed at its introduction" which was 1943. It was always somewhat underpowered.

The problem with expecting decent performance out of 'your' fighter is that it is hard to see your requirements adding LESS than 50% more weight than the current carrier-borne fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 29, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> I think that I agree in practice. However, I have been playing at designing the perfect fighter with a Kasei and it is not very hard because the Kasei length, diameter and weight are all less than those of the R-2800. Thus I simply imagine mounting a Kasei in a Grumman Bearcat, which assumes that information on the design of the Fw 190 v5 had been sent to Japan on the Raider Komet and arrived by November 1940.
> 
> The initial Ha-32-13 Kasei for the Raiden prototype gave 1460 ps at 2450 rpm for take off and 1420 ps at 2000 metres and 2200 rpm or 1300 ps at 6000 metres at 2200 rpm. The R-2800-22W used by the Grumman Bearcat prototype was rated at 2,100 hp for take off and 1,600 hp at 16,000 ft. The Bearcat prototype attained 393 mph at sea level and 424 mph at 17,300 ft. If we take the ratio of 1600 to 1300 as 1.2308 (neglecting the effect of ps vs. hp and the different altitudes), we might expect to only lose about 9% of maximum speed using the v cubed approximation. Thus we might expect a Bearcat with a Kasei-13 equivalent engine (without the extension shaft) to have a maximum speed of at least 389 mph at around 6,000 metres.
> 
> ...



Hello Cherry Blossom,

Thanks for putting a bit more substance into this discussion.
The problem is that this Bearcat with a Kasei engine would not really meet the requirements that Tomo Pauk had specified.
389 MPH isn't really quite fast enough for a new fighter to make it competitive. It is no faster than the F6F and much slower than the F4U.
The internal fuel load of the Bearcat was fairly small (also about 700 liters IIRC), so something more needs to be added to make it into something with a bit more range if we want something comparable to the A6M series.
Now considering that we are running a Kasei engine with Japanese 92 octane fuel, do we account for the Water Methanol tank that is needed to run rated and maximum engine power?
On the Raiden, the Fuel load was 570 liters but there was also 120 liters of Water-Methanol that was carried.
For weight, this is easily the equivalent of the fuel load of the Bearcat.

The Raiden had an excellent climb rate, but it was also a relatively light aircraft. The same Kasei engine in a larger and certainly heavier aircraft isn't likely to result in an aircraft that climbs as well. If we are comparing the basic Raiden airframe to the Bearcat, the Raiden weighs 7080 pounds, the F8F-1 Bearcat weighs 9334 pounds.

- Ivan.


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 29, 2019)

My point was that the Bearcat designers made a brilliant job of building the smallest and lowest drag fighter possible with a R-2800 engine and seem to have produced a lower drag design than Mitsubishi, whose J2M1 could only manage 357 mph at 6,000 m with the Kasei-13 (which did not use water injection). To get speeds around 380 mph, Mitsubishi needed to fit the Kasei-23 which gave 1900 ps at 2600 rpm for take off and ratings at 2500 rpm of 1720 ps at 2100 metres or 1580 ps at 5500 metres with water injection. The Kasei-26 of the J2M5 was optimised for higher altitude and gave 1400ps at 6800 metres, which allows an easy comparison with the R-2800-30W of the F8F-2.

WWII Aircraft Performance has Standard Aircraft Characteristics F8F-2 "Bearcat" which notes that the maximum speed at normal rating is 363 knots (418 mph). Now normal rating is 1,450 hp at 22,000 ft (far below the wet combat rating of 1,800 hp). Thus a Kasei-26 with water injection is about 60 hp less powerful but 250 kg lighter. Thus I am guessing that a Bearcat with a Kasei-26 would have a max speed of around 360 knots (414 mph). By contrast, Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Thunderbolt) says that the J2M5 had a maximum speed of 332 knots. Of course, the actual performance of the J2M5 is uncertain with figures between 382 mph and 421 mph being quoted but the higher numbers are speculative.

I don't know how Grumman did such a good job with the F8F but I suspect that the fuselage is as narrow as it can be, never much wider than the R-2800, and that the exhaust helps to accelerate the cooling air and to fill in as the fuselage narrows. I suspect but have not measured that the Raiden is slightly fatter and certainly longer.

The Bearcat is heavier because it has a heavier engine, armour and an arrestor hook as well as generally thicker skinning and the strength to land repeatedly on a carrier. The empty weights are 7,650 lbs for the F8F-2 and perhaps 5534 lbs for the J2M5. Naturally, the extra weight is necessary for a carrier fighter.

Lastly, Mitsubishi did do a better job in one respect as the Raiden had good spin recovery whilst the Bearcat was rather more dangerous near the stall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 29, 2019)

we also have to remember that the Bearcat was designed around the "C" series R-2800 which used about one part (legend says the starter dog) in common with the B series engines that powered the vast majority of R-2800 powered planes in WW II. Direct comparisons to other engines are difficult due the increased fins and different baffles that allowed the C series to make 2000 hp with 10% less cooling airflow and thus nearly 10% less cooling drag. (or the C series made more power with same drag).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 30, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> My point was that the Bearcat designers made a brilliant job of building the smallest and lowest drag fighter possible with a R-2800 engine and seem to have produced a lower drag design than Mitsubishi, whose J2M1 could only manage 357 mph at 6,000 m with the Kasei-13 (which did not use water injection). To get speeds around 380 mph, Mitsubishi needed to fit the Kasei-23 which gave 1900 ps at 2600 rpm for take off and ratings at 2500 rpm of 1720 ps at 2100 metres or 1580 ps at 5500 metres with water injection. The Kasei-26 of the J2M5 was optimised for higher altitude and gave 1400ps at 6800 metres, which allows an easy comparison with the R-2800-30W of the F8F-2.



Hello Cherry Blossom,

I believe the biggest difference of opinion here is what you believe the maximum speed of the J2M series really was.
I am inclined to believe the TAIC data sheet which gives about 407 MPH under Military Power and 417 MPH under "War Emergency Power" for the J2M3. It seems like you are more inclined to believe the more typically quoted 370 MPH figure.
IF the 370 MPH figure is correct for maximum power (WEP) and not just for "Normal Power", then the engineers at Mitsubishi did an extraordinarily BAD job of design for an airplane of this size with a fairly high level of installed power to achieve speeds barely 20 MPH faster than the A6M series. This is also about the same level of engine power as the F6F and it would be a rather poor showing to be slower than a much larger and heavier aircraft that has a wing over 50% larger.



cherry blossom said:


> The Bearcat is heavier because it has a heavier engine, armour and an arrestor hook as well as generally thicker skinning and the strength to land repeatedly on a carrier. The empty weights are 7,650 lbs for the F8F-2 and perhaps 5534 lbs for the J2M5. Naturally, the extra weight is necessary for a carrier fighter.
> 
> Lastly, Mitsubishi did do a better job in one respect as the Raiden had good spin recovery whilst the Bearcat was rather more dangerous near the stall.



The Bearcat also had some load factor limitations because of the design for break-away outer wing panels. Eventually this was addressed but it took a very long time.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 30, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Cherry Blossom,
> 
> I believe the biggest difference of opinion here is what you believe the maximum speed of the J2M series really was.
> I am inclined to believe the TAIC data sheet which gives about 407 MPH under Military Power and 417 MPH under "War Emergency Power" for the J2M3. It seems like you are more inclined to believe the more typically quoted 370 MPH figure... snip ...


I am profoundly agnostic on the performance of the Raiden. Fortunately, we have a survivor so it should be possible to measure everything exactly and use software developed to predict the performance of modern aircraft. The two obvious problems are cost and that there may not be good programs to predict cooling drag.

One interesting difference between the Bearcat and the J2M was that according to J2M Raiden for the Raiden "The propeller is 3.30 meters (10 feet 10 inch) diameter" (thank you for the information) whilst the Bearcat had a 12-foot-4-inch propeller (3.774 metres). Thus the volume of air accelerated by the Bearcat's propeller is 30% greater and thus for any given thrust the increase in the velocity of the air is 30% less. Does this mean that the air flowing over the Bearcat's fuselage is moving slower than the air flowing over a Raiden's fuselage? Does that reduce the Bearcat's drag or make its propeller more efficient?

Of course the cost is a longer undercarriage, weighing more, and an increased risk of propeller strikes but the short length of the Bearcat also helped.



Ivan1GFP said:


> The Bearcat also had some load factor limitations because of the design for break-away outer wing panels. Eventually this was addressed but it took a very long time.
> 
> - Ivan.


The weakness in the wings was linked to the wing folding. A Japanese Bearcat would not need folding wings if it were a land based fighter or might even be accepted on an IJN carrier without folding as it would still be smaller than their dive bombers. Either way, it would save weight and have stronger wings.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 30, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> Does that reduce the Bearcat's drag or make its propeller more efficient?


Ever hear of the term disc loading; the horsepower applied to a prop divided by the area of the thrust- producing portion of the prop? The heavier the disc loading, the more power is "wasted" in tip vortices, noise, and heat. Ever hear a small, high powered floatplane (Maule M4, Cessna 185, 206, 207) trying to climb out of a small lake in a narrow mountain valley? BBLLLAAAAATTAAOOWWW! That's wasted power from a high disc loading. The obvious solution is a larger propeller, but the floats get in the way. More blades help raise the total thrust output somewhat, but at the cost of weight, expense, and less efficiency of each individual blade.
So, in answer to the efficiency question, yes; done right, the larger prop should be more efficient. Notice that due to blade shape and a minimalist hub, the Bearcat has a larger portion of its disc diameter actually developing thrust, an advantage conferred by the superior metallurgy available to the US. The stresses and harmonics in that kind of blade design would be too great for the alloys traditionally used in propeller blades.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Dec 30, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> I am profoundly agnostic on the performance of the Raiden. Fortunately, we have a survivor so it should be possible to measure everything exactly and use software developed to predict the performance of modern aircraft. The two obvious problems are cost and that there may not be good programs to predict cooling drag.
> 
> One interesting difference between the Bearcat and the J2M was that according to J2M Raiden for the Raiden "The propeller is 3.30 meters (10 feet 10 inch) diameter" (thank you for the information) whilst the Bearcat had a 12-foot-4-inch propeller (3.774 metres). Thus the volume of air accelerated by the Bearcat's propeller is 30% greater and thus for any given thrust the increase in the velocity of the air is 30% less. Does this mean that the air flowing over the Bearcat's fuselage is moving slower than the air flowing over a Raiden's fuselage? Does that reduce the Bearcat's drag or make its propeller more efficient?
> 
> Of course the cost is a longer undercarriage, weighing more, and an increased risk of propeller strikes but the short length of the Bearcat also helped.



Hello Cherry Blossom,

Regarding speeds, it would be strange for TAIC to drastically overestimate the speed of the J2M considering that they actually had quite a few captured aircraft to examine and had flying examples. They were trying to give an accurate tactical assessment of enemy aircraft that were likely to be encountered, so it would make no sense to overstate abilities.

XBe02Drvr has already given one rather extreme example of a propeller that is too small.
I believe that neither had a propeller that was extraordinarily small or large and that both were more or less optimal for their designs. I have not done much exploring with either the Raiden or the Bearcat, but I believe it would be useful to calculate the propeller power coefficients with their particular engine installations to see whether they were anything out of the ordinary and to see if they were particularly suited to high or low altitude operation.
The fact that the propeller disc is 30% larger does not necessarily mean that it moves 30% more air
One of the other issues with the propellers on the Raiden was that there was some experimentation on increasing the stiffness of the blades along with adjusting the shock mounts for the engine to reduce the engine vibrations at certain RPM ranges.



cherry blossom said:


> The weakness in the wings was linked to the wing folding. A Japanese Bearcat would not need folding wings if it were a land based fighter or might even be accepted on an IJN carrier without folding as it would still be smaller than their dive bombers. Either way, it would save weight and have stronger wings.



The weakness in the Bearcat's wings was a weight saving design feature. The idea was that if the outer wing sections were engineered to fail at 8-9G, the remaining wing structure which was shorter could more easily withstand the maximum 12G load before failure. The problem was that the break-away sections of the outer wing didn't hold up well in service and often did not break away symmetrically under load and the loss of one wing COULD and sometimes did cause a loss of control and a crash.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 31, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> 
> The Ki 61-I was faster than a Me 109E but not nearly as fast as a Me 109F or G and only had the engine power of the 109E.
> Its climb rate was quite low and power to weight ratio was relatively low.
> ...


Top speed on Bf109s is hard to nail down. Alot of different sources have alot of different numbers but as best I can make out the F had a top speed of around 370/380? The best ive seen for the mid Gs is 400.
The Ki61 was 360/370 depending on the source and had a climb of about 3000fpm which seems to be about the going rate for planes typically labelled as having a good climb rate i.e. P51, A6m, F6f etc. 
Plus I believe the ki61 had more range.
Am I mistaken here?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 1, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Top speed on Bf109s is hard to nail down. Alot of different sources have alot of different numbers but as best I can make out the F had a top speed of around 370/380? The best ive seen for the mid Gs is 400.
> The Ki61 was 360/370 depending on the source and had a climb of about 3000fpm which seems to be about the going rate for planes typically labelled as having a good climb rate i.e. P51, A6m, F6f etc.
> Plus I believe the ki61 had more range.
> Am I mistaken here?



Hello Michael Rauls,

I believe the numbers you are quoting for Ki 61 are toward the high end.
I have not found one maximum speed listed that is over 368 MPH for the fastest version and Allied (American) testing of one version put the speed as low as 348 MPH.

The 109F-4 actually could hit speeds around 394 MPH according to the Aircraft Legends book I have next to my computer though this was probably also the ideal case.

As with most Japanese fighters, there is always the question of what power settings it was tested at.
Was it "Normal" (very unlikely in this case in my opinion) or was it "Military"?
Would it have gone faster if they had run it at Take-Off RPM instead of Military? (2500 RPM versus 2400 RPM)
Did it have enough supercharger to run Take-Off Boost +330 mm at altitude instead of Military +240 mm?

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 7, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> Regarding the internal fuel load of the Ki 61-I, you are simply incorrect. Early aircraft seemed to carry the larger fuel loads, but the wing tanks varied in size and the fuselage tank was not always installed especially in later aircraft.
> 
> ...



You are right that not every single Ki 61 was with great fuel capacity. 
We can also take a look at minimum internal fuel figures for the J2M. For example, Allied credited it with 111 US gals here - last place between Japanese fighters of ww2.



> The two drop tanks carried by the Ki 61 were only 200 liter capacity each, so it carries no more fuel in drop tanks than the J2M did.



We can cut this JM2 fuel situation anyway we want. Bottom line is that it carried no more fuel than Japanes fighters powered by 1000-1200 HP engines, while being powered by a 30-50% more powerful engine = short range.



> When you say "needed by late 1943", I take this to mean "needed at its introduction" which was 1943. It was always somewhat underpowered.



Yes, it could have used an extra 20-30% more power, let alone 50% more. 
OTOH - it have had better power to weight ratio than P-40B by some 10%.



> The problem with expecting decent performance out of 'your' fighter is that it is hard to see your requirements adding LESS than 50% more weight than the current carrier-borne fighter.
> 
> - Ivan.



Gruman did the same what I propose here when they went from Wildcat to Hellcat.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 8, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Gruman did the same what I propose here when they went from Wildcat to Hellcat.


With a 67% increase in horsepower!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With a 67% increase in horsepower!



Yes - similar to what Kasei offered over Sakae.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> You are right that not every single Ki 61 was with great fuel capacity.
> We can also take a look at minimum internal fuel figures for the J2M. For example, Allied credited it with 111 US gals here - last place between Japanese fighters of ww2.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

That same table you are referencing credits the J2M2 (Jack 11) with 111 Gallons + 48 Gallons Internal Removable fuel tanks.
That makes a total of 159 Gallons internal fuel or 601 Liters which is pretty consistent with other references.



tomo pauk said:


> We can cut this JM2 fuel situation anyway we want. Bottom line is that it carried no more fuel than Japanes fighters powered by 1000-1200 HP engines, while being powered by a 30-50% more powerful engine = short range.



I never made a claim that the J2M was anything other than a point defence interterceptor == short range.
My point was that with THAT engine, the Kasei, you would need a LOT more fuel to get decent range and that the Kasei was probably not the ideal engine for the purpose.



tomo pauk said:


> Yes, it could have used an extra 20-30% more power, let alone 50% more.
> OTOH - it have had better power to weight ratio than P-40B by some 10%.



We are in agreement here. The P-40B was certainly obsolete by 1943. Also remember that the P-40B gained quite a lot of weight when armour was added in the P-40C version in 1941. If the Ki 61-I had been introduced in 1941, I believe it would have been competitive but its performance level was quite below the standard by 1943 at its ACTUAL introduction. It had some redeeming characteristics, but performance was not so good.



tomo pauk said:


> Gruman did the same what I propose here when they went from Wildcat to Hellcat.



The construction / strength and equipment standard between Wildcat and Hellcat is not quite as different as that between the A6M and the next generation Japanese carrier fighter. Also, keep in mind that the performance level of the Hellcat was not quite adequate by the end of the Pacific war.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> That same table you are referencing credits the J2M2 (Jack 11) with 111 Gallons + 48 Gallons Internal Removable fuel tanks.
> That makes a total of 159 Gallons internal fuel or 601 Liters which is pretty consistent with other references.



Minimum internal fuel of JM2 of 111 US gals (420) liters is less what was minimum for the Ki 61 (=500 L); max internal fuel for the J2M was smaller (159 gals) than of the Ki 61 (199 US gals). Now yes, we have a situation of versions of the Ki 61 carrying 595L, indeed less than 601L for the JM2 by 6 liters. 
Once we calculate in that Kasei was making 20-50% more power (depending on version and altitude) than Ha-40, it will not take a rocket scientist to arrive to a conclusion that JM2 was not carrying enough fuel to be a long range fighter.



> I never made a claim that the J2M was anything other than a point defence interterceptor == short range.
> My point was that with THAT engine, the Kasei, you would need a LOT more fuel to get decent range and that the Kasei was probably not the ideal engine for the purpose.



Kasei was not an ideal engine, but it was the best what Japanese have had avaliable between late 1941 and early '44. 
A Kasei-powered (plain-vanilla engine - no extension shaft or counter-rotaing 'nose' needed) fighter size of P-51/N1K-J/Bearcat with 200 gals of internal fuel and two drop tanks, produced in decent numbers, would've been an excellent additon to the Japanese war effort in 1942-44.



> We are in agreement here. The P-40B was certainly obsolete by 1943. Also remember that the P-40B gained quite a lot of weight when armour was added in the P-40C version in 1941. If the Ki 61-I had been introduced in 1941, I believe it would have been competitive but its performance level was quite below the standard by 1943 at its ACTUAL introduction. It had some redeeming characteristics, but performance was not so good.



An actually working Ki 61 was probably the best _Japanese_ fighter in 1943 historically.



> The construction / strength and equipment standard between Wildcat and Hellcat is not quite as different as that between the A6M and the next generation Japanese carrier fighter. Also, keep in mind that the performance level of the Hellcat was not quite adequate by the end of the Pacific war.
> 
> - Ivan.



Hellcat was vastly better than the best Japanese carrier-borne fighter - exactly what I'm after here. 
Japanese managed to skip a generation of carrier-borne fighters after the Zero (unlike the Americans, and unlike what they did with their dive- and torpedo-bombers) and thus shot themselves in another foot.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Minimum internal fuel of JM2 of 111 US gals (420) liters is less what was minimum for the Ki 61 (=500 L); max internal fuel for the J2M was smaller (159 gals) than of the Ki 61 (199 US gals). Now yes, we have a situation of versions of the Ki 61 carrying 595L, indeed less than 601L for the JM2 by 6 liters.
> Once we calculate in that Kasei was making 20-50% more power (depending on version and altitude) than Ha-40, it will not take a rocket scientist to arrive to a conclusion that JM2 was not carrying enough fuel to be a long range fighter.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

First of all, I believe you have a bit too much faith in the "removable" fuel tanks for J2M2 (Jack 11).
Second, the only the early versions of the Ki 61-I had 750 liters of internal fuel. As described earlier, the rest had considerably less.
The later production version, J2M3 (Jack 21) most certainly DID have 570 liters of internal fuel.
Another issue is that the fighters with engines in the 1000 HP range did not typically carry anti detonant and the Kasei needed quite a bit of it in order to even run at military power. Add a 120 liter water-methanol tank and the "fuel weight" of the Kasei equipped J2M becomes quite proportional to its power increase but the range does not increase.



tomo pauk said:


> Kasei was not an ideal engine, but it was the best what Japanese have had avaliable between late 1941 and early '44.
> A Kasei-powered (plain-vanilla engine - no extension shaft or counter-rotaing 'nose' needed) fighter size of P-51/N1K-J/Bearcat with 200 gals of internal fuel and two drop tanks, produced in decent numbers, would've been an excellent additon to the Japanese war effort in 1942-44.



The earlier Kasei had a much lower power level than the one used in the J2M fighter. I don't believe a 1942 engine would have given worthwhile performance. The later version needed anti detonant as did most other higher powered Japanese engines.
Your 200 Gallons of internal fuel just became about 250 Gallons when you consider than an additional tank and plumbing is needed and that the water-methanol mixture is heavier than fuel.



tomo pauk said:


> An actually working Ki 61 was probably the best _Japanese_ fighter in 1943 historically.



Your opinion, not necessarily shared by the pilots.



tomo pauk said:


> Hellcat was vastly better than the best Japanese carrier-borne fighter - exactly what I'm after here.
> Japanese managed to skip a generation of carrier-borne fighters after the Zero (unlike the Americans, and unlike what they did with their dive- and torpedo-bombers) and thus shot themselves in another foot.



There wasn't a next generation of Japanese carrier fighter other than vapor ware.
You seem to be stuck on the Kasei. I believe more could have been gained by resolving the problems with the Homare engine instead. From the Middletown rework of Ki 84, there wasn't anything basically wrong with the Homare other than poor quality accessories which would have affected any engine.

- Ivan.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 8, 2020)

The Ki-61 was approximately equal to the P-40N in performance. However there were 5220 P-40N models built and only 3,078 of all Ki-61s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> Another issue is that the fighters with engines in the 1000 HP range did not typically carry anti detonant and the Kasei needed quite a bit of it in order to even run at military power. Add a 120 liter water-methanol tank and the "fuel weight" of the Kasei equipped J2M becomes quite proportional to its power increase but the range does not increase.



Nobody was calcuating the ADI carried into weight of fuel, let's not start doing it in 2020.



> The earlier Kasei had a much lower power level than the one used in the J2M fighter. I don't believe a 1942 engine would have given worthwhile performance. The later version needed anti detonant as did most other higher powered Japanese engines.
> Your 200 Gallons of internal fuel just became about 250 Gallons when you consider than an additional tank and plumbing is needed and that the water-methanol mixture is heavier than fuel.



Later versions were able to use ADI, that was a feature, not a bug. People were very happy to implement ADI when possible - be that Americans, Germans or Japanese. 
The 1942 Kaseis (13, 14, 15) were good for 1280 HP at 19800 ft ('military power' per Americans) or 1405 HP at 19000 ft ('WER dry' per Americans, even if in this case it also included over-revving from 2350 to 2450 rpm) - akin to the 50% heavier BMW 801D of the era, and much more reliable.



> Your opinion, not necessarily shared by the pilots.



Fair enough.



> There wasn't a next generation of Japanese carrier fighter other than vapor ware.



That is what it's all about.



> You seem to be stuck on the Kasei. I believe more could have been gained by resolving the problems with the Homare engine instead. From the Middletown rework of Ki 84, there wasn't anything basically wrong with the Homare other than poor quality accessories which would have affected any engine.
> 
> - Ivan.



I'm all for solving the problems with Homare. When tested by 'West', it proved to be an excellent engine. 
Quirk is here that Kasei was a much earlier engine, as-is, in both production and service, and it is in production at another company. Homare can be installed on a fighter's new versions by 1944, meaning thet something much better than Sakae is needed in 1942-44.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 8, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Your opinion, not necessarily shared by the pilots.


Out of curiosity, what Japanese fighter would have been considered superior to the Ki-61 in 1943? Ki-44 maybe


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2020)

Conslaw said:


> The Ki-61 was approximately equal to the P-40N in performance. However there were 5220 P-40N models built and only 3,078 of all Ki-61s.



Hello Conslaw,

The P-40N was a bit faster, better climb rate and had a much better power to weight ratio. Note the comparison that Tomo Pauk made was to the P-40B, a much earlier aircraft. Firepower would vary depending on whether we are comparing the cannon armed or MG only Ki 61-I.



tomo pauk said:


> Nobody was calcuating the ADI carried into weight of fuel, let's not start doing it in 2020.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Perhaps people SHOULD have been calculating the weight of ADI because for a Japanese engine, it IS a part of the fuel load.



tomo pauk said:


> Later versions were able to use ADI, that was a feature, not a bug. People were very happy to implement ADI when possible - be that Americans, Germans or Japanese.



If you are making this comparison, then you don't really understand how the Japanese engines used ADI. They didn't carry 120 liters of water-methanol because they WANTED to. They needed ADI even to run MILITARY power.



tomo pauk said:


> The 1942 Kaseis (13, 14, 15) were good for 1280 HP at 19800 ft ('military power' per Americans) or 1405 HP at 19000 ft ('WER dry' per Americans, even if in this case it also included over-revving from 2350 to 2450 rpm) - akin to the 50% heavier BMW 801D of the era, and much more reliable.



That is an interesting point of view and I do see the merits. The problem though is that the "do-everything" carrier fighter isn't going to be as tiny as a FW 190A.



tomo pauk said:


> I'm all for solving the problems with Homare. When tested by 'West', it proved to be an excellent engine.
> Quirk is here that Kasei was a much earlier engine, as-is, in both production and service, and it is in production at another company. Homare can be installed on a fighter's new versions by 1944, meaning thet something much better than Sakae is needed in 1942-44.



This is kind of the chicken-egg problem. You need an engine but you also need an appropriate airframe to install it in. A6M really wasn't it but could have been improved to an extent with the Kinsei at some point. How early would an airframe need to be developed to be in service by 1942? What other engines were available?



Clayton Magnet said:


> Out of curiosity, what Japanese fighter would have been considered superior to the Ki-61 in 1943? Ki-44 maybe



Hello Clayton Magnet,

I believe that the Ki 43 was often preferred over the Ki 61. The Ki 44 makes better sense though.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Perhaps people SHOULD have been calculating the weight of ADI because for a Japanese engine, it IS a part of the fuel load.



Sorry, I don't agree with that.



> If you are making this comparison, then you don't really understand how the Japanese engines used ADI. They didn't carry 120 liters of water-methanol because they WANTED to. They needed ADI even to run MILITARY power.



I'm hardly a sharpest tool in the tollbox, and indeed I don't understand quite a lot.
On the other hand, reading the available data for the Kasei 10 series reveals that they will run even emergency rating (max power 1530 HP) without ADI, provided 92 oct fuel is used. With ADI, the Kasei 20 series will do 1880-1940 HP per Americans.
The respective data tables can be easily found on this forum, Techincal section. 
Nakajima's Ha-41 and -109 also didn't used ADI for any power setting.



> That is an interesting point of view and I do see the merits. The problem though is that the "do-everything" carrier fighter isn't going to be as tiny as a FW 190A.



It will be probably size of P-51, N1KJ-1, or Bearcat.



> This is kind of the chicken-egg problem. You need an engine but you also need an appropriate airframe to install it in. A6M really wasn't it but could have been improved to an extent with the Kinsei at some point. How early would an airframe need to be developed to be in service by 1942? What other engines were available?



Mitsubishi was producing Kasei and Kinsei, the later was installed (too late to matter) into A6M8 prototypes and, under another name, into Ki-100. Nakajima was making Ha-41/109 series, the Ha-109 was delivering about same power as the BMW 801C, but at much lower weight.
New naval fighter design(s) need to be put on the paper by time the design process for the Zero is done.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Sorry, I don't agree with that.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

Whether you agree with it or not, the bottom line is that the Kasei 23 engine NEEDED ADI in order to safely make military power.
At least that was the determination of the engineers at the time. I do not believe either of us has superior information to be able to determine that they were incorrect with the quality of fuel that they had available.



tomo pauk said:


> I'm hardly a sharpest tool in the tollbox, and indeed I don't understand quite a lot.
> On the other hand, reading the available data for the Kasei 10 series reveals that they will run even emergency rating (max power 1530 HP) without ADI, provided 92 oct fuel is used. With ADI, the Kasei 20 series will do 1880-1940 HP per Americans.
> The respective data tables can be easily found on this forum, Techincal section.
> Nakajima's Ha-41 and -109 also didn't used ADI for any power setting.



I am not commenting on intelligence. There are things each of us doesn't know which is why these forums are so interesting. Much as we seem to be disagreeing here, I have great respect for you.

The next question one should ask after noting which engines do not use Anti Detonant is what boost levels were those engines using when they did NOT use ADI.
The Sakae 21 engine also did not use ADI but it was only reaching +300 mm boost at Take-Off.
The Kasei 23 as used in Raiden was able to use +450 mm boost at Take-Off
The Homare / Ha-45 as used in Ki 84 was using +500 mm boost at Take-Off and even at a maximum cruise rating of +200 mm was using ADI.
You don't need to take my word for it. The report on the Middletown Ki 84 is available on these forums.
IIRC, the ADI came on automatically at +180 mm boost.
That is why for 700 liters of internal fuel, it was carrying 130 liters of water-methanol.



tomo pauk said:


> It will be probably size of P-51, N1KJ-1, or Bearcat.



The problem is that you are asking for features that each of those aircraft lacks. The P-51 has a particularly economical engine and isn't a naval fighter. The N1K-J never had the range you are calling for and neither did the Bearcat.

The N1K2-J also had essentially no armour at all which doesn't meet requirements. Even with much less range than the A6M series which means it does not meet your requirements, it carried 716 liters of internal fuel and about 140 liters of water-methanol needed to run the engine.
Whether you consider it fuel or not, it means that this aeroplane was carrying 189 Gallons of Gasoline and another 37 Gallons of something considerably heavier than Gasoline. It also could carry the 400 liter drop tank and even with that, it could not come close to the A6M.



tomo pauk said:


> Mitsubishi was producing Kasei and Kinsei, the later was installed (too late to matter) into A6M8 prototypes and, under another name, into Ki-100. Nakajima was making Ha-41/109 series, the Ha-109 was delivering about same power as the BMW 801C, but at much lower weight.
> New naval fighter design(s) need to be put on the paper by time the design process for the Zero is done.



It doesn't sound like there were a lot of choices for designing a new fighter with all the requirements you are asking for at the time that such a design needed to be done. It would be pretty hard to commit to a design without the knowledge of which engine would be developed to what extent. Who would have thought in 1940 that the Sakae 21 would have such a minimal power increase and the Sakae 31 would not work out? The ADI system worked out for Hayabusa.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> Whether you agree with it or not, the bottom line is that the Kasei 23 engine NEEDED ADI in order to safely make military power.
> At least that was the determination of the engineers at the time. I do not believe either of us has superior information to be able to determine that they were incorrect with the quality of fuel that they had available.



My comment: if a Japanese pilot is going to extract a lot of power from his Kasei via ADI , he might as well go for the whole hog = into 'WER wet'.



> I am not commenting on intelligence. There are things each of us doesn't know which is why these forums are so interesting. Much as we seem to be disagreeing here, I have great respect for you.



Thank you for the kind words. I can just reflect the same feelings towards you.



> The next question one should ask after noting which engines do not use Anti Detonant is what boost levels were those engines using when they did NOT use ADI.
> The Sakae 21 engine also did not use ADI but it was only reaching +300 mm boost at Take-Off.
> The Kasei 23 as used in Raiden was able to use +450 mm boost at Take-Off
> The Homare / Ha-45 as used in Ki 84 was using +500 mm boost at Take-Off and even at a maximum cruise rating of +200 mm was using ADI.
> ...



Kasei 21 and 25 run at +160 mm Hg before ADI was engaged, and up to +450 mm Hg with ADI. 
Kasei 11 and 15 were good for +270 mm Hg wthout ADI (take-off setting, 1530 or 1460 HP respectively, per Japanese; there was no option for ADI there), and +180 for rated power (= 1340 CV at 4300 m or 1300 CV at 6000 m, respectively, per Japanese).



> The problem is that you are asking for features that each of those aircraft lacks. The P-51 has a particularly economical engine and isn't a naval fighter. The N1K-J never had the range you are calling for and neither did the Bearcat.



I don't ask for anything from those aircraft apart the size.



> The N1K2-J also had essentially no armour at all which doesn't meet requirements. Even with much less range than the A6M series which means it does not meet your requirements, it carried 716 liters of internal fuel and about 140 liters of water-methanol needed to run the engine.
> Whether you consider it fuel or not, it means that this aeroplane was carrying 189 Gallons of Gasoline and another 37 Gallons of something considerably heavier than Gasoline. It also could carry the 400 liter drop tank and even with that, it could not come close to the A6M.



As before - plain-vanilla Kasei in the nose, size as mentioned, 200 gals of internal fuel + two drop tanks, Butterfly flaps, folding wing, 4 cannons. When better Kasei is available - use it. Homare is available - use that. ADI - install when available.



> It doesn't sound like there were a lot of choices for designing a new fighter with all the requirements you are asking for at the time that such a design needed to be done. It would be pretty hard to commit to a design without the knowledge of which engine would be developed to what extent. Who would have thought in 1940 that the Sakae 21 would have such a minimal power increase and the Sakae 31 would not work out? The ADI system worked out for Hayabusa.
> 
> - Ivan.



I'd say that 3 separate engine lines (Kasei, Kinsei, Ha-41/109) is quite a choice, and are in actual use before 1942 (bar the Ha-109). It will not take a rocket scientist to quickly came into conclusion that 28L Sakae can't compete vs. 32-42L engines produced in Japan, let alone Western engines that were know to exist before 1940/41 (R-2180E, R-2600, or big liquid cooled 12 cylinder engines).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 10, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The P-51 has a particularly economical engine and isn't a naval fighter.


No more economical than any other Merlin powered aircraft. What it had was a particularly economical airframe in terms of L/D, largely due to a couple of features that were "not quite ready for prime time" in 1940 Japan, and a design philosophy that would have been a hard sell in that place and time.
Plus, the Japanese had been focusing so long on radials for their light weight, they were a little behind the curve on liquid cooling. Witness their issues when handed the DB600 series engines fully developed, no R&D required. 🤔
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 10, 2020)

"economical engine"

We have to be rather careful here as the Merlin was never a particularly economical engine. At least in regards to power per pound (or gallon) of fuel burned. It had about the lowest compression ratio of any western engine (at least the major ones). The Allison was figured to be about 5-8% more economical and the radials did pretty good, at least on the HP/lbs of fuel/hr ratings at cruise settings. Things change when the air cooled engines went to rich settings (they were using extra fuel as a coolant) and then you have have the whole installation drag thing to figure out. For a few years the liquid cooled engines had a rather lower drag for the installed power advantage but that narrowed by the end of WW II. Post war it's gets a bit iffy as some of the commercial radial engine installations got pretty good but nobody was really working on the liquid cooled installations anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 10, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> My comment: if a Japanese pilot is going to extract a lot of power from his Kasei via ADI , he might as well go for the whole hog = into 'WER wet'.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

That seems like a pretty odd way to run an engine. Either economical cruise or War Emergency.



tomo pauk said:


> Kasei 21 and 25 run at +160 mm Hg before ADI was engaged, and up to +450 mm Hg with ADI.
> Kasei 11 and 15 were good for +270 mm Hg wthout ADI (take-off setting, 1530 or 1460 HP respectively, per Japanese; there was no option for ADI there), and +180 for rated power (= 1340 CV at 4300 m or 1300 CV at 6000 m, respectively, per Japanese).



The Kasei 21 and 25 sound like twins to the Kasei 23 in the Raiden as far as throttle settings.
The other seem quite a bit more limited in their ultimate performance.



tomo pauk said:


> As before - plain-vanilla Kasei in the nose, size as mentioned, 200 gals of internal fuel + two drop tanks, Butterfly flaps, folding wing, 4 cannons. When better Kasei is available - use it. Homare is available - use that. ADI - install when available.



Consider how the vapor ware fighter stacks up against the Shiden-KAI. It needs range equivalent to A6M, but the N1K2-J carries even more internal "fuel" than your specification but has considerably less range. How big do you intend for those "two drop tanks" to be? The N1K2-J was already carrying a 400 liter drop tank and still had less range.
The N1K2-J had decent performance, but it also had a much more powerful Homare engine with water-methanol injection to achieve it. It carried no equipment for a carrier fighter and other than some bullet proof glass, it had no armour.
Do you really think that adding equipment and armour and fuel for extra range and reducing engine power is going to result in reasonable performance?



tomo pauk said:


> 'd say that 3 separate engine lines (Kasei, Kinsei, Ha-41/109) is quite a choice, and are in actual use before 1942 (bar the Ha-109). It will not take a rocket scientist to quickly came into conclusion that 28L Sakae can't compete vs. 32-42L engines produced in Japan, let alone Western engines that were know to exist before 1940/41 (R-2180E, R-2600, or big liquid cooled 12 cylinder engines).



I believe what you are not taking into account is that the Sakae was a higher revving engine than the Kasei. Who would have thought that when they went from Sakae 12 to Sakae 21, the gain in HP would be nearly nothing except not quite 2000 meters in critical altitude when the boost was raised and RPM was raised as well?
Even the Homare wasn't a particularly large displacement engine at just a bit under 36 liters.



XBe02Drvr said:


> No more economical than any other Merlin powered aircraft. What it had was a particularly economical airframe in terms of L/D, largely due to a couple of features that were "not quite ready for prime time" in 1940 Japan, and a design philosophy that would have been a hard sell in that place and time.



Hello XBe02Drvr, Shortround6,

Thanks for the reminder. I was thinking more of the Merlin versus R-2800 when I wrote "economical".



XBe02Drvr said:


> Plus, the Japanese had been focusing so long on radials for their light weight, they were a little behind the curve on liquid cooling. Witness their issues when handed the DB600 series engines fully developed, no R&D required.



The story of the Ha-40 is a bit more complicated than that. The original engine that they were "handed" was a DB-601Aa which was the low rated version. What they and probably everyone else wanted was the DB-601A-1.which had less low altitude power but a higher critical altitude. The Japanese took that engine, lightened it a bit and also improved the supercharger enough to bring the critical altitude very close to that of the A-1 engine.
There is also the issue of having the plans for an object and not having the manufacturing capability to make it. There are plenty of modern examples of this kind of thing.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> That seems like a pretty odd way to run an engine. Either economical cruise or War Emergency.



Not much of an economical cruise - 1240 HP in low gear. That's 20% more than max power of the late Sakae versions.



> The Kasei 21 and 25 sound like twins to the Kasei 23 in the Raiden as far as throttle settings.
> The other seem quite a bit more limited in their ultimate performance.



The other (Kasei 11) was early engine - used from 1941.



> Consider how the vapor ware fighter stacks up against the Shiden-KAI. It needs range equivalent to A6M, but the N1K2-J carries even more internal "fuel" than your specification but has considerably less range. How big do you intend for those "two drop tanks" to be? The N1K2-J was already carrying a 400 liter drop tank and still had less range.
> The N1K2-J had decent performance, but it also had a much more powerful Homare engine with water-methanol injection to achieve it. It carried no equipment for a carrier fighter and other than some bullet proof glass, it had no armour.
> Do you really think that adding equipment and armour and fuel for extra range and reducing engine power is going to result in reasonable performance?



664 L (175.4 US gals) of the internal fuel of the Shiden-Kai is less than 200 US gals I've proposed. Two drop tanks of 300 or 400 liters should complement that fine.
Against the Zero - yes, we have more stuff in the aircraft, but also much more power.



> I believe what you are not taking into account is that the Sakae was a higher revving engine than the Kasei. Who would have thought that when they went from Sakae 12 to Sakae 21, the gain in HP would be nearly nothing except not quite 2000 meters in critical altitude when the boost was raised and RPM was raised as well?



A 10% greater RPM of 'engine X' is no match for 50% greater displacement of 'engine Y'. Everybody knew that - P&W, Wright, DB, RR, Bristol, Soviets, Japanese.



> Even the Homare wasn't a particularly large displacement engine at just a bit under 36 liters.



Okay.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 12, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Not much of an economical cruise - 1240 HP in low gear. That's 20% more than max power of the late Sakae versions.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

That 1240 HP actually is pretty close to what the Army version of the Sakae (Ha-115) with water-methanol injection was making in the Ki 43-III.
The other factor here is that the airframe that is being hauled by this engine isn't the lightweight Ki 43 or A6M but something a bit more capable and carrying more equipment, fuel and protection.



tomo pauk said:


> 664 L (175.4 US gals) of the internal fuel of the Shiden-Kai is less than 200 US gals I've proposed. Two drop tanks of 300 or 400 liters should complement that fine.
> Against the Zero - yes, we have more stuff in the aircraft, but also much more power.



The fuel load of the Shiden-KAI is a bit more than you think it is.
270 Liter Forward Fuselage Tank 
260 Liter Aft Fuselage Tank
2 x 93 Liter Wing Tanks
Total of 716 Liters Internal 
plus
140 Liters of Water-Methanol to be able to run the engine past cruise settings.
To ignore the requirement for carrying water-methanol is to ignore the realities that the Japanese designers had to deal with as the power levels of their engines were increased.

The problem with taking the A6M as a baseline for estimates is that nearly nothing is quite big enough or strong enough in comparison to the end product. The N1K2-J actually was an existing fighter built for the Navy with many of the features you are looking for and the level of structural strength and engine power but still lacking other features and that is why I believe it makes for a better starting point.



tomo pauk said:


> A 10% greater RPM of 'engine X' is no match for 50% greater displacement of 'engine Y'. Everybody knew that - P&W, Wright, DB, RR, Bristol, Soviets, Japanese.



The very curious thing about "Everybody knowing that" is that just about everyone ended up increasing the maximum RPM of their later engines. The R-2800 C series ran slightly faster as did later model JuMo and Daimler Benz engines, Klimov VK-107, The Allisons installed in the P-40Q, The Sakae engines already mentioned. The Napier Sabre and Nakajima Homare engines also ran surprisingly fast.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The very curious thing about "Everybody knowing that" is that just about everyone ended up increasing the maximum RPM of their later engines.


Turning a few more revs always seems a cheap and easy way to get some additional HP, but with these large displacement engines with so much rotating and oscillating mass it comes at the cost of exponentially increased bearing loads, friction penalties, and piston speed stresses, as well as cooling loads with their added drag penalties. Sooner rather than later you come up against the limits of the metallurgy available to you.
Just a reminder to some of you folks who seem to like to throw engine numbers around like you were pulling them out of a hat.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 12, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Turning a few more revs always seems a cheap and easy way to get some additional HP, but with these large displacement engines with so much rotating and oscillating mass it comes at the cost of exponentially increased bearing loads, friction penalties, and piston speed stresses, as well as cooling loads with their added drag penalties. Sooner rather than later you come up against the limits of the metallurgy available to you.
> Just a reminder to some of you folks who seem to like to throw engine numbers around like you were pulling them out of a hat.



Hello XBe02Drvr,

I am in complete agreement with your summary, but you have to admit that it WAS a general tendency for just about everyone to try to increase the RPM of their engines a bit with the later models. Whether it was a good idea or not, everyone was doing it.
Now, with these larger aero engines, we are still only talking 2400 RPM to about 3200 RPM max which is just idling when compared to smaller engines like we find in Formula 1 racers and about equal to what your family sedan is doing just puttering around the neighbourhood. I was surprised as heck to find my little push lawn mower's engine was set to run at 7800 RPM. I spent an awful lot of time around auto shops as I was growing up, so I also had a chance to see what happens when certain things break. Mechanics often like to save the really interesting looking failed pieces.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Mechanics often like to save the really interesting looking failed pieces.


Ayup, got a souvenir or two lying about.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello XBe02Drvr,
> 
> I am in complete agreement with your summary, but you have to admit that it WAS a general tendency for just about everyone to try to increase the RPM of their engines a bit with the later models. Whether it was a good idea or not, everyone was doing it.
> Now, with these larger aero engines, we are still only talking 2400 RPM to about 3200 RPM max which is just idling when compared to smaller engines like we find in Formula 1 racers and about equal to what your family sedan is doing just puttering around the neighbourhood. I was surprised as heck to find my little push lawn mower's engine was set to run at 7800 RPM. I spent an awful lot of time around auto shops as I was growing up, so I also had a chance to see what happens when certain things break. Mechanics often like to save the really interesting looking failed pieces.
> ...


I always try and keep my turbo diesel sports saloon between 1800 and 2500 rpm so it's just cruising.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> That 1240 HP actually is pretty close to what the Army version of the Sakae (Ha-115) with water-methanol injection was making in the Ki 43-III.



Yes, and that's all what it can do. We can try water injection on Kasei 20s, result being 1800+ HP to the prop.



> The other factor here is that the airframe that is being hauled by this engine isn't the lightweight Ki 43 or A6M but something a bit more capable and carrying more equipment, fuel and protection.



Of course.



> The fuel load of the Shiden-KAI is a bit more than you think it is.
> 270 Liter Forward Fuselage Tank
> 260 Liter Aft Fuselage Tank
> 2 x 93 Liter Wing Tanks
> ...



Yes, you are right, the 664L US gals of fuel was the figure for the 1st Shiden version (one with mid-wing).
Japanese state 1430 km for the 'K1-J, and 1713 km for the 'K2-J (figures without drop tank). One drop tank adds 1100 km. 
Kasei will be doing 10% less power = better mileage, another drop tank will benefit both range and radius, so will extra 40 liters of internal fuel.
I'm all for water-methanol to be carried once available.



> The very curious thing about "Everybody knowing that" is that just about everyone ended up increasing the maximum RPM of their later engines. The R-2800 C series ran slightly faster as did later model JuMo and Daimler Benz engines, Klimov VK-107, The Allisons installed in the P-40Q, The Sakae engines already mentioned. The Napier Sabre and Nakajima Homare engines also ran surprisingly fast.
> 
> - Ivan.



Later R-2800 of any flavor were still inferior to the R-4360. Jumo 213 indeed revved much faster than Jumo 211, price to pay was increase of dry weight by 50% give or take. DB 603 > DB 605. VK-107 didn't make more power than AM-42. Under same conditions, V-1710 or Merlin were inferior in power to Griffon. Sakae was not making power as good as Kinsei, let alone bigger Japanese engines. Sabre did run fast, and it made twice the power than even faster revving Dagger. Homare also run fast, Nakajima was still trying with big Ha 219.
In wartime especially, it was easier to increase max RPM by 5 or 10% on any given engine, than to increase displacement of a given engine.

BTW - I'd start a thread about what Japanese might do different in ww2 WRT their aircraft & related gear in the What-if thread.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Now, with these larger aero engines, we are still only talking 2400 RPM to about 3200 RPM max which is just idling when compared to smaller engines like we find in Formula 1 racers


True enough, but a 10-12K revving Ferrari engine wasn't going to happen in 1940 state of the art metallurgy, fuel, and lubrication wise. And the moving parts, despite their incredible speeds, are a tiny fraction of the weight of those of an R2800 or a DB601. Despite their relatively lower numbers, those engines weren't loafing; not by a long shot.
My first full time aero mechanic job involved early model RR Darts (Fokker F27) and late model PT6-67 Pratts (Shorts SD30), fairly close in SHP, but a lifetime (mine) apart in technology. The Dart (first truly successful turboprop engine) was born the same year I was, soon after WWII, and was an evolutionary "hybrid" between recip and turbine construction practices. It had a heavy, recip style engine case casting with a heavy planetary propshaft reduction gear in the nose and a two stage centrifugal compressor that looked straight out of a supercharger. This fed into individual separate burner cans that consisted of a casting and a liner, and could be unbolted and removed like recip cylinder jugs. With the entire aft section of the engine dominated by two turbine wheels (stolen from a hydropower plant, by the look of them!) and a tailpipe, where do you put the accessory case? Easy! Unbolt one from the back of a radial, rotate it to the horizontal, stuff it on a shelf over the power section/tailpipe area, and power it with a driveshaft.
Needless to say, this Rube Goldberg creation didn't spin at anywhere near the 36K RPM N1 of the PT6s. The quaint tachometers in the cockpit gave shaft and prop revs (as if it wasn't a fixed ratio!), and I seem to remember shaft topping out at about 10K. Oh, and a biggie. RR neglected to include bidirectional thrust bearings, so no reverse thrust available. You could GINGERLY ease the props into ground fine just enough to cancel the residual tailpipe thrust, but overdo it, and ground fine becomes ground bearings. Ouch$$$$!
IIRC, the Darts rated about 1850 SHP, and the Pratts (at 1/3 the weight, and <1/2 the fuel burn), about 1480.
Just another blast from the past.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 12, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Yes, and that's all what it can do. We can try water injection on Kasei 20s, result being 1800+ HP to the prop.



Hello Tomo Pauk,

You were the one doing the comparison between the cruise power of Kasei and the max power of the Sakae.



tomo pauk said:


> Yes, you are right, the 664L US gals of fuel was the figure for the 1st Shiden version (one with mid-wing).
> Japanese state 1430 km for the 'K1-J, and 1713 km for the 'K2-J (figures without drop tank). One drop tank adds 1100 km.
> Kasei will be doing 10% less power = better mileage, another drop tank will benefit both range and radius, so will extra 40 liters of internal fuel.
> I'm all for water-methanol to be carried once available.



From what I have been able to find, that isn't really correct for the N1K1-J either. Perhaps that was the data for the N1K1???
The N1K1-J carried
210 Liter Forward Fuselage Tank
165 Liter Aft Fuselage Tank
2 x 180 Liter Wing Tanks
Total of 735 Liters of internal fuel.



tomo pauk said:


> Later R-2800 of any flavor were still inferior to the R-4360. Jumo 213 indeed revved much faster than Jumo 211, price to pay was increase of dry weight by 50% give or take. DB 603 > DB 605. VK-107 didn't make more power than AM-42. Under same conditions, V-1710 or Merlin were inferior in power to Griffon. Sakae was not making power as good as Kinsei, let alone bigger Japanese engines. Sabre did run fast, and it made twice the power than even faster revving Dagger. Homare also run fast, Nakajima was still trying with big Ha 219.
> In wartime especially, it was easier to increase max RPM by 5 or 10% on any given engine, than to increase displacement of a given engine.



Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost. Note that the F2G Corsair got pretty much nowhere except in civilian racing while the inferior F4U-4 seemed to do pretty well.
The point I was trying to make was that despite "everyone knowing", just about everyone tried increasing the RPM of their engines in a given model. Comparing engines across different lines can be done all day and come to no real conclusion.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> 
> You were the one doing the comparison between the cruise power of Kasei and the max power of the Sakae.



Yes, indeed.



> From what I have been able to find, that isn't really correct for the N1K1-J either. Perhaps that was the data for the N1K1???
> The N1K1-J carried
> 210 Liter Forward Fuselage Tank
> 165 Liter Aft Fuselage Tank
> ...



Might be.



> Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost. Note that the F2G Corsair got pretty much nowhere except in civilian racing while the inferior F4U-4 seemed to do pretty well.
> The point I was trying to make was that despite "everyone knowing", just about everyone tried increasing the RPM of their engines in a given model. Comparing engines across different lines can be done all day and come to no real conclusion.
> 
> - Ivan.



The only reason why I've compared the engines is to show that a much greater displacement trumps a slight RPM advantage.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost. Note that the F2G Corsair got pretty much nowhere except in civilian racing while the inferior F4U4 seemed to do pretty well.


Beat me to it, Ivan! Stole the words right out of my mouth!
I entered the Navy in the dying days of the R2800 and the R4360, and there were plenty of old time ADRs around to lament the waning of the 2800 and celebrate the decline of the 4360. "Give those lazy reservists something to keep them occupied!" And then there was the 3350 crowd, but they were quite another tribe entirely, and not considered civilized, even. "I'd throw in the towel and become a kerosene breather before I'd join that lot!"
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> ...
> Regarding R-2800 versus R-4360, inferior is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt the R-4360 COULD make more power but at what cost.



To return here a bit. When going to the B-50, opinion of the USAAF was that 3500 HP provided by R-4360 was a superior option than whatever the R-3350 was making on it's extra 100 rpm, let alone the R-2800.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 12, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> To return here a bit. When going to the B-50, opinion of the USAAF was that 3500 HP provided by R-4360 was a superior option than whatever the R-3350 was making on it's extra 100 rpm, let alone the R-2800.


A perfectly rational decision by the bean counters and the slipstick sliders who don't have to deal with the nitty gritty. It's the operational folks, maintenance and flight crews who have to face the accusations when it doesn't live up to readiness and availability expectations and exceeds its projected maintenance budget.
"It's a POS!" is not an acceptable answer.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The R-2800 C series ran slightly faster as did later model JuMo and Daimler Benz engines, Klimov VK-107, The Allisons installed in the P-40Q,


R-2800C was a completely different engine that shared the same bore and stroke (and the starter dog?), New crankcase, new crankshaft, new con rods, new pistons.

The Klimov VK-107 took over 4 years to get into service (with such outstanding reliability {sarcasm} that it was taken out of production_ twice_ during the postwar years while problems were fixed). 

The Allisons in the P-40Q (and some other late war aircraft) had a crankshaft with 27lbs worth of counter weights added.

The French Pre war Hispanos that ran at 2500rpm instead of 2400rpm had vibration dampers added in addition to a few other modifications, like changing the conrods 

Yes, later engines were developed (not just allowed) to run at higher rpm but it took improved metallurgy as in different bearings or bearing material, a better understanding of vibration and how to deal with it and almost always the engines grew in weight to handle the increased stress.

Now please note that most of these engines are NOT going to get a very big increase in power from RPM alone.

The R-2800C only turned 3.7% faster than the R-2800B. The engine in the P-40Q turned 6.6% faster than a normal P-40 engine, the P-40Qs speed came from being able to use 75in of MAP at altitude and not at sea level. 

WIthout comparing engines from different times we can compare the Mercedes 1939 M163 3 liter Formula one engine. However as I have said before comparing car engines to aircraft engines leaves out the aspect that in many cases the car engines were built to an artificial displacement limit. Artificial in the sense that it was either a rule imposed by the race organizers or it was way of classifying engines for a government tax. If you are going to build a 3 liter engine you have two avenues of increased power. Increase the RPM for more power strokes per minute or increase the volumetric efficiency with better breathing or supercharging. 
For the aircraft engine maker the option of just making a bigger engine was usually open, at least until they hit _real_ limits, like the speed of combustion in the cylinder limiting the bore of the cylinders. 

The Mercedes engine used 67mm X 70mm cylinders. it used 4 valves per cylinder in a pent roof DOHC head. it used a real witches brew of fuel (86% methanol, 8.8 % acetone, 4.5% nitrobenzol and 0.8% sulphuric ether.. It ran at 2.31 Atm for manifold pressure (19 1/4lbs of boost?) and at 7500rpm it made 480hp, it used a two stage supercharger (one supercharger discharging into the inlet of the 2nd supercharger.) The BMEP was 305psi. 

The Corrected piston speed was 3,370ft/min, a bit more on this later.

the engine weighed 603lbs. (dry weight) and this, while an extreme example, shows the problem with high rpm engines.

The P & W Wasp Junior which was hardly state of the art in 1939-41 weighed about 10% more (668lbs) was 16.1 liters (over 5 times the displacement) 132 X132mm cylinders, 2 valves per cylinder using push rods. It ran on 91 octane fuel and at 36.25 in hg (3 1/4 lbs?) at 2300rpm it made 450hp for take-off. It could also make 400hp at 5,000ft at 2200rpm for as long as the fuel lasted. The BMEP was 157psi and the piston speed was 1,988fp/min. 

Since aircraft desingers don't give a rat's *ss about the displacement of an engine (unless they are building a race plane for certain set of race rules) and are very interested in power for weight, reliability and fuel consumption, heavy/high rpm engines never found much favor, Major Halford aside. 

Piston speed was often used to compare engines at the time but it was not really a reflection of the stress or friction of the pistons and pistons rings but rather an easily computed number the reflected the stress on the rod bearings and reciprocating parts.
The Bristol Pegasus engine due to it's long stroke had one of the highest piston speeds of the time. 190mm (75in) times 2600rpm giving 3250fpm uncorrected. The corrected piston speed was 2850fpm to account for the light pistons (small diameter.) 
The formula is twice the stroke in feet, times the rpm, then the mean piston speed is divided by the square root of the stroke/bore ratio, to reflect large diameter/heavy pistons and small diameter light pistons. 

Major Halford went off on his small cylinder, high RPM tangent in an effort to build a powerful and fuel efficient engine given the fuels of the time. A small cylinder will cool better than a large cylinder (more cylinder wall per unit of volume) and he was hoping to use higher compression in the cylinders and more rpm to make power. Unfortunately for him (and Napiers) fuel improved faster than he could develop his engines and the large cylinder engine designers could simply boost pressure (and redo the broken parts) with little or no change in rpm. 
The lots of little cylinders branch of development also had increased maintenance loads. One reason the R-4360 was so unpopular, 56 spark plugs to change.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2020)

Hello Shortfound6,

Thank you for a very interesting discussion about the issues of high RPM engines. I am not entirely unfamiliar with them.
You and XBe02Drvr seem to have come to the conclusion that I was ADVOCATING increasing RPM to increase power for large aero engines.
I was actually doing nothing of the sort. I was simply making an OBSERVATION that contrary to the statement that "everybody knew it would not work", just about every company tried increasing RPM on its later engines. I never claimed it was a good idea.



Shortround6 said:


> The Allisons in the P-40Q (and some other late war aircraft) had a crankshaft with 27lbs worth of counter weights added.



Is there really a problem with increasing the size of counterweights on the crankshaft other than it reducing the revving response of the engine?
In my opinion, to reduce overall stresses on the engine, balancing with counterweights on the crank is much superior to a harmonic balancer on the end of the crankshaft even though the harmonic balancer is lighter overall.
I believe it tends to reduce the resonant vibrations through the engine which may be less predictable at various RPM ranges.



Shortround6 said:


> The Bristol Pegasus engine due to it's long stroke had one of the highest piston speeds of the time. 190mm (75in) times 2600rpm giving 3250fpm uncorrected. The corrected piston speed was 2850fpm to account for the light pistons (small diameter.)
> The formula is twice the stroke in feet, times the rpm, then the mean piston speed is divided by the square root of the stroke/bore ratio, to reflect large diameter/heavy pistons and small diameter light pistons.



I understand the idea of piston speed and BMEP, but why would you divide by the square root of the stroke/bore ratio?
This is starting to remind me of discussions I had with a NASCAR engine builder who happened to work in the same shop as I did for a while.



Shortround6 said:


> Major Halford went off on his small cylinder, high RPM tangent in an effort to build a powerful and fuel efficient engine given the fuels of the time. A small cylinder will cool better than a large cylinder (more cylinder wall per unit of volume) and he was hoping to use higher compression in the cylinders and more rpm to make power. Unfortunately for him (and Napiers) fuel improved faster than he could develop his engines and the large cylinder engine designers could simply boost pressure (and redo the broken parts) with little or no change in rpm.
> The lots of little cylinders branch of development also had increased maintenance loads. One reason the R-4360 was so unpopular, 56 spark plugs to change.



As I understand it, small diameter long stroke pistons also don't do well for overall friction either.
I wonder if these engines have an advantage in piston dwell time such as one might get by longer connecting rods?

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 13, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Is there really a problem with increasing the size of counterweights on the crankshaft other than it reducing the revving response of the engine?


If you get all your resonance calculations spot on, probably not. Small errors can result in significantly higher bearing stresses. Revving response should not be an issue if you have a reasonably responsive constant speed prop and governor, as RPM shouldn't change much. Not so with some electric props whose response lag allowed RPM excursions under rapidly changing flight loads, like air combat. Years ago I remember seeing a utube video taken from inside a Cessna 152 Acrobat doing its thing, in which the tachometer and view out the windshield were both visible. The RPM fluctuations of the fixed pitch prop graphically highlighted the widely varying aerodynamic loads on the prop.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If you get all your resonance calculations spot on, probably not. Small errors can result in significantly higher bearing stresses. Revving response should not be an issue if you have a reasonably responsive constant speed prop and governor, as RPM shouldn't change much. Not so with some electric props whose response lag allowed RPM excursions under rapidly changing flight loads, like air combat. Years ago I remember seeing a utube video taken from inside a Cessna 152 Acrobat doing its thing, in which the tachometer and view out the windshield were both visible. The RPM fluctuations of the fixed pitch prop graphically highlighted the widely varying aerodynamic loads on the prop.



Hello XBe02Drvr,

My knowledge of the differences is based on the differences between the old Ford 289 CID V-8 and the newer 302 CID "5.0 Liter" V-8 and also other automotive V-8 engines.
The older 289 had larger counterweights and therefore a greater rotating mass, but didn't have the same requirement for a large harmonic balancer at the end of the crankshaft to dampen vibrations along the crank because there were not as many. Each reciprocating mass of piston and connecting rod was better balanced locally.
I believe "close" is all you would ever get with an actual engine and there would always be resonances at some RPM range. They would just be worse with smaller counterweights.
This was also typical NASCAR engine practice with larger counterweights. They were willing to give up a little quick revving in acceleration in order to have better durability in sustained high RPM operation.

The Cessna 152 Aerobat is the only real aircraft *I* have actually "flown", though it is a bit of a stretch to call what I was doing "flying".
I did serve as "Ballast" (as a friend of mine calls it) in the left hand seat for a few actual aerobatic flights. Things happen very much in slow motion in that aeroplane!

- Ivan.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 13, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello XBe02Drvr,
> 
> My knowledge of the differences is based on the differences between the old Ford 289 CID V-8 and the newer 302 CID "5.0 Liter" V-8 and also other automotive V-8 engines.
> The older 289 had larger counterweights and therefore a greater rotating mass, but didn't have the same requirement for a large harmonic balancer at the end of the crankshaft to dampen vibrations along the crank because there were not as many. Each reciprocating mass of piston and connecting rod was better balanced locally.
> ...



Ivan,

The Ford 289 K Code / HiPo engine used a different balancer and a hatchet counter weight on the crank to help with the RPMs. I have a 1966 Mustang GT 2+2 with this little screamer. The 66 warranties were 12 months 12k miles for the standard V8, and 3 months 4K for the K codes. Ford expected them to be abused I guess.

“The 289 High Performance balancer is larger in width at 337⁄64 inches wide. It is wider and heavier to compensate for the high revs and larger/heavier 3/8-inch rod bolts. The 1969–1970 Boss 302 balancer is also wider and on par with the 289 High Performance balancer.”

Cheers,
Biff

_




_​
_Here’s the 1963–1967 289 High Performance slide-on crankshaft counterweight. The Hi-Po needs a nar-rower timing sprocket and chain to make room for this counterweight._ ​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortfound6,
> 
> Thank you for a very interesting discussion about the issues of high RPM engines. I am not entirely unfamiliar with them.
> You and XBe02Drvr seem to have come to the conclusion that I was ADVOCATING increasing RPM to increase power for large aero engines.
> I was actually doing nothing of the sort. I was simply making an OBSERVATION that contrary to the statement that "everybody knew it would not work", just about every company tried increasing RPM on its later engines. I never claimed it was a good idea.



It didn't work in the sense that engine companies tried to increase RPM _only_ without doing other things. And a number of companies either didn't increase RPM or increased it only a modest amount. P & W didn't try to use high rpm on the replacement for the R-1830 for example, they just used larger diameter pistons. A few late model R-2000s did go to 2800rpm but the majority stayed at the same 2700rpm as vast numbers of R-1830s. P & W also used higher boost (translates to higher BMEP) which seems to have been the prefered method of getting more HP in US and British engines during WW II. Of course it was the allies who had the fuel that allowed them to use this avenue. The Germans and Japanese did not (or had much less access to this avenue) and were forced to use either larger displacement or higher RPM or both.





> Is there really a problem with increasing the size of counterweights on the crankshaft other than it reducing the revving response of the engine?
> In my opinion, to reduce overall stresses on the engine, balancing with counterweights on the crank is much superior to a harmonic balancer on the end of the crankshaft even though the harmonic balancer is lighter overall.
> I believe it tends to reduce the resonant vibrations through the engine which may be less predictable at various RPM ranges.



The increase in weight of the crankshaft probably did nothing to the rev response the engine. With a nearly 400lb propeller on the front end of the engine adding 27lbs worth of counter weights would not be noticed by the average pilot. You may be right about the counter weights being superior, the 27 counter weight crank certainly imposed much lower loads on the engine.





> I understand the idea of piston speed and BMEP, but why would you divide by the square root of the stroke/bore ratio?



it tends to equalize the difference between small bore/light pistons and big bore/heavy pistons. Not very many Aircraft engines were over square but a few were decidedly undersquare and while some of them ran at a high piston speed (like the Pegasus) the small bore tended to get overlooked. Oversquare engines tend to get a pass. The 5,00 X 4.75 Napier Sabre engine's 3,058fpm (at 3,700rpm) should probably be corrected to 3,165 fpm to compare to the Griffon engine. 
Yes it is a simple calculation that does not really account for different weight pistons/pins and rods but it may be better than just figuring the piston speed. 

See: Mean piston speed - Wikipedia 






> As I understand it, small diameter long stroke pistons also don't do well for overall friction either.
> I wonder if these engines have an advantage in piston dwell time such as one might get by longer connecting rods?



They probably don't have an advantage in friction, but they may have an advantage in cooling.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 13, 2020)

Ivan1GFP said:


> My knowledge of the differences is based on the differences between the old Ford 289 CID V-8 and the newer 302 CID "5.0 Liter" V-8





BiffF15 said:


> The Ford 289 K Code / HiPo engine used a different balancer and a hatchet counter weight on the crank to help with the RPMs. I have a 1966 Mustang GT 2+2 with this little screamer.


It's great fun talking and reminiscing about muscle car and hotrod engines, but let's not forget, they're a whole different animal in a whole different ecosystem from a fighter engine. Let's not draw too many parallels, as their performance demands and operating profiles are so radically different, especially if the aircraft is constant speed equipped.
No automotive engine, even a Ferrari or Alfa at Le Mans, is required to run continuously at such a high percentage of its peak output as a fighter engine. OTOH, instantaneous revving response is nowhere near as critical in a fighter as in a race car.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 13, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Ivan,
> 
> The Ford 289 K Code / HiPo engine used a different balancer and a hatchet counter weight on the crank to help with the RPMs. I have a 1966 Mustang GT 2+2 with this little screamer. The 66 warranties were 12 months 12k miles for the standard V8, and 3 months 4K for the K codes. Ford expected them to be abused I guess.
> 
> “The 289 High Performance balancer is larger in width at 337⁄64 inches wide. It is wider and heavier to compensate for the high revs and larger/heavier 3/8-inch rod bolts. The 1969–1970 Boss 302 balancer is also wider and on par with the 289 High Performance balancer.”



Hello BiffF15,

I never actually had too many encounters with the Hi Performance 289. They were kind of rare.
From what I remember, they were about 270 HP and had solid lifters, different cam and factory headers.
I remember after a drag race in which we managed to collapse a lifter in our standard 289 4V, I was thinking solid lifters might be an idea but my Dad was of the opinion that they were too much of a maintenance hassle.

From what I remember about the old standard 289 with a 4 barrel, it was making best power at 4800 RPM but had a redline not much above that.
What is interesting in comparison is that the much newer 302 my Mustang didn't have the same counterweights and a much lower RPM for best power, (about 4200 RPM IIRC), but had a redline in theory at 6000 RPM. There is a rev limiter (ignition cutoff) that is standard that cuts at 6250 RPM and I have heard it go a few times when the car has been on a Dynojet. I always thought the Dynojet runs were a bit abusive and also expensive, so eventually I had the car weighed and switched to a GTech accelerometer to measure rear-wheel HP.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It's great fun talking and reminiscing about muscle car and hotrod engines, but let's not forget, they're a whole different animal in a whole different ecosystem from a fighter engine. Let's not draw too many parallels, as their performance demands and operating profiles are so radically different, especially if the aircraft is constant speed equipped.
> No automotive engine, even a Ferrari or Alfa at Le Mans, is required to run continuously at such a high percentage of its peak output as a fighter engine. OTOH, instantaneous revving response is nowhere near as critical in a fighter as in a race car.
> Cheers,
> Wes




Wes,

Totally agree with all the above. My point was to parallel what Allison did with the later cranks to what Ford did with the 289 HiPo to insure better operation under higher stress. I get the aircraft power plant, particularly in fighters, was a hot rod engine pushing the boundaries of performance limited by reliability.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 14, 2020)

Agreed.
There can be a direct comparison between combat aircraft engines and "hotrod" engines, because no one ever worried about WEP or RoC in their 172...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 14, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed.
> There can be a direct comparison between combat aircraft engines and "hotrod" engines, because no one ever worried about WEP or RoC in their 172...


True enough, but there sure were times I wished that old T34 had a few more ponies under her hood!


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> True enough, but there sure were times I wished that old T34 had a few more ponies under her hood!



I haven’t flown a T34 but have heard they are fun!

Previously you made a comment on about rev response in a fighter wasn’t as critical. The thing I’m leery of is how much throttle jockeying actually went on. There are places in a fight where either the offender or the defender will / can greatly change the nature or outcome by moving their left hand.

If you are defensive with an adversary established in the “riding” position then you need to cause him a closure problem while jinking to avoid lead poisoning. Leaving your power up makes his problem easier. I’ve watched enough gun footage of guys overshooting to know the offender, on either side, was either in the hit and run mode or in the unrecognized closure mode, AKA buck fever. I can’t imagine with the adrenal level for guys in the middle of a massive life or death battle, especially after the minimal level of preparation they received, not doing simple things wrong like controlling closure. Or was that the way they were taught. I don’t know or have a guy I could sit down with a ask.

In today’s fights there are / is quite a bit of moving the throttles, I just don’t know how much was done back in the day. Today, if you are pulling back on the trigger then most of the time you are pulling back on the throttles.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2020)

Once you had constant speed props, assuming the prop responded well, the engine rpm should NOT change that much. 
Speed would be varied by the propeller responding to the load on it and power (that means boost for most of these engines) supplied. Cut back on "throttle" and boost drops and propeller adopt finer pitch (less speed for the same engine rpm) while the engine stays at the same rpm. Open the throttle (more boost/power) and the prop moves to course pitch and higher speeds. Obviously this has limits but once in combat the engine RPM is not going to drop to long range cruise rpm almost regardless of what the airplane/pilot are doing. 
If the pilot is bounced while in economical cruise all bets are off. however getting that 400lb prop to rev up from 1000rpm to 1500rpm (assuming a 2:1 reduction gear) is a bigger problem than the rotating/reciprocating masses inside the engine. 

This is my opinion, Pilots with real world experience are more than welcome to correct me. But this propeller thing is a major difference between piston engine aircraft and ground vehicles.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 14, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I haven’t flown a T34 but have heard they are fun!
> Previously you made a comment on about rev response in a fighter wasn’t as critical. The thing I’m leery of is how much throttle jockeying actually went on.


Those guys didn't have the energy to burn that you superjocks have. Once the surly bonds of earth were loosed, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings bled off energy faster than it could be replenished. Adrenalated and imbued with "speed is life", a low time combat pilot would likely find it counter intuitive to deliberately sacrifice some in the middle of a furball. A lesson that the overweight, underpowered T34 taught me. It's a blast to fly, but hemorrhages energy like a slashed carotid in aerobatics. There's an STC to bolt a 285 HP IO520 on in place of the stock 225 HP O470, and that's what the airshow performer T34s have. Those extra 60 ponies are something to salivate over.



Shortround6 said:


> If the pilot is bounced while in economical cruise all bets are off. however getting that 400lb prop to rev up from 1000rpm to 1500rpm (assuming a 2:1 reduction gear) is a bigger problem than the rotating/reciprocating masses inside the engine.


SR6, thanks for the lucid clarification of prop/engine behavior in dynamic energy situations. In discussing this I tend to assume some things are self evident, and fail to explain in sufficient detail.
In the case of the surprise bounce, the adrenalated young pilot's first response is likely to be "balls to the walls", bending throttle, prop, and mixture levers over their forward stops, while the engineers back at Alison and Pratt and Wright cringe at their drafting tables.
So what happens? The engine gets a huge slug of rich mixture (which the pressure carb meters to an acceptable rate), and the prop governor's flyweights are seeking a higher RPM. This drives the prop blades to lower pitch, reducing aerodynamic rotational resistance and dedicating nearly all of the rapidly increasing engine torque to accelerating the rotating mass toward the new RPM setpoint. As the setpoint is approached, the pressure generated by the flyweights is taken up more and more by the control actuating spring and less and less by the propeller hydraulic control valve, causing the blades to drift toward a coarser pitch and aerodynamic rotational resistance to absorb more and more of the engine's torque. IF the damping of the governor is correct, rotational resistance and engine torque will come gracefully into balance at rated engine RPM. That and $10.79 will buy you an 8 oz coffee at any Starbucks in the nation. In practice, what you're likely to get in the mad scramble of a bounce turned furball is RPM overshoots and undershoots until the prop and governor catch up with themselves, and a mandatory report to your crew chief if you had the presence of mind to observe the overspeed excursion. (But don't get your posterior perforated while staring at the tach!)
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Those guys didn't have the energy to burn that you superjocks have. Once the surly bonds of earth were loosed, dancing the sky on laughter silvered wings bled off energy faster than it could be replenished. Adrenalated and imbued with "speed is life", a low time combat pilot would likely find it counter intuitive to deliberately sacrifice some in the middle of a furball. A lesson that the overweight, underpowered T34 taught me. It's a blast to fly, but hemorrhages energy like a slashed carotid in aerobatics. There's an STC to bolt a 285 HP IO520 on in place of the stock 225 HP O470, and that's what the airshow performer T34s have. Those extra 60 ponies are something to salivate over.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

While I haven’t done BFM / dogfighting in a piston engine warbirds, I have in the OV-10, AT-38, and F-15. Near even power results are all about the same, groveling at the floor most of the time. Excess power allows you to make / regain energy faster (fighting an F16 this is very apparent). 

The biggest shortfall those guys had in WW2 was, in my opinion, proper combat training. As the war went on things like Clobber College was introduced as well as combat experience flowing back into the fighter training units.

Speed is life is a good rule of thumb. Except when it isn’t. It works well for the new guy, as well as mirror BFM (do what the other guy is doing as it neutralizes him) until you get some experience under your belt.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In the case of the surprise bounce, the adrenalated young pilot's first response is likely to be "balls to the walls", bending throttle, prop, and mixture levers over their forward stops, while the engineers back at Alison and Pratt and Wright cringe at their drafting tables.
> So what happens?



In the case of a P-38 Lightning on a high altitude escort mission, there was a pretty fair chance there would be the sound of detonation, a bit of clanking, perhaps a connecting rod out the side or some other catastrophic failure as the fuel that had fallen out of suspension suddenly reached the engine.

=^(

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Excess power allows you to make / regain energy faster (fighting an F16 this is very apparent).


This is the big difference between modern and WWII fighters, the huge amount of excess power today's jets have. Quick recovery makes yielding a little energy to gain a tactical advantage a little less dangerous.



BiffF15 said:


> The biggest shortfall those guys had in WW2 was, in my opinion, proper combat training. As the war went on things like Clobber College was introduced as well as combat experience flowing back into the fighter training units.


BINGO! Chuck Yeager: "In fighter combat, the pilot with the most experience will win."



Ivan1GFP said:


> In the case of a P-38 Lightning on a high altitude escort mission, there was a pretty fair chance there would be the sound of detonation, a bit of clanking, perhaps a connecting rod out the side or some other catastrophic failure as the fuel that had fallen out of suspension suddenly reached the engine.
> =^(


Everyone says the P38 was a complex difficult aircraft for a tyro pilot to handle in battle. I don't know the details, but I'm guessing this is one bird that required a little restraint in its throttle jockeying, a difficult thing for a low timer to handle in the scramble of a surprise bounce.
In a Lightning you're not likely to hear the detonation or the clanking of a failing engine over the wind and propeller noise and through the muffling effect of the turbocharger. You will certainly feel it in the form of vibration and asymmetric thrust.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 15, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> This is the big difference between modern and WWII fighters, the huge amount of excess power today's jets have. Quick recovery makes yielding a little energy to gain a tactical advantage a little less dangerous.
> 
> 
> BINGO! Chuck Yeager: "In fighter combat, the pilot with the most experience will win."
> ...



Wes,

About two years ago while doing trading for my airline I was assigned a retired A10 guy for an IP. We were talking and he and a Eagle bud both had RV type planes and were regularly doing BFM. His plane was slightly better however he said the Eagle guy always seemed to win or have more energy at the end of a fight. I think he wanted me to go up in his pit and watch/ pass pointers.

While planes have increased dramatically in to thrust to weight I don’t think the fighting has changed that much if the only weapon is a gun. I liken props doing BFM as “slow motion” fighting not really due to aircraft speed but to the rate at which things happen. 

To the A10 guy things weren’t that much slower, but to the Eagle guy they were probably noticeably so. Also one guy had many more fights under his belt. Experience counts.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 16, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> We were talking and he and a Eagle bud both had RV type planes and were regularly doing BFM.


If I were going to go out and do ACM in an RV or any other homebuilt, it would only be one in which I had personally cut every piece of metal, made every weld, and driven every rivet. And I would be wearing a chute I had personally jumped before and had personally packed under the supervision of the local skydive club's professional rigger.
The days of young and foolish are ancient history.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 24, 2020)

Newbie alert.
What are: BFM
IP
ACM
RV?
Your patience is appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 24, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Newbie alert.
> What are: BFM
> IP
> ACM
> ...



ACM = Air Combat Maneuvers
BFM = Basic Fighter Maneuvers
RV is one of a a series of homebuilt|kit aircraft produced by Van's Aircraft
IP can be Intercept Profile, Instructor Pilot, or Initial Point. 

Note that I'm not 100% certain of those interpretations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 24, 2020)

Thanks yet again.


----------



## BiffF15 (May 24, 2020)

Swampyankee is completely correct. BFM is dogfighting's modern name.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## SaparotRob (May 24, 2020)

I never doubted it!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 24, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Swampyankee is completely correct. BFM is dogfighting's modern name.


Except, I still keep hearing tailhookers calling it ACM.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BiffF15 (May 25, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Except, I still keep hearing tailhookers calling it ACM.
> Cheers,
> Wes



There’s more of us than them!

It’s just like aspect, both are branches of the same military yet it’s completely opposite. However, when you pass someone going in the opposite direction on a two lane road it’s referred to as passing someone 180 out. Or 18 aspect. Except in the USN it’s called zero aspect. Makes sense to me, said no one EVER!

So much for standardization...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Elvis (May 25, 2020)

I thought an RV was a Recreational Vehicle...actually, if you think about it, it kinda goes hand-in-hand with the Van's aircraft definition.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 25, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> when you pass someone going in the opposite direction on a two lane road it’s referred to as passing someone 180 out. Or 18 aspect. Except in the USN it’s called zero aspect. Makes sense to me, said no one EVER!


You guys just don't get it. You don't seem to understand decks and overheads, and ladders and bulkheads and port and starboard either.
If your soon-to-be victim is coming at you from dead ahead, he/she/it bears 0 degrees relative, thus zero aspect. If 180 aspect, better check your six!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## BiffF15 (May 25, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You guys just don't get it. You don't seem to understand decks and overheads, and ladders and bulkheads and port and starboard either.
> If your soon-to-be victim is coming at you from dead ahead, he/she/it bears 0 degrees relative, thus zero aspect. If 180 aspect, better check your six!
> Cheers,
> Wes



You are right, the USN is confused! You convinced me. I give up.

When the USAAF became the USAF we left behind so many traditions unhampered by progress...

😉

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## gjs238 (May 25, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The Allisons in the P-40Q (and some other late war aircraft) had a crankshaft with 27lbs worth of counter weights added.



So much for the natural balance of V-12's.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 25, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> So much for the natural balance of V-12's.


Ask ShortRound6 or GregP, but I bet you'll find those were put there not to ballance power strokes, but to reduce bearing loads as individual cylinder power outputs climbed ever higher and pistons and conrods heavier. The "natural ballance" of any even number cylinder bank refers to power stroke balancing, while single cylinder mass ballance in rotary motion is where crankshaft counterweights come in. The torsional loads on a long (hence more flexible) 12 cylinder crankshaft are massive.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sturzkampfflugzeug (May 26, 2020)

Also, you need to know how much fuel, ammo, what time they were manufactured, and who is flying.


----------



## Wawny (Sep 17, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Did your grand father have anything to say about the Kittyhawk?


My dad!!! He loved the Spitfire but it was not a good tropical fighter. He liked the Kittyhawk but it was like flying a truck compared to a sports car. Given the conditions at Milne Bay, it was pretty good and tough. It was a much roomier cockpit than the Spitty.
After Milne Bay, he returned to instructing at Mildura (2OTU) and getting back into the Spitfire (not in battle) was one of the most enjoyable times for him.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 19, 2020)

All that stuff on page 60 about rpms and MAP bouncing around while getting going after a surprise "bounce" is why nobody ever went into a suspected combat area in economy cruise after their first several combat flights, assuming they survived them. Setting up for quick combat power changes was something they did automatically after they crossed the channel the first several times, at least according to the guys who were there and give talks every month at the museum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wawny (Sep 20, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> Attached is the full file that your document was extracted from and you will note two differences. Whoever copied the pages you posted did a far better job than the National Archives of Australia when they copied the file, and there is no note on the bottom of the first page.
> 
> Incidentally Sydney Cotton also designed the famous WW1 Sidcot flying suit and had a lot to do with developing aerial photography


I only just found your reply! Many thanks for it. I'll have a good read of it. I'm not sure how dad got that copy being 'Most secret'. 
He was testing the Cotton g-suit during these trials hence the bent tail. Normally that amount of g's would have caused a blackout. He did centrifuge tests as well with the suit. He hated those understandably.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sturzkampfflugzeug (Sep 21, 2021)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


I think I commented but, its unlikely anything beats the Spitfire in that matchup. The SPitfire has so many versions, too, that I can't imagine either one beating the Spitfire


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2021)

Sturzkampfflugzeug said:


> I think I commented but, its unlikely anything beats the Spitfire in that matchup. The SPitfire has so many versions, too, that I can't imagine either one beating the Spitfire


If you read through all the past discussions on this and other threads on this forum, you'll discover that the first confrontations between Zeros and Spitfires turned out disastrously for the Spitfires. The Spit pilots tried to use ETO tactics against the Zeros and discovered to their chagrin that Zeros were NOT MEs or FWs. They were far more nimble.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 21, 2021)

Yep, once the Spit has bled off it's speed in a turning fight, the A6M has it right where it wants it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, once the Spit has bled off it's speed in a turning fight, the A6M has it right where it wants it.


Nothing can do a low speed vertical loop as tight as a Zero. Ditto a tight turn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 22, 2021)

I am pretty sure both the RAAF comparisons of captured A6Ms and Spits were posted earlier in this (or other) threads and they certainly did not give the Spit a big win over the A6M. 

Add to that the Spit pilot had bulk hours on the type and the A6M pilot was a newby to the type and the Spits superiority drops even further. 

To have created an "honest" comparison both aircraft should have been flown by P-39/P-40 pilots, both with similar hours on the type under test.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 22, 2021)

I would think that the Spit should have little problem with a Zero if it's fought in the classic zoom & boom that would play to strengths. The tests mentioned above, reflect the Spit pilots trying to fight the way they know, not the way they needed to. I agree with MiTasol that a pilot familiar with zoom & boom techniques should have flown the Spit.

Know yourself and your enemy, and you will know the outcome of every battle. Sun Tzu.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2021)

Spitfire might have done better in the test if allowed to use higher than 9lbs boost?
Or if the Spitfire used had a Merlin 45 and not a Merlin 46? 
Granted Merlin 46s were what the Australians had and they didn't have a choice so the test showed them what they needed to know at the time. 
But it does make comparing European results/reputation harder to compare to the Australian test for all the "what ifs" that want to use Zeros in Europe.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 22, 2021)

Damn, a small drag racing discussion a few pages back and I missed it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Damn, a small drag racing discussion a few pages back and I missed it.


We could always start a thread with something like "GM 153 versus BMW M10" and see what happens!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 22, 2021)

IIRC, the Spitfire Vs that were used over Darwin had trop filters, but the Japanese were operating their A6M-21s under similar conditions, so if if they could be operating without filters, they get the benefit. Secondly, these were not the most modern Spitfires of the time, but the Model 21 Zeroes were of similar vintage, and were maybe even more "used" at the time. Bottom line, it was a fair fight. Head-to-head, the A6M came away on top.


----------



## stona (Sep 29, 2021)

I've probably already posted this somewhere back up the thread, but when all the air combats over NW Australia are taken into account the Spitfire achieved an exchange ratio of 1:1 (28:28), including six Japanese fighters.
It's pretty typical of many Allied fighter units and considerably better than that achieved by Spitfire Vs of Fighter Command during Leigh-Mallory's ill advised 'lean forward' into France in 1941-42.

One should be wary of drawing conclusions from low numbers. For example, No 457 Squadron's two bad days (28 May and 6 July) badly skew the figures, with five Spitfires and five pilots being lost.

1 Fighter Wing was always trying to attack the bombers, leaving its aircraft vulnerable to 'the bounce' by escorting fighters. In combination with well known problems with their armament the poor training of the pilots, particularly in gunnery, and undeveloped tactical doctrine ( a noted failure was an inability to operate in pairs) this led to inevitable losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 29, 2021)

Worth noting, 49th FG did just as well over Darwin (March - September 1942) with brand new, unimproved P-40Es and almost entirely 'green' pilots (95 out of 102 pilots had never flown P-40s before they went to Darwin), and in spite of the fact that the combat took place mostly at the very limits of their flight ceiling, typically 10-15,000 feet above their critical altitude. Postwar analysis They lost 19 aircraft and four pilots, and shot down 19 Japanese aircraft, including 7 fighters (I think all A6M), 12 bombers (mostly G4M) and one Ki-46. This relative success was partly down to good tactics by their commander. And the 49th FG went on to become an elite unit.









The USAAF 49th Fighter Group over Darwin: a forgotten campaign | The Strategist


This year has seen many 75th anniversaries of battles and campaigns from the darkest hours of 1942, with the Battle of the Coral Sea (4 to 8 May) prominent. But in all these commemorative activities ...




www.aspistrategist.org.au

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ask ShortRound6 or GregP, but I bet you'll find those were put there not to ballance power strokes, but to reduce bearing loads as individual cylinder power outputs climbed ever higher and pistons and conrods heavier. The "natural ballance" of any even number cylinder bank refers to power stroke balancing, while single cylinder mass ballance in rotary motion is where crankshaft counterweights come in. The torsional loads on a long (hence more flexible) 12 cylinder crankshaft are massive.
> Cheers,
> Wes


You don't suppose there's a relationship between this and the fact that Allisons could handle oversquare (high MP, low RPM) much more smoothly than Merlins, thus giving them superior long range cruise efficiency? (Guadalcanal->Yamamoto->Gaudalcanal)
Try that in a Spit.


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 29, 2021)

By Pacific standards the distance from Henderson field to where they shot Yamamoto down and back is quite short, about half the distance the Rabaul A6Ms flew to attack Henderson field.
By European standards this was a long flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2021)

The straight line distance was about 400 miles, but the intercept route was planned to head out over water to avoid being detected, so the route was about 1,000 miles round trip, plus enough fuel factored for combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You don't suppose there's a relationship between this and the fact that Allisons could handle oversquare (high MP, low RPM) much more smoothly than Merlins, thus giving them superior long range cruise efficiency? (Guadalcanal->Yamamoto->Gaudalcanal)
> Try that in a Spit.


British were advising using 1800 rpm for Cruising In a Spit V with a Merlin 45. Depending on the boost used at 1800rpm this could give the same speed as 2650rpm at a lower boost. 

One reason the P-38s could cruise at low rpm and high boost (whatever that actually means) was the turbos could deliver positive pressure to the carb inlets even if not much. 
Try using high boost and low rpm in a P-39 or P-40. How much boost can you get from the engine supercharger if the engine is turning 1600-1800 rpm? 

Spitfire V cruise could be 250 ASI at 10,000ft using + 3 3/4lbs at 2000rpm burning 42 imp gallons/hr or + 2lbs at 2650rpm burning 47 imp gal/hr. 

For really long range over water the Allison could run at lower RPM than the Merlin but cruise speeds are going to closer to 200mph than anything most pilots wanted to use over enemy territory.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 30, 2021)

True, but the Yamamoto mission was close to sea level all the way, not to mention cruising at 200 over the Pacific (any altitude) was NOT like cruising at 200 over continental Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 30, 2021)

Does anyone have any actual official test/comparison data for the idea that the Allison could run at lower rpm significantly more satisfactorily than the Merlin - hopefully something that explains the problem/difference. The reason I ask is that I have not been able find any officially stated reasons for any significant difference, only anecdotal statements and suppositions.

As far as I know, based on what I know about engines and have been able to find out about the Allison and Merlin, the only reasons that might have made a difference are the type of spark plug used and the compression ratio.

1. Some spark plugs are more prone to fouling than others.
2. Engines with higher compression ratios are generally less prone to fouling of the spark plugs.

No.1 is ~solved by changing the type of spark plug (which was done a few times for various reasons - on both makes of engine). I can not imagine that the various responsible agencies did not think of this and implement a change if needed.
No.2 is ~solved by opening up the throttles to higher rpm and boost periodically during the flight (which is listed in the flight manuals for both makes of engines, although it does seem that it is mentioned less frequently re the Allison.). The higher compression ratio of the Allison would have slowed down/decreased (to a small but possibly significant degree) the fouling process caused by the high TEL content fuels used at the time.

I realize the above is somewhat general, but it should apply regardless of engine type.

Otherwise, I have read in most of the manuals for Merlin powered AC that it was often problematic when running below 1800 rpm, but this was due to the generator not being able to charge the batteries at lower rpm. I have read of this problem with Allison installations as well, although not as often.

I confused.  +  +  +  =

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 30, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Does anyone have any actual official test/comparison data for the idea that the Allison could run at lower rpm significantly more satisfactorily than the Merlin - hopefully something that explains the problem/difference. The reason I ask is that I have not been able find any officially stated reasons for any significant difference, only anecdotal statements and suppositions.
> 
> As far as I know, based on what I know about engines and have been able to find out about the Allison and Merlin, the only reasons that might have made a difference are the type of spark plug used and the compression ratio.
> 
> ...


This was specifically stated in the quoted report in the thread, detailing RAF experience with the Mustang Mk I.

There are possibly other reasons. The Allisson and its supercharger were optimised for low altitudes so could be expected to run more smoothly at those altitudes. AFAIK the compression ratio is only a part of the story, the actual compression and therefore the pressure prior to ignition depends on other things too, like the whole turbo, supercharger, carburettor intercooler and manifold system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2021)

I am not at all sure the Allison was "_optimised for low altitudes_". 

yes it had lower altitude performance than the Merlin III and especially the Hooker modified single stage superchargers, But then so did every other aircraft engine in the world at the time (1939-41). The only Allison's I can think of that were optimized for low altitude were the ones in the A-36. 

There were also a plethora of Merlins optimized for low altitudes. Anybody have any accounts of them running smoothly at low altitude?


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 30, 2021)

Hey pbehn,

re "This was specifically stated in the quoted report in the thread, detailing RAF experience with the Mustang Mk I."

Can you point the post with the above quote out to me. Sorry, but I just went over the whole thread (admittedly somewhat quickly) and did not find anything providing any "official test/comparison data" or "officially stated reasons" for the disparity. Possibly I simply missed it, my eyes are tired tonight from driving all day.

As I said above, my post was somewhat general. However, the compression ratio for the Allison is 6.65:1, which gives the ~equivalent of +9.55 lbs boost (in terms of cylinder pressure) vs the Merlin's 6:1 compression ratio, and this is before we even look at any effects from the supercharger.

PS. Also, having a lower rated supercharger would not make the engine run smoother, at least not with WWII technology. The only effect that would have that might decrease stress on the engine parts would be if it resulted in a lower IHP. But as Shortround6 just posted, the Merlin supercharger was more efficient than the Allison (even before Hooker got involved) and that would mean that the 'cropped' impellers for the lower rated Merlins would have tipped the balance toward the Merlin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2021)

Some possible reasons that the V-1710 ran better at low altitudes:

Cam followers were rollers in the V-1710, solid on the Merlin. Maybe gives better consistency?
The V-1710 crankshaft was fitted with a torsional damper, the Merlin was not.
The V-1710 used an injection type carburettor, the Merlin did not until later in the war. The air flow at lower rpm may not have allowed for a consistent air : fuel mixture.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Oct 13, 2021)

> Does anyone have any actual official test/comparison data for the idea that the Allison could run at lower rpm significantly more satisfactorily than the Merlin -



Probably camshaft valve timing, eg. the Merlin had more of a high rpm racing heritage whereas the Allison came from an engine for dirigible airships (AFAIK).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2021)

taly01 said:


> Probably camshaft valve timing, eg. the Merlin had more of a high rpm racing heritage whereas the Allison came from an engine for dirigible airships (AFAIK).


The whole airship thing (or most of it) was funding. 

Allison was trying to sell the engine to the army.
Army said, interesting but we have no money right now. The Navy does, perhaps they can fund development for a year or two while we try to get more money from congress. 
Navy says we have no need/desire for liquid cooled airplane engines but we want to stop buying German engines for our dirigibles. We will buy a couple of prototype engines.
Allison figures a few engines sold is better than none and works on the airship engines. 

Nobody was going to get rich building airship engines, there simply weren't enough airships being built. It helped keep the doors open and kept some employees working. 
Sure enough, navy crashes a few airships and the whole airship program grinds to a halt. 
Airship engine worked stopped in 1934-35, plenty of time to adjust the cam timing for aircraft.

The Allison started as a general purpose aircraft engine. Allison was happy to make special versions for special applications (any sales better than no sales).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jaydawg73 (Oct 16, 2021)

Chiron said:


> How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
> 
> Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?


The zero was indeed a formidable platform that had superior performance to its adversaries. But, as the RAF found in the battle of france and the BoB, in the hands of a quick thinking pilot with a bit of experience tactics could be out to good use in order to outwit and ultimately defeat a superior platform. The 109 once put into a steep dive could not pull out, so RAF pilots would attempt to orchestrate a dogfight to get a 109 into such a situation. 109 pilots would attempt to avoid this, thereby straight away putting them at a tactical disadvantage even in a superior performing platform. The Hurricane and Spitfire could out turn a 109, so again RAF pilots would hold the 109 in a horizontal fight. Again the 109 pilot attempting to avoid this also put them at a tactical disadvantage, thereby putting your adversary on the defensive.

similarly in the Pacific area of operations, the Wildcat was far inferior and outclassed by the zero. But with tactics such as the ‘Thatch Weave‘ manoeuvre by two wildcats it brought the fight to a level plane.

Today the USN FWS aka ‘Top Gun’ still utilise the thatch weave. I think it is accepted that as good and rugged a platform the F18 is in its different guises, it is outperformed and outclassed on many fronts by any potential adversaries. So the USN teaches its pilots to rely on tactics and manoeuvres. The F18 and stop on its tail and use its aerodynamics to bring the fight to its own terms against a faster and more ag platform. 

In essence, the ability of a platform is only a part of the equation, in the hands of a well trained pilot that knows his platform inside out and knows the capabilities and vulnerability of his adversaries platform, that’s what will decide the outcome of a duel in the skies..

JH

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 16, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> The zero was indeed a formidable platform that had superior performance to its adversaries


At the expense of 200mph+ maneuverability, ruggedness, protection, communication and any hope of pilot survival. A Spitfire could have been made to the A6M's spec and totally outclassed it in speed, climb, turn and range but the Allied nations never compromised pilot safety and protection for performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> The zero was indeed a formidable platform that had superior performance to its adversaries.



Not quite…

The Zero being far superior is a myth, almost as bad as anything built by the Germans was a Wunderwaffe.

The Zero had superior performance initially at lower speeds. By 1943 it was being eclipsed by allied aircraft. Additionally, the Zero sacrificed armor and armament for that initial performance boost.

The Zero was a formidable aircraft throughout the entire wire, but lets not paint it as a far superior aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> similarly in the Pacific area of operations, the Wildcat was far inferior and outclassed by the zero. But with tactics such as the ‘Thatch Weave‘ manoeuvre by two wildcats it brought the fight to a level plane.
> 
> Today the USN FWS aka ‘Top Gun’ still utilise the thatch weave. I think it is accepted that as good and rugged a platform the F18 is in its different guises, it is outperformed and outclassed on many fronts by any potential adversaries. So the USN teaches its pilots to rely on tactics and manoeuvres. The F18 and stop on its tail and use its aerodynamics to bring the fight to its own terms against a faster and more ag platform.
> 
> ...


JayDawg,

Please expand on how or in what cases Top Gun uses the Thach Weave?

For reference:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 16, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> I think it is accepted that as good and rugged a platform the F18 is in its different guises, it is outperformed and outclassed on many fronts by any potential adversaries.


The F-18 is outclassed by any potential adversaries? 

Surely that's not an F/A-18 we're talking about, is it?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> Today the USN FWS aka ‘Top Gun’ still utilise the thatch weave.


I don't think flying within VR in today's world you're going to have the ability to do a "Thatch Weave" so please provide your reference for that. Top Gun will teach energy maneuvers when the fight is within VR, but in today's world if you're fighting completely VR, you pissed away several million dollars worth of technology.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The F-18 is outclassed by any potential adversaries?
> 
> Surely that's not an F/A-18 we're talking about, is it?



If it so outclassed, why is my company still building them, and why do we still have customers wanting it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 16, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If it so outclassed, why is my company still building them, and why do we still have customers wanting it?


Because they can do the "Thatch" Weave?

I just read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be true...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Because they can do the Thatch Weave?



Is that the same thing as a Thach Weave? Or perhaps it's a new form of baldness treatment for the discerning gentleman? 



I wish to apologize for the above comment. I appear to be channeling my (sarcastic) inner pedant...AGAIN! Normal service will now resume!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 16, 2021)

Aw c’mon, let me remain iggerant and let me imagine Super Bugs doing beam defense maneuvers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Is that the same thing as a Thach Weave? Or perhaps it's a new form of baldness treatment for the discerning gentleman?


"Thatch" was from post #1,232...

"Rug" would be relevant to the latter

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 16, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> At the expense of 200mph+ maneuverability, ruggedness, protection, communication and any hope of pilot survival.


4 Zeros and 1 KI43 shot down vs 28 Spitfies shot down (this doesn’t include at least 10 Spitfires that were run out of fuel over their own territory by Zeroes flying 500 miles 1 way) I’d say a Zero pilots chance of survival was excellent as long as he was fighting Spitfires.

A Zeros ailerons didn’t stiffen up until 300 mph, not barely over 200, and according to the Zero vs Spitfire test at the first of this thread the Spitfire could BARELY out roll a Zero at high speed.

5 wins vs 28 losses. Could someone please name a sports team who’s coach wouldn’t get fired with such a dismal record?

Who would put a wager on a boxer, mma fighter, tennis player etc that had a 5 win 28 loss record against the opponent they were about to face?

The Spitfire was on the receiving end of a 1 sided, curb stomping beat down by the Zero, end of story. 

I continue to be amazed and perplexed by this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2021)

pinsog said:


> 4 Zeros and 1 KI43 shot down vs 28 Spitfies shot down (this doesn’t include at least 10 Spitfires that were run out of fuel over their own territory by Zeroes flying 500 miles 1 way) I’d say a Zero pilots chance of survival was excellent as long as he was fighting Spitfires.
> 
> A Zeros ailerons didn’t stiffen up until 300 mph, not barely over 200, and according to the Zero vs Spitfire test at the first of this thread the Spitfire could BARELY out roll a Zero at high speed.
> 
> ...


Comparing the *AIRCRAFT*, the Spits operated by the RAAF were far superior. *TACTICS* and pilot skill came into play. Why don't you use the same rationale 19–20 June 1944?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2021)

For some unexplained reason, the test pitted Spitfires with special, high altitude rated engines against the Zeros at altitudes below the FTH of the Spitfires AND did not allow the Spitfires to use the over boost that was already common in Europe with these engines. 

From the report
" The pattern established in these tests confirmed the findings of operational experience over Darwin, where the Spitfires were always able to dominate the upper height band without Japanese challenge." 

Granted you can't always pick the altitude you want to fight at but at 20,000ft and below the Spitfires were flying at part throttle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Because they can do the "Thatch" Weave?
> 
> *I just read that somewhere on the internet, so it must be true...*



Yes sir, that is correct

Abraham Lincoln said it

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 16, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Comparing the *AIRCRAFT*, the Spits operated by the RAAF were far superior. *TACTICS* and pilot skill came into play. Why don't you use the same rationale 19–20 June 1944?








I have to disagree with you on that Flyboy. Spitfires based in Europe I would probably agree, but the Spitfire V with the filter used in Australia was most definitely not far superior. I don’t have time to post the whole test but here are quotes from the 2 test pilots that flew the Spitfire and Hap in the test. The Spitfires tail was bent 9 degrees during the trial


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I have to disagree with you on that Flyboy. Spitfires based in Europe I would probably agree, but the Spitfire V with the filter used in Australia was most definitely not far superior. I don’t have time to post the whole test but here are quotes from the 2 test pilots that flew the Spitfire and Hap in the test. The Spitfires tail was bent 9 degrees during the trial


Well you can disagree all you want, you're actually cherry picking. Take the filter off and enter combat "boom and zoom" and see what happens. The MkV was some 30 MPH faster than the A6M2 and wasn't hampered by high stick forces at high speeds. The beating the RAAF took over Darwin in May 43' was soon rectified once new tactics were established. The biggest factor here was tactics and pilot skill.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2021)

From someone who was there...

_"Despite the much vaunted superiority of the Spitfire, *low hours of experience,
questionable command decisions and tactics* and mechanical problems with propeller
constant speed units (propeller pitch), glycol coolant leaks and engine wear due to
the dust and constant cannon failures (freezing at altitude) were common. These
aircraft also differed from the standard Spitfire Vc in that they had been fitted with a
Vokes air filter beneath their nose to reduce the amount of sand and dust which
entered the engine, which also reduced their performance by around 30 mph."_



https://www.ozatwar.com/raf/spitfireoverdarwin.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2021)

A great post from a deceased member (RIP Parsifal)






Air combat over Darwin


Not to clog the other thread, this topic desreves more. If peolpe have some good and relevant info, please shere it here :) Should cover the air battles over Northern Australia, Darwin in particular, in ww2.



ww2aircraft.net

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 16, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well you can disagree all you want, you're actually cherry picking. Take the filter off and enter combat "boom and zoom" and see what happens. The MkV was some 30 MPH faster than the A6M2 and wasn't hampered by high stick forces at high speeds. The beating the RAAF took over Darwin in May 43' was soon rectified once new tactics were established. The biggest factor here was tactics and pilot skill.


Take that air filter off and that updraft carb on the Spitfire will fill that Merlin full of dirt on every trip down that unpaved Australian runway. A trip or 2 like that and you won’t have to wait until a Zero shoots you down your motor is going to blow up by itself. 

The Spitfire HAD to have that filter to survive in that environment. The Zero, P40, Wildcat etc were better aircraft in THAT environment.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Take that air filter off and that updraft carb on the Spitfire will fill that Merlin full of dirt on every trip down that unpaved Australian runway. A trip or 2 like that and you won’t have to wait until a Zero shoots you down your motor is going to blow up by itself.
> 
> *The Spitfire HAD to have that filter to survive in that environment.* The Zero, P40, Wildcat etc were better aircraft in THAT environment.


Sorry, that part of the story is a bit exaggerated and the filters probably did more harm than good and if you read the complete references I posted it shows how these "inferior Spitfires" (and green pilots) were eventually able to stop the Japanese.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2021)

So leave the filter on, yank the Merlin 46 engine out, stick in a Merlin 45 and let set the boost limit at 15lbs and see what the performance difference is between the Spitfire and the Zero. 

The trials were done in Aug of 1943 for crying out loud. For the trials the Merlin 46 was limited to 9lbs of boost. Less than they were using in the BoB in 1940. 
In fact the Merlin 46 tracked the Merlin III pretty closely for power (a bit higher) from sea level to around 16,000ft while using 9lbs boost to the Merlin IIIs 6lbs. 
Merlin 46 was using a bigger impeller, a higher gear ratio and a modified inlet and guide vane. 
The difference with the Merlin 46 is that the power to the prop kept going up as the plane climbed to 21,000ft instead of falling off. 

Why the Aussies got the Merlin 46 I don't know (British didn't want to send Spit IXs with Merlin 61s?) 
Why the Aussies operated them with a 9lb limit I don't know (Not enough spare engines so they didn't want to use emergency power?) 
Why the Aussies didn't get regular Spit VCs with Merlin 45s I don't know. 

Merlin 45 running 16lbs of boost was good for 1515hp at 11,000ft. 
Merlin 46 running 9lbs of boost was good for about 1020hp at 11,000ft. 

I wonder how a fight between a Zero and a Spit Vc with a Merlin 45 using 16lbs boost would have gone at 10,-15,000ft? Even with the filter. 

Merlin 46 was good for 1415hp at 14,000ft at 16lbs boost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Oct 16, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not quite…
> 
> The Zero being far superior is a myth, almost as bad as anything built by the Germans was a Wunderwaffe.
> 
> ...


The Zero was designed to fight in a WWI scenario.
Later allied planes were designed to fight in a WWII scenario.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> 4 Zeros and 1 KI43 shot down vs 28 Spitfies shot down (this doesn’t include at least 10 Spitfires that were run out of fuel over their own territory by Zeroes flying 500 miles 1 way) I’d say a Zero pilots chance of survival was excellent as long as he was fighting Spitfires.
> 
> A Zeros ailerons didn’t stiffen up until 300 mph, not barely over 200, and according to the Zero vs Spitfire test at the first of this thread the Spitfire could BARELY out roll a Zero at high speed.
> 
> ...


Maybe you should look at all the facts, the Spit V's used over Darwin were worn out aero planes running 9 PSI boost Merlin 46"s, of the 26 spits shot down 19 were lost when they were attacking the bombers, their primary target, 5 were shot down in one engagement when both the top cover squadron and attacking squadron both dived on the bombers via a communication problem and were bounced, only 6 of the 96 pilots who flew over Darwin had ever been in combat. You would not be amazed if you read the facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Take that air filter off and that updraft carb on the Spitfire will fill that Merlin full of dirt on every trip down that unpaved Australian runway. A trip or 2 like that and you won’t have to wait until a Zero shoots you down your motor is going to blow up by itself.
> 
> The Spitfire HAD to have that filter to survive in that environment. The Zero, P40, Wildcat etc were better aircraft in THAT environment.


Both the Me109 and P40 were made with tropical filters, the P40's by Vokes, what did the Japanese know that the British Germans and Americans didn't?.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Both the Me109 and P40 were made with tropical filters, the P40's by Vokes, what did the Japanese know that the British Germans and Americans didn't?.



Japanese aircraft that flew from SE Asian air bases against Darwin didn't needed the filters in the 1st place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Japanese aircraft that flew from SE Asian air bases against Darwin didn't needed the filters in the 1st place.


So if the Zero was based in Darwin or the middle East it would need a tropical filter, like the Spitfire, 109, P40 and every other plane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 17, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry, that part of the story is a bit exaggerated and the filters probably did more harm than good and if you read the complete references I posted it shows how these "inferior Spitfires" were able to stop the Japanese.


I’ll read that tomorrow. I


PAT303 said:


> Both the Me109 and P40 were made with tropical filters, the P40's by Vokes, what did the Japanese know that the British Germans and Americans didn't?.


They probably had the intake on top of the cowling where there isn’t as much dust. The Wildcat didn’t have a dust filter, neither did the P47 or P38.

I wouldn’t consider the Spitfire having its intake down low a design flaw, it was designed to defend England from prepared fields, a job which it did very well at. The problem arose when due to the demands of war it was operated out of dirty nasty unprepared field where it was forced to use a filter which hampered performance. The Zero didn’t have this particular issue. The Spitfire was a fine aircraft but this particular Spitfire vs that particular Zero didn’t fair well. A Spitfire 9 over Europe vs a Zero would likely have had a much different outcome

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 17, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> So if the Zero was based in Darwin or the middle East it would need a tropical filter, like the Spitfire, 109, P40 and every other plane.


No, the Zero air intake was up high out of the dust. Did ALL P40’s have a filter or only the Merlin powered P40’s?


----------



## pinsog (Oct 17, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From someone who was there...
> 
> _"Despite the much vaunted superiority of the Spitfire, *low hours of experience,
> questionable command decisions and tactics* and mechanical problems with propeller
> ...


I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn’t work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don’t work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don’t have a very good plane for this environment. Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine. 

I’d like to point out that the US didn’t have anything in theater to do better than the Spitfire. The Japanese just flew over the top of the P40’s and waved at them because the P40’s couldn’t play at that altitude. They needed P38’s but apparently none were available


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> No, the Zero air intake was up high out of the dust. Did ALL P40’s have a filter or only the Merlin powered P40’s?


The A6M2 had it's carb intake at 6 O'clock on the cowling, the A6M3 and later types had the intake at 12 O'clock.

The KI-43-I was also at 6 O'clock, but was repositioned to 12 O'clock with the KI-43-II.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2021)

P-38s had two air intakes. One was the standard one on the side of the engine nacelle. The other was inside the wheel well in the nacelle. This was to be used when taking-off or taxiing in dirty conditions. 
On both the P-38 and the P-47 the air always followed the long route through the turbo charger, intercooler and ducts. There was no by-pass. 

On the P-47 the air (and dirt) was always going go from the front of the plane to rear, through the turbo, then inter cooler and then back to the front of the plane before reaching the carb. Not sure how much dirt made that trip.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 17, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> On the P-47 the air (and dirt) was always going go from the front of the plane to rear, through the turbo, then inter cooler and then back to the front of the plane before reaching the carb. Not sure how much dirt made that trip.



Alas dirt (being dirt) is not apt to send postcards so we may never know how far it went on its various trips. However, if dirt is anything like its close relative beach sand, I think we can be reasonably confident that it got EVERYWHERE!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> They probably had the intake on top of the cowling where there isn’t as much dust.


Have you ever seen dust?, have you ever seen aircraft operate on a dusty field?, it won't matter if the filter is above the engine or below, it's sucking dust. An Australian company has had to make new air filter box's for Toyota's here in Oz, Merc had to design a new one for our Army's G wagons because they were sucking dust, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn’t work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don’t work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don’t have a very good plane for this environment


Um yeah, the constant speed units were faulty not from dust, the guns froze because the planes didn't have heaters and the Oz made ammo was out of spec, all engines used in dusty conditions, planes tanks trucks had filters, except the Zero apparently, the speed loss from the filter was 5 knots, 6 Mph as per a test done by the RAAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine.


I'd drive my Defender, no plastic there. Toyota air-intake system fault: a closer look


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 17, 2021)

Look at the first photo of the Defender in this link, to give you an idea of what the conditions were like at Darwin, 117 Spitfires were lost to all causes, many after crashing into tree's. Unsealed 4X4 - Here's what a filtration expert thinks about Toyota's dust problem

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2021)

It's obvious we all seem to know what induction sand filters are used for and that sand/ dust are not good for reciprocating engines. Radials seem to fare better in dusty and sandy environments. I don't know how bad the sand/ dust situation was at Darwin and how it compared to a place like the Sahara Desert where you have fine sand/ dust. Flight through moderate sand and dust IMO isn't going to cause harm in the short term, but no doubt it's going to eventually have an affect on engine life. During the discussed period, someone made the decision to have these Spitfires operate with these filters which caused at least a 10% reduction in speed for starters. It would seem to me you would mitigate the risk and determine whether to operate at a diminished capability for the sake of saving equipment, or concentrate on defeating the enemy at hand and worry about attrition later? I don't have an answer for that and I don't know if eventually the latter was undertaken but if I was running an operation I would concentrate more on stopping the bombing of a civilian population even if it meant burning up assets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn’t work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don’t work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don’t have a very good plane for this environment. Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine.


Its obvious I would use the equipment best suited for the environment. Dust and sand environments can be mitigated if you have the equipment and facilities (Hangars) to deal with environment. That wasn't the case over Darwin and it limited the Spitfire's performance, as stated by several, even yourself - take the Zero, send it to the UK and then compare the performance of a Spit V, the latter is a superior machine, the rest of the discussion involves pilot skill and tactics


pinsog said:


> o
> I’d like to point out that the US didn’t have anything in theater to do better than the Spitfire. The Japanese just flew over the top of the P40’s and waved at them because the P40’s couldn’t play at that altitude. They needed P38’s but apparently none were available


Errr, over Darwin, no but P-38s were in theater performing combat operations in December 42'. If you read the full story you'll find that the Japanese had to eventually give up on their campaign because they did not have enough serviceable bombers to continue. Although you had situations where the RAAF Spitfires were beaten pretty badly by the Zeros, in the bigger picture the Zeros actually FAILED their mission as they were not able to provide enough protection for the bombers so they can sustain continual operations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2021)

This is from our member Wildcat who posted this in the thread I mentioned earlier. Count the Japanese bombers destroyed or damaged

_Spitfire units –
54 RAF
452 RAAF
457 RAAF

IJNAF units
202Ku Zero's
753AG Betty's
934Ku Jake Rufe floatplanes

IJAAF
59th Sentai Oscar
61st Sentai Helen bombers
75th Sentai Lily bomber
70th DCS Dinah

During the 1943 campaign No1FW claimed 70 enemy aircraft destroyed – 34 fighters, 29 bombers, 7 recon aircraft. From various sources I've compiled the following actual losses –
6 Feb 43 – 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Kurasuki Setaguti Lt Fumio Mori 70th DCS) 54RAF

7 Mar 43 - 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Yutaka Tonoi Lt Chokiti Orihara 70th DCS) 457RAAF

15 Mar 43 - 1 Zero destroyed (PO2c Seiji Tajiri (a/c 6540) Ku202) – F/O Mawer RAAF 54RAF
8 Betty's damaged (753Ku)

2 May 43 – 7 Zero's damaged, 7 Betty's damaged

10 May 43 - 1 Zero destroyed (PO1c Kunio Sakai Ku202) – F/Sgt Watson – 457RAAF
1 Zero destroyed (CPO Tadao Yamanaka Ku202) – P/O Morse – 457RAAF

23 May 43 – 1 Ki-46 damaged 54RAF

28 May 43 – 2 Betty's destroyed (753Ku) 457RAAF
1 Betty crash landed (753Ku) 457RAAF

20 Jun 43 - 1 Oscar destroyed (1LT Shigeto Kawata 59th Sentai)
1 Helen destroyed (LT Kenjiro Matsuhara 61st Sentai)
1 Helen destroyed (Capt Katsuhiro Ohta 61st Sentai (a/c 174))
1 Helen crash landed (1/Lt Yoshio Kawamura 3KIA 61st Sentai)
1 Lily force landed (1/Lt Masakatsu Yamazaki 75th Sentai)
1 Lily force landed (WO Shinzo Miura 75th Sentai)

28 Jun 43 – 1 Betty crash landed (753Ku)
1 Betty 3 zero's damaged

30 Jun 43 – 1 Betty crash landed (753Ku)

6 Jul 43 - 1 Betty destroyed (FCPO Masao Kobayashi 753 Ku (a/c 3677))
2 Betty's crash landed (753Ku)
2 Zero's damaged

18 Jul 43 - 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Capt Shunji Sasaki (70th DCS CO) Lt Akira Eguchi 70th DCS (a/c 2414)) – S/Ldr James 457RAAF

10 Aug 43 - 1 Jake destroyed (PO/3 Ishiwata, WO Nagano PO/2 Takagami 934th Ku) – F/O Young P/O Coombes – 452 RAAF
1 Rufe damaged (LT Toshiharu Ikeda CO 934th Ku) as above

17 Aug 43 - 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Kyuichi Okomoto Lt Yasuro Yamamoto (a/c2250) 70th DCS) – F/L Watson – 457RAAF
1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Saburo Shinohara Lt Hideo Ura (a/c2273) 70th DCS) – F/Sgt Jenkins F/Sgt Watson – 457RAAF
1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Shir-Ichi Matsu-ura Lt Kyotoshi Shiraki (a/c2237) 70th DCS) – S/L James – 457RAAF
1 Ki-46 destroyed (Sgt Tomihiko Tanaka Sgt Kinji Kawahara Ku202) – W/C Caldwell – No1 FW

7 Sep 43 - 1 Zero destroyed (PO1c Yoshio Terai Ku202)

6 Nov 43 – 1 Ki-46 damaged 457RAAF

11/12 Nov 43 - 1 Betty destroyed (Cdr Michio Horii XO, Lt Takeji Fujiwara wing leader 753 Ku) – F/O Smithson – 457RAAF night time interception.

From this I get 5 fighters destroyed, 6 bombers destroyed 8 force/crash landed (on Japanese held Islands) and 7 recce 1 floatplane destroyed.
How many of these crash landed bomber never flew again, I don't know. The two Lily's were finished off by a RAAF Beaufighter strike a few days later. The above is wide open to corrections and additions._






Air combat over Darwin


Not to clog the other thread, this topic desreves more. If peolpe have some good and relevant info, please shere it here :) Should cover the air battles over Northern Australia, Darwin in particular, in ww2.



ww2aircraft.net

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Have you ever seen dust?, have you ever seen aircraft operate on a dusty field?, it won't matter if the filter is above the engine or below, it's sucking dust. An Australian company has had to make new air filter box's for Toyota's here in Oz, Merc had to design a new one for our Army's G wagons because they were sucking dust, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



Got to agree here. I spent 12 months flying out if Iraq. Initially we did not have filters, but even after getting them we went through engines like there was no tomorrow. It was like sucking up a sandbox.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 17, 2021)

We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. I also know that they shot down some bombers, but let’s consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.

(I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2021)

pinsog said:


> We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. *I also know that they shot down some bombers,*


Again, if you research the campaign they did more than shoot down some bombers, they eventually helped end the Japanese bombing campaign of Darwin (see post 1271)



pinsog said:


> but let’s consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.
> 
> (I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)


So think about your points - the Wildcat was a naval aircraft, a lot more rugged than the Spitfire but by far not the same performance. Consider pilot training and tactics as well as fighting close to home. They basically did the same thing the RAAF did over Darwin but I think the learning curb was a bit shorter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2021)

Dang, that was a considerable amount of KI-46s downed, which was no easy feat.
The KI-46 was a fast, high-flying twin and virtually un-touchable during the early years of the war...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. I also know that they shot down some bombers, but let’s consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.
> 
> (I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)


Were the Wildcat pilots skilled pilots?, like I posted only 6 of the RAAF pilots had seen combat, did the Wildcats guns work?, the Spitfires didn't have heaters and the 20mm ammunition was made in a new factory in Sydney and was not within spec. The Spitfires the RAAF got were worn out, they had been shipped as deck cargo and had severe corrosion, there was a serious issue with the CSU with 30 documented cases of them failing, lastly, as stated by SR6, Darwin Merlin 46's only ran 9 PSI boost giving about 1020hp, the normal Merlin 45 engined MkV's produced 1500hp, loosing 500hp is a massive disadvantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2021)

We talking about carrier based F4Fs or Cactus Air Force F4Fs?


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 18, 2021)

Elvis said:


> The Zero was designed to fight in a WWI scenario.
> Later allied planes were designed to fight in a WWII scenario.


No, the Zero was designed to be exactly what it was, a long-range naval air superiority fighter - but that term was not in use. Fighters of World War One didn't fly 500-600 miles into enemy territory and dominate the air over enemy bases. Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new.



It might be a case of both being true, in a manner of speaking.

At this point in the war Spitfire V was at its absolute nadir in terms of quality. The fit, finish, etc. of mid/late Mk.Vc aircraft was pretty bad.

There also seemed to be a trend of the worst batches of particular aircraft being sent off to the other theatres (Malta, Burma, etc.) while the better examples remained in England. It wouldn't surprise me if the Australian Spitfires -- even if brand new -- were some sorry examples of the type.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 18, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Alas dirt (being dirt) is not apt to send postcards so we may never know how far it went on its various trips. However, if dirt is anything like its close relative beach sand, I think we can be reasonably confident that it got EVERYWHERE!


And coral dust (think of talcum powder sized grinding compound) goes places that not even sand can get to.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's obvious we all seem to know what induction sand filters are used for and that sand/ dust are not good for reciprocating engines. Radials seem to fare better in dusty and sandy environments. I don't know how bad the sand/ dust situation was at Darwin and how it compared to a place like the Sahara Desert where you have fine sand/ dust. Flight through moderate sand and dust IMO isn't going to cause harm in the short term, but no doubt it's going to eventually have an affect on engine life. During the discussed period, someone made the decision to have these Spitfires operate with these filters which caused at least a 10% reduction in speed for starters. *It would seem to me you would mitigate the risk and determine whether to operate at a diminished capability for the sake of saving equipment, or concentrate on defeating the enemy at hand and worry about attrition later?* I don't have an answer for that and I don't know if eventually the latter was undertaken but if I was running an operation I would concentrate more on stopping the bombing of a civilian population even if it meant burning up assets.



I suspect they did do a basic analysis and determine that the number of spare engines (2/5 of 3/4 of SFA) and lead time for replacements from England (90 days at best) meant you could use the aircraft for say a week with no filters and say a month with filters. Add to that calculation the maximum possible number of attacking Japanese aircraft that an engineless Spitfire can destroy and the answer was USE FILTERS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. I also know that they shot down some bombers, but let’s consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.
> 
> (I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)


I suspect that the A6M2s over Guadalcanal had to fight with their drop tanks attached to return safely to Rabaul.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> I suspect they did do a basic analysis and determine that the number of spare engines (2/5 of 3/4 of SFA) and lead time for replacements from England (90 days at best) meant you could use the aircraft for say a week with no filters and say a month with filters. Add to that calculation the maximum possible number of attacking Japanese aircraft that an engineless Spitfire can destroy and the answer was USE FILTERS.


Reading through this thread and doing research on this (which I find quite fascinating) I would love to find how this was actually calculated and who ordered the use of the filters. Were the filters later removed?


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Oct 18, 2021)

The Darwin area has two weather periods according to then official definitions, wet (green, mud) and dry (brown, dust).

RAAF Aircraft performance unit, some notes on Spitfire tests, date is usually for week ending, serial if given, notes. Note the cowl entries.
26-Aug-42 na First aircraft checked and are properly tropicalised and fitted with flame dampers.
2-Jan-43 A58-110 listed under RAF serial EE610, allotted this date, on 3rd subject to a thorough ground check.
13-Jan-43 A58-110 Tests delayed owing to lack of oxygen mask, as much flying below 18,000 feet as possible. Since arrival of oxygen mask some trouble has been experienced with the airscrews.
27-Jan-43 A58-110 Performance tests in progress.
3-Feb-43 A58-110 Performance tests with 90 gallon belly tanks were carried out.
10-Feb-43 A58-110 Performance tests with 90 gallon belly tanks almost complete. The oxygen mask for this aircraft was stolen whilst hanging out to dry after a high altitude flight. Action taken to obtain further masks.
17-Feb-43 A58-110 Tests proceeding.
24-Feb-43 A58-110 Belly tank trials completed.
10-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Under repair after damage received when belly tank became detached in flight. Tests with modified cowl to proceed when cowl available.
17-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Repairs completed. Fuel consumption and take off tests alone outstanding.
24-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Fuel consumption tests at 15,000 and 25,000 feet and take off tests done. Aircraft undergoing 40 hour inspection.
31-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Fuel consumption tests nearly completed, take off tests done. Experimental packing for airscrew tried out in ground run. Packing has so far been unsatisfactory.
7-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Flow meter removed for check and refitted and flight tested. Fuel consumption tests nearly completed, take off tests done.
7-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Experimental packing for airscrew removed from EE605 after satisfactory ground run and fitted to EE610
14-Apr-43 A58-10 AR621 to go to P&T flt for further G suit trials
14-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Tests held up pending manufacture of normal air intake cowlings, airscrew packing tests continuing.
21-Apr-43 na Modified engine cowling, deleting aircleaner, being fitted at SD&F flt, for performance tests.
21-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Oil seal washer problem, awaiting modified cowling. airscrew packing giving a lot of trouble.
28-Apr-43 AR621 Currently at 2 OTU, mountings for G-Suit completed and at 1 AD
28-Apr-43 EE610 Unserviceable due to fitting of new cowling and oil seal rings. Airscrew packing still giving trouble.
28-Apr-43 na Modified engine cowling, deleting aircleaner, performance tests begun.
5-May-43 EE610 (In report as EE616) Normal cowl fitted, performance tests near completion, fitting and flight testing of 30 gallon auxiliary tank successfully carried out. Airscrew packing tests continued.
12-May-43 EE610 Normal English Air Intake fitted, climbs to 35,000 feet and level speeds carried out but will be repeated dud to doubtful air temperature readings. fitting and flight testing of 30 gallon auxiliary tank successfuly carried out. Airscrew packing tests continued.
12-May-43 AR621 VHF Radio tests continuing by W/Cdr. Read
19-May-43 na Urgent action to manufacture non tropical engine fairings for one Sqn, another 24 fairings to be made and fitted by 1 June.
19-May-43 EE610 Engine unserviceability caused delay, tests now concluded. Airscrew packing tests continued. No further troubles experienced.
19-May-43 AR621 Being fitted with additional apparatus
26-May-43 EE610 Normal cowl speed tests completed, 5 to 6 mph slower than expected as engine is due for overhaul. The stone grill and air intake and cooler are different to the English design. Airscrew packing tests continued.
26-May-43 EE669 Due to EE610 problems, to be modified for further tests for verification of 380 mph top speed.
26-May-43 AR621 Being fitted with additional apparatus
2-Jun-43 na 24 aircraft fitted with non tropical cowling, remaining reserve aircraft estimated completed by 3 June
2-Jun-43 EE610 Prototype glider towing equipment fitted. Further full throttle level speeds attempted but results appear doubtful, check being made with EE669. Airscrew packing tests continued.
2-Jun-43 AR621 Wired for Cotton (anti G) Suit, S/Ldr Cushing will go to Sydney on 5 June for work on the centrefuge before carrying out tests on Frank and Cotton Suits. Taylor Suit tests continuing.
9-Jun-43 EE610 Tests interrupted by fitting of Prototype glider towing equipment fitted due to be completed in a few days. Airscrew packing tests continued.
9-Jun-43 EE669 Unserviceable due to engine roughness at high altitudes.
9-Jun-43 AR621 Tests on Cotton and Frank suites continued, Frank suit so far appears less effective.
16-Jun-43 na Installation of anti G system in two Spitfires expected by 18 June, one aircraft yet to be delivered. CO2 cylinders not yet indemnified for pressures being used.
16-Jun-43 EE610 Aircraft returned with Prototype glider towing equipment fitted. Airscrew packing tests to be continued when aircraft serviceable.
16-Jun-43 EE669 Faulty throttle linkage adjustments corrected, engine still rough at high altitudes, carburettor being checked.
16-Jun-43 330 Airscrew freezing tests completed, no signs of freezing.
16-Jun-43 AR621 G tests, S/Ldr Cuming underwent a course in the centrifuge at University of Sydney. Flight tests continued. Taylor suit tests continuing.
23-Jun-43 EE610 Used for glider towing successfully, maximum speed 140 mph for glider handicaps general performance.
23-Jun-43 EE669 Carburettor removed for flow checks, due to rough running commencing at 19,000 feet. Fuel pressure gauge being installed in fuel line. 
30-Jun-43 EE610 Unserviceable for modification to glider towing gear.
30-Jun-43 EE669 Tank pressure modification carried out.
7-Jul-43 EE669 Engine still very rough at full power above 17,000 feet. Another complete test of throttle being carried out.
7-Jul-43 EE610 Glider towing attachment fitted. Airscrew packing tests continued. Wooden belly tank, the 90 gallon tank did not fit and has been returned to manufacturer.
14-Jul-43 EE610 Further glider tests with E.G.3 held up as glider has damaged wing tip. Airscrew packing tests continued, no trouble has been experienced.
14-Jul-43 EE669 Level speed and climbs at about full throttle height completed. Smooth operation with tropical cowl attained but not with normal cowl. Aircraft allotted away. Tests to be verified on AR621, proposal to lower air intake 3 inches.
14-Jul-43 AR621 No G suit tests done
21-Jul-43 AR621 Test flight to investigate roughness with modified cowl.
21-Jul-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued.
28-Jul-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued with satisfaction.
28-Jul-43 AR621 Anti G suits, to Brisbane with Beaufort carrying maintenance personnel, for comparisons with Hap
28-Jul-43 AR269 Anti G suits, to Brisbane with Beaufort carrying maintenance personnel, for comparisons with Hap
4-Aug-43 AR621 No engine roughness with English cowling, tests with EE610 continuing. Being fitted with radio in preparation for the arrival of the Hap.
4-Aug-43 EE610 English cowl fitted, 1/32 inch difference in cowl/flap distance between EE610 and AR621, flight tests to commence. Airscrew packing tests continued with satisfaction. Wooden belly tank tests completed, report submitted.
11-Aug-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued with satisfaction.
18-Aug-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued satisfactorily.
18-Aug-43 AR621 Comparative tactical trials with Hap continuing at Archerfield.
1-Sep-43 EE610 Tests continuing to find cure for high altitude engine roughness with English cowl fitted. Airscrew packing tests continued.
1-Sep-43 AR621 Test carried out using new electrically controlled valve for G-Suit.
8-Sep-43 EE610 Tests continuing to find cure for high altitude engine roughness, an English made temperate cowl has been found and is being fitted. Airscrew packing tests continued, leaking after only 19 hours flying.
8-Sep-43 AR621 Test carried out using new electrically controlled valve for G-Suit. Valve not releasing correctly, equipment removed and being modified.
27-Oct-43 EE610 Belly tank installation attachment now satisfactory by stiffening the tank adjacent to the attachment pin, can withstand over 5 G
10-Nov-43 EE610 Belly tank installation tested to 7 G
24-Nov-43 JF394 mark VIII level speed, climb and take off tests, engine surging at high altitude.
8-Dec-43 A58-315 Airscrew surging, possibly due to oil frothing at high temperature
8-Dec-43 A58-110 P.8 Compass, needle sticking against glass cover if much bank applied.
15-Dec-43 A58-315 Climbing tests delayed due to unserviceablity of Cine Camera in automatic observer. Durability test on locally made tyres begun.
22-Dec-43 A58-315 Durability test on locally made tyres, worn through to canvas in 10 flights using concrete taxyways and runways.
29-Dec-43 A58-315 Flown to Gorrie for tropical test of modified oil cooler, which did not give enough cooling in warm air. Locally made tyres do better on non concrete runways.
5-Jan-44 A58-315 Oil cooling tests, pressure and temperature gauges fitted throughout the system plus another form of restriction on the air outlet.
12-Jan-44 A58-10 Drogue towing, use of English pully has eliminated cable breakages, tests now on drogues, to eliminate their unsteady streaming.
2-Feb-44 A58-303 Modification found successful on A58-315 has been done on several other aircraft which have been flight tested. The effect on oil temperature varies between aircraft, 65 to 80 degrees, now trying for a ground test of all such viscosity valves.
2-Feb-44 A58-315 Modification found successful on A58-315 has been done on several other aircraft which have been flight tested. The effect on oil temperature varies between aircraft, 65 to 80 degrees, now trying for a ground test of all such viscosity valves.
2-Feb-44 A58-10 Drogue towing, stronger drogues break cables, more flexible cable has been procured.
2-Feb-44 A58-10 G-suit equipment installation held up by intermittent arrival of parts
2-Feb-44 A58-303 G-suit equipment installation held up by intermittent arrival of parts
8-Mar-44 A58-303 Tests to be done of 1 piece G-suit made by Dunlops. Photographic recorder of G pressure, maximum G and airspeed being installed.
15-Mar-44 A59-315 Fuel consumption tests begun
29-Mar-44 A59-315 Performance tests done. Minor misfiring at cruise power noted and will be investigated.
29-Mar-44 A58-303 G-Suit. Device to restrict elevator movement at a certain pre-determined G value is being installed.
8-Jun-44 A58-303 High G tests with G-suit begun
29-Jun-44 A58-303 High G tests with G-suit, further tests with new equipment
19-Jul-44 A58-110 Reconditioned Merlin 46, 8 hours flown, satisfactory, no glycol leaks.
26-Jul-44 A58-303 High G tests with G-suit, tests completed
26-Jul-44 A58-110 Reconditioned Merlin 46, glycol leak at 60 degrees C has suddenly increased, leaking all the time. No further operation of the engine.
16-Aug-44 A58-110 Second Reconditioned Merlin 46 fitted, glycol leak after 2 hours 25 minutes flying. Report on first engine being forwarded.
13-Sep-44 A58-315 RG 5/3 spark plugs, still satisfactory
15-Nov-44 A58-303 Photographic recording unit for G-Suit tests completed and fitted at 1 APU.
22-Nov-44 A58-303 To test American G.3 G-Suit.
13-Dec-44 A58-303 Test American G.3 G-Suit. 12 preliminary flights, suit estimated to give 2G protection.
20-Dec-44 A58-599 Carriage of 300 pound wing bombs, carriers and belly tank fitted.
20-Dec-44 A58-303 American G.3 G-Suit. Initial tests completed.
3-Jan-45 A58-303 Test American G.3 G-Suit. Testing the G2 valve versus the USN Cornelius valve.
10-Jan-45 A58-499 Carriage of 300 pound wing bombs, awaiting trials with bombs fitted.
14-Feb-45 A58-499 Carriage of 300 pound wing bombs, deflectors for spent cartridge cases being prepared
7-Mar-45 A58-499 CO contamination, equipment tests, slight modification needed. Deflectors for spent cartridges fitted, 300 pound wing bomb racks.
14-Mar-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, level speeds at combat power done.
14-Mar-45 A58-499 CO contamination, equipment tested, slight modification needed. Low power speeds completed, deflector to prevent bomb fusing by spent cannon cases being tested.
21-Mar-45 A58-499 Deflectors for spent cartridges flight tested with 300 pound wing bomb racks. Mock up of coolant system done, tests on corrosion problems begun.
28-Mar-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, preliminary fuel consumption runs
28-Mar-45 A58-499 Deflector to prevent bomb fusing by spent cannon cases being tested, various modifications done. Mock up of coolant system completed, tests about to start.
5-Apr-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, fuel consumption runs done.
12-Apr-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, fuel consumption runs at 20 and 30,000 feet done
12-Apr-45 A58-499 Deflector to prevent bomb fusing by spent cannon cases satisfactory, position error with 250 pound bombs calculated.
18-Apr-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, take off tests done. Mock up of coolant system completed, 40 hours of running with uninhibited glycol and water mixture.
25-Apr-45 A58-499 300 pound wing bombs, no further work for last 2 weeks, aircraft unserviceable
25-Apr-45 na Mock up of coolant system completed, 60 hours of running with uninhibited glycol and water mixture. No results yet
16-May-45 A58-499 300 pound wing bombs, aircraft serviceable, flight trials underway.
16-May-45 na Coolant system corrosion, CAC aerater header tank tested, working satisfactorily.
23-May-45 A58-499 300 pound wing bombs, Rated and combat power level speed runs done with 250 pound bombs and 30 gallon belly tank, level speeds at optimum range, -2 pounds/square inch boost at 1,800 rpm, this finishes flying work.
23-May-45 na Mock up of coolant system completed, 60 hours of running with uninhibited glycol and water mixture. No results yet
Apr-46 A58-717 Tropical trials with improved flexible fuel tank, test tank fitted, aircraft to be sent to Darwin

Early Australian Spitfire imports and RAAF strengths, to end 1943

14-Aug-1942 6
19-Oct-1942 6
21-Oct-1942 5
27-Oct-1942 6
28-Oct-1942 10
29-Oct-1942 7
30-Oct-1942 9
2-Nov-1942 4
4-Nov-1942 16
5-Nov-1942 1
10-Nov-1942 6

Strength excludes aircraft awaiting official write off but includes still to be assembled. Date is week ending. Delivered, lost and assembled are cumulative figures.
Date / Deliv / Lost / Strength / Assembled
5-Sep-42 / 6 / na / na / 6
9-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
16-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
23-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
30-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
9-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
16-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
23-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
30-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
6-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 14
13-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 29
20-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 45
27-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 62
4-Dec-42 / na / na / na / 73
11-Dec-42 / 103 / 3 / 100 / 76
18-Dec-42 / 103 / 3 / 100 / 82
25-Dec-42 / 103 / 4 / 99 / 94
31-Dec-42 / 108 / 4 / 104 / 95
8-Jan-43 / 108 / 4 / 104 / 97
15-Jan-43 / na / na / 104 / 101
22-Jan-43 / 108 / 5 / 103 / 
29-Jan-43 / 114 / na / 108 / 106
5-Feb-43 / 114 / 4 / 107 / 106
12-Feb-43 / 114 / 4 / 107 / 107
19-Feb-43 / 114 / 9 / 105 / 107
26-Feb-43 / 118 / 11  / 107 / 107
5-Mar-43 / 124 / 11 / 113 / 110
12-Mar-43 / 132 / 10 / 119 / 112
19-Mar-43 / 145 / 10 / 127 / 114
26-Mar-43 / 144 / 10 / 125 / 115
2-Apr-43 / 144 / 11 / 125 / 115
9-Apr-43 / 144 / 15 / 125 / 115
16-Apr-43 / 151 / 18 / 132 / 115
23-Apr-43 / 165 / 18 / 145 / 119
30-Apr-43 / 165 / 17 / 146 / 12
7-May-43 / 165 / 18 / 132 / 140
14-May-43 / 165 / 18 / 132 / 147
21-May-43 / 171 / 18 / 138 / 157
28-May-43 / 171 / 18 / 137 / 157
4-Jun-43 / 171 / 19 / 135 / 159
11-Jun-43 / 171 / 28 / 135 / 163
18-Jun-43 / 176 / 31 / 138 / 166
25-Jun-43 / 177 / 34 / 135 / 167
2-Jul-43 / 195 / 37 / 151 / 168
9-Jul-43 / 202 / 37 / 141 / 172
16-Jul-43 / 202 / 39 / 139 / 174
23-Jul-43 / 202 / 44 / 138 / 186
30-Jul-43 / 202 / 44 / 142 / 192
6-Aug-43 / 218 / 45 / 158 / 198
13-Aug-43 / 228 / 46 / 167 / 199
20-Aug-43 / 228 / 46 / 165 / 205
27-Aug-43 / 228 / 46 / 165 / 217
3-Sep-43 / 228 / 51 / 165 / 218
10-Sep-43 / 228 / 53 / 162 / 222
17-Sep-43 / 228 / 53 / 161 / 222
25-Sep-43 / 228 / 54 / 160 / 222
1-Oct-43 / 229 / 57 / 158 / 223
8-Oct-43 / 235 / 63 / 162 / 225
15-Oct-43 / 235 / 66 / 163 / 225
22-Oct-43 / 260 / 69 / 186 / 225
29-Oct-43 / 260 / 72 / 186 / 226
5-Nov-43 / 260 / 72 / 186 / 226
12-Nov-43 / 265 / 73 / 190 / 230
19-Nov-43 / 265 / 73 / 188 / 239
26-Nov-43 / 265 / 76 / 186 / 248
3-Dec-43 / 271 / 77 / 191 / 252
10-Dec-43 / 271 / 77 / 190 / 252
17-Dec-43 / 273 / 77 / 192 / 253
24-Dec-43 / 273 / 77 / 191 / 255
31-Dec-43 / 278 / 78 / 194 / 255

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> We talking about carrier based F4Fs or Cactus Air Force F4Fs?


Carrier based F4F’s were the Cactus Air Force after their carriers got sunk or damaged.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Were the Wildcat pilots skilled pilots?, like I posted only 6 of the RAAF pilots had seen combat, did the Wildcats guns work?, the Spitfires didn't have heaters and the 20mm ammunition was made in a new factory in Sydney and was not within spec. The Spitfires the RAAF got were worn out, they had been shipped as deck cargo and had severe corrosion, there was a serious issue with the CSU with 30 documented cases of them failing, lastly, as stated by SR6, Darwin Merlin 46's only ran 9 PSI boost giving about 1020hp, the normal Merlin 45 engined MkV's produced 1500hp, loosing 500hp is a massive disadvantage.


Well like everyone else Wildcat pilots were veterans after they saw combat. There was Coral Sea, Midway and then Guadalcanal. Pilots died, got transferred, got wounded, new pilots came in and replaced them so it was a mix of guys that were in maybe a few fights with Zeros or maybe none at all. They were not like Germans and British pilots that fought constantly during the Battle of Britain.

I’ve seen info that the Spitfires were worn out and someone back in this thread said they were brand new, I don’t know which it was, but some of the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were literally pieced together from multiple wrecks after getting shelled by battleships and cruisers so “my spitfire ain’t brand new” doesn’t really hold water compared to the crap they were flying at Guadalcanal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Carrier based F4F’s were the Cactus Air Force after their carriers got sunk or damaged.


Carrier based F4Fs operated in a dust-free environment, however.

Henderson Field, on the otherhand, was either a dustbowl or mud pond, depending on the day's weather...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> “my spitfire ain’t brand new” doesn’t really hold water compared to the crap they were flying at Guadalcanal.


And you're trying to make an overall comparison of 2 aircraft based on their *operational condition *rather then their full operational potential when they roll out of the factory. No matter what you say the Spitfire MKV was the superior aircraft when compared to the Zero Models 21, 22 and 31. It was faster, performed better above 20,000', was faster in a dive, had better armor protection and armament. The Zero had the range and probably better acceleration and better maneuverability below 300 mph.

Now after that factor in tactics and pilot skill.

Of course the Wildcat is going to be more robust compared to the Spitfire, for starters is was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier!

Lastly, READ about what those RAAF units were up against when attempting to defend their territory.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you're trying to make an overall comparison of 2 aircraft based on their *operational condition *rather then their full operational potential when they roll out of the factory. No matter what you say the Spitfire MKV was the superior aircraft when compared to the Zero Models 21, 22 and 31. It was faster, performed better above 20,000', was faster in a dive, had better armor protection and armament. The Zero had the range and probably better acceleration and better maneuverability below 300 mph.
> 
> Now after that factor in tactics and pilot skill.
> 
> ...


I would agree the Spitfires based in Europe were better (I’ve said that several times) but not the Spitfires that were operated by the RAAF. According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference. The Spitfire can barely outroll the Zero at high speed. The Zero was 1 mph faster at around 17,000 feet (obviously dead even). The test pilots themselves said “the Spitfire possed no outstanding features to allow it to gain the upper hand if combat was started on even terms”. They said if the Spitfire started 4000 feet above the Zero it could boom and zoom at will, but dang, any relatively closely matched fighters could do that to each other with a height advantage.

I know the Wildcat was a tough navy plane. My point about the Wildcat was that people say “well the Spitfires were worn out that’s why they didn’t do well”, my point is the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were literally blown up by naval artillery shells and multiple planes scavenged to make one junk pile fly and they still had a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros not including the bombers they shot down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> *I would agree the Spitfires based in Europe were better (I’ve said that several times) but not the Spitfires that were operated by the RAAF*. According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference. The Spitfire can barely outroll the Zero at high speed. The Zero was 1 mph faster at around 17,000 feet (obviously dead even). The test pilots themselves said “the Spitfire possed no outstanding features to allow it to gain the upper hand if combat was started on even terms”. They said if the Spitfire started 4000 feet above the Zero it could boom and zoom at will, but dang, any relatively closely matched fighters could do that to each other with a height advantage.
> 
> I know the Wildcat was a tough navy plane. My point about the Wildcat was that people say “well the Spitfires were worn out that’s why they didn’t do well”, my point is the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were literally blown up by naval artillery shells and multiple planes scavenged to make one junk pile fly and they still had a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros not including the bombers they shot down.


Take a factory fresh Spit V and a Zero and put them side by side - be it in Australia, England, the US or China, the results are going to be the same, the Spitfire is the better aircraft PERIOD. I read the reports and they were compiled with* operational aircraft* and IMO were probably made to show a worse case scenario so better aircraft can be attained. If you're flying with beat up aircraft (as some claimed and seems to be true) or with something that is diminishing performance (like drop tanks or desert air filters) you can be using P-51s and you're still going to be at a disadvantage!

You're painting this with a wide brush and continue to ignore the fact that in the final outcome these questionably tired Spitfires with these bolt on air filters were very much responsible for the Japanese giving up their bombing campaigns against Australia.

Stop comparing this campaign to Guadalcanal, two different environments with two different tactical goals.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 18, 2021)

Perhaps worthy of note, the A6M3 was a contemporary of the Spitfire Mk. VIII or IX, not the older, and considerably less capable Mk V. 
The defense of Darwin is the absolute worst case scenario for the Spitfire. If some malevolent being tried to assemble a Spitfire to be as uncompetitive as possible, it would look a lot like the Mk.V's in Northern Australia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Take a factory fresh Spit V and a Zero and put them side by side - be it in Australia, England, the US or China, the results are going to be the same, the Spitfire is the better aircraft PERIOD. I read the reports and they were compiled with* operational aircraft* and IMO were probably made to show a worse case scenario so better aircraft can be attained. If you're flying with beat up aircraft (as some claimed and seems to be true) or with something that is diminishing performance (like drop tanks or desert air filters) you can be using P-51s and you're still going to be at a disadvantage!
> 
> You're painting this with a wide brush and continue to ignore the fact that in the final outcome these questionably tired Spitfires with these bolt on air filters were very much responsible for the Japanese giving up their bombing campaigns against Australia.
> 
> Stop comparing this campaign to Guadalcanal, two different environments with two different tactical goals.


I enjoy the debate but we may just have to disagree on this one. Please also remember that the Zero used in the test wasn’t factory fresh either. I agree 100% that a new Spitfire in europe with full boost, no tropical filter etc would/should be a whole different story but the Spitfires they shipped weren’t set up that way. 

I’m sure you’ve read Shore’s books A Bloody Shambles? In the last book they talk about brand new Spitfire VIII having difficulty with KI43’s to the point that many of them were out of service for bent fuselages. (The Spitfires VIII was a freaking hot rod) The Japanese had adapted tactics and placed KI43’s from high level all the way down to low level so the Spitfires couldn’t just boom and zoom them, any altitude the Spitfires leveled out at had KI43’s around them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I enjoy the debate but we may just have to disagree on this one. Please also remember that the Zero used in the test wasn’t factory fresh either. I agree 100% that a new Spitfire in europe with full boost, no tropical filter etc would/should be a whole different story but the Spitfires they shipped weren’t set up that way.


Agree


pinsog said:


> I’m sure you’ve read Shore’s books A Bloody Shambles?


The first 2 Volumes


pinsog said:


> In the last book they talk about brand new Spitfire VIII having difficulty with KI43’s to the point that many of them were out of service for bent fuselages. (The Spitfires VIII was a freaking hot rod) The Japanese had adapted tactics and placed KI43’s from high level all the way down to low level so the Spitfires couldn’t just boom and zoom them, any altitude the Spitfires leveled out at had KI43’s around them.


I can see this on a turning dogfight, the Oscar was more maneuverable in the zero, also there is an element of acceleration. Even the later model Oscars were not that fast compared two the Spitfire VIII so unless you’re close in I still think the Spitfire would be the better aircraft and come out ahead if the pilot was seasoned, used energy tactics, speed and disengaged if forced into a turning fight


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree
> 
> The first 2 Volumes
> 
> I can see this on a turning dogfight, the Oscar was more maneuverable in the zero, also there is an element of acceleration. Even the later model Oscars were not that fast compared two the Spitfire VIII so unless you’re close in I still think the Spitfire would be the better aircraft and come out ahead if the pilot was seasoned, used energy tactics, speed and disengaged if forced into a turning fight


You should read Shores last book when you can. They told of KI43’s intercepting a recon P38 and a recon Mosquito. The recon Mosquito was at, I think, 28,000 feet and the KI43 dove zoom climbed up and shot it down. I was floored. The Spitfires weren’t trying to dogfight but the Japanese tactics forced them to. I was floored on that as well. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of a contemporary fighter that I’d want to be in to fight a Spitfire VIII, they were a stud. 

If I get a chance I’ll see if I can find the quotes and I’ll post them about the Spitfire VIII

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> You should read Shores last book when you can. They told of KI43’s intercepting a recon P38 and a recon Mosquito. The recon Mosquito was at, I think, 28,000 feet and the KI43 dove zoom climbed up and shot it down. I was floored. The Spitfires weren’t trying to dogfight but the Japanese tactics forced them to. I was floored on that as well. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of a contemporary fighter that I’d want to be in to fight a Spitfire VIII, they were a stud.
> 
> If I get a chance I’ll see if I can find the quotes and I’ll post them about the Spitfire VIII


All good but one incident like this doesn't mean much. I'd like to know specifics, units, speeds etc. Hopefully you can find this reference.

Again, one incident doesn't mean this was a common occurrence.












Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story


By age 21, Capt. Tilley was an Ace combat pilot! By age 21 Capt. Tilley had received a DFC, 7 Air Medals, and a Campaign ribbon with 7 battle stars



www.kilroywashere.org

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.



Um, yes they did, HMS Furious and Argus, aside from seaplane tenders converted for launching aircraft since 1914... Furious launched the Tondern raid, the first aircraft carrier launched air strike in history in July 1918.



The Tondern Raid 1918 - About this website



Just messing with you... 



pinsog said:


> According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference.



Yes, but as pointed out, the trials were done with the A6M3, not the A6M2, which had inferior performance to the former, referred to as the "Hap" in the trials, after "Hap" Arnold, but was subsequently changed to "Hamp" to avoid embarrassment. To put those trials into context, they were to evaluate the new type of Japanese fighter against existing types.

This is a good page on this model of the Zero that is often referenced on this forum.



Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3)





pinsog said:


> but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new.



The 42 Capstans delivered to Australia in 1942 were new aircraft. The first to arrive were Mk.VCs built by Supermarine Aviation (Vickers) Ltd to contract No.B19713/39 of a fifth order for 1100 Spitfire Is dated 11 October 1940 but before construction the production line changed from Mk.Is to Vs, VIs, VIIs and eventually IXs, with the VCs for Australia being mainly rolled out in May 1942.

Here's an example of one of the first to arrive in Australia in August, BR386, which received the RAAF serial number A58-22, from the Big Book of Spitfires by Morgan and Shacklady:

BR386 2923 HPA FF 9-5-42 39MU 10-5 47MU 4-6 _Stir Cas_ 19-6 Aus 25-8

This entry contradicts other reports that state the first Spitfires had arrived in Australia by 14 August, nevertheless, the aircraft on rollout had served with maintenance units (MU) for servicing prior to being shipped to Australia aboard the _Stirling Castle_, a troop ship. This early arrival date can be confirmed by a report carried out on 17 August 1942 at Laverton, Victoria where the type was assembled and readied for service on delivery, which states that "I found however, that the first aircraft is not yet erected and and it is estimated that by the RAF Engineering Officer who is in charge of the erection party that the six aircraft will not be available until after a period of 10 to 14 days." This lines up with the 25 August date mentioned above, which leads me to suspect the date Morgan and Shacklady quote is the completion date of the aircraft rather than their arrival date in Australia. The two authors got their information from the British Aircraft Movement Cards on microfiche at the RAF Museum (the originals held at the Air Historic Branch), which lead me to suspect the original data the British had on the aircraft was incorrect, rather than an error by the authors.

The first six aircraft were BR386 (A58-22), BR462 (A58-23), BR471 (A58-25), BR568 (A58-56), BR570 (A58-57) and BR572 (A58-58). The first Spitfire to receive an Australian serial was AR510, which was delivered in December 1942, becoming A58-1. Before the Australian serials were applied the Spits went by their manufacturer applied serials. Photographic evidence of this exists.

The EE serial batch were built by Westland Aircraft Ltd at Yeovil to Contract No.B124305/40 for 200 aircraft and were delivered between September 1942 and February 1943. The bulk of them rolled out in September 1942 and were on their way to Australia a month or two later in October and November.

This is an entry for the previously mentioned Spitfire VC EE610, which became A58-110, of which there are a few surviving images around:

"EE610 6MU 14-9-42 215MU 23-9 _Port Wynd_ 9-10 Aus 21-11"

EE610 arrived in Australia in November 1942 aboard the freighter _Port Wyndham_ along with a larger number of aircraft than the previous six, mostly Westland built VCs. The very first batch of Capstans was diverted to North Africa, making the six that arrived on the _Stirling Castle_ the first to arrive in Australia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I would agree the Spitfires based in Europe were better (I’ve said that several times) but not the Spitfires that were operated by the RAAF. According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference. The Spitfire can barely outroll the Zero at high speed. The Zero was 1 mph faster at around 17,000 feet (obviously dead even). The test pilots themselves said “the Spitfire possed no outstanding features to allow it to gain the upper hand if combat was started on even terms”. They said if the Spitfire started 4000 feet above the Zero it could boom and zoom at will, but dang, any relatively closely matched fighters could do that to each other with a height advantage.


Seriously mate, the RAAF spitfires were fitted with high altitude merlin 46's rated at 9psi boost pressure not Merlin 45's running 16psi, as posted by SR6 with only 9psi the 46 was giving away 500hp at the test altitude, the RAF had cleared all Merlin marks to 16psi in Aug '42 and were running 18psi Feb '42, do you think that running less boost in '43 than the Merlin XII was 1940 could be the reason the V's performance was down to the Zero's level?.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Perhaps worthy of note, the A6M3 was a contemporary of the Spitfire Mk. VIII or IX, not the older, and considerably less capable Mk V.
> The defense of Darwin is the absolute worst case scenario for the Spitfire. If some malevolent being tried to assemble a Spitfire to be as uncompetitive as possible, it would look a lot like the Mk.V's in Northern Australia


That just about sums it up.


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Please also remember that the Zero used in the test wasn’t factory fresh either.


The Zero's used over Darwin were brand new, you should read the book Darwin Spitfires.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> The Zero's used over Darwin were brand new, you should read the book Darwin Spitfires.



As were the Spitfires  See my post above.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

A bit about the Merlin 46 trials at Boscombe down in early 1942, where Merlin 46 powered VC AB488 was compared with Merlin 45 powered AA873, with the following data:

Max level speed AA873 was 374 mph at 19,000 ft, with AB488 358 at 21,000 ft. Level speed at 10,000 ft: AA873 was 336 mph, AB488 was 315. Service ceiling @ 3,000 rpm: AA873 and AB488 was 38,000 ft. Max rate of climb: AA873 was 3180 ft/min at 13,400 ft and AB488 was 35,100 ft/min at 17,100 ft. Rate of climb at 10,000 ft: AA873 was 3180 and AB488 was 2670.

The Merlin 46 demonstrated significantly greater performance at altitude compared to the Merlin 45, but when fitted with a 29 gallon fuel tank behind the pilot's seat, the Merlin 46 engined Spitfire was more difficult to fly above 15,000 ft.

A further comparison between Spitfires fitted with tropical filters and without can be made between Merlin 45 engined VCs AB320 and the previously mentioned AA873. AB320 took ten minutes to reach 14,000 ft at 2,145 ft/min, with AA873 taking 7.4 minutes to reach 13,400 ft at a rate of climb of 2,900 ft/min. AB320's ceiling was 34,500 ft, AA873's was 36,400 ft, slightly lower than that recorded in the previous test above. AB320's maximum speed was 337.5 mph at 17,400 ft, while AA873's was 374 mph at 19,000 ft.

These figures clearly show the discrepancy in performance between filter equipped and non filter equipped Spitfires. Granted, the trials were carried out in Britain and not in either a tropical nor desert climate.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Seriously mate, the RAAF spitfires were fitted with high altitude merlin 46's rated at 9psi boost pressure not Merlin 45's running 16psi, as posted by SR6 with only 9psi the 46 was giving away 500hp at the test altitude, the RAF had cleared all Merlin marks to 16psi in Aug '42 and were running 18psi Feb '42, do you think that running less boost in '43 than the Merlin XII was 1940 could be the reason the V's performance was down to the Zero's level?.


I have said about a dozen times that a Spitfire based in Europe with no filter and high boost etc would have been a different story BUT THE SPITFIRES THAT WERE USED BY THE RAAF WERE INFERIOR TO THE ZERO, even inferior to the captured Zero that didn’t even have over boost. I never said a Zero was better than a Spitfire mark IV or anything else. I said the Spitfires delivered to the RAAF and fitted with the dust filters and run at 9 psi were definitely inferior to a Zero as confirmed by the 2 test pilots that flew them. It was 28-5 in favor of the Zero, why didn’t they turn up the boost if that would have magically worked? What altitude can you get 16 psi boost?


----------



## pinsog (Oct 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All good but one incident like this doesn't mean much. I'd like to know specifics, units, speeds etc. Hopefully you can find this reference.
> 
> Again, one incident doesn't mean this was a common occurrence.
> 
> ...








I found the Spitfire VIII story somewhere else. I’ll add the link so you can read before and after. I don’t cherry pick stuff to try to win an argument, I’m interested in finding the real story so I want you to be able to read everything. Notice the page number 193 so you’ll know about where to go. 



https://wlv.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/2436/299634/Preston-Hough%20PhD%20Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 645354
> 
> I found the Spitfire VIII story somewhere else. I’ll add the link so you can read before and after. I don’t cherry pick stuff to try to win an argument, I’m interested in finding the real story so I want you to be able to read everything. Notice the page number 193 so you’ll know about where to go.
> 
> ...



No, I get it but realize *again* this was a diary entry describing a combat situation where the Spitfire pilots attempted a maneuvering fight with Oscars. Of course you're going to bend the aircraft!

You don't get into a turning fight with Oscars and Zeros! AVG 101!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I said the Spitfires delivered to the RAAF and fitted with the dust filters and run at 9 psi were definitely inferior to a Zero as confirmed by the 2 test pilots that flew them.



Depends on which Zero and which Spitfire, you repeatedly claim the Zero in your test, but that trial was done with a later variant of the Zero to the A6M2s that the Aussie Spitfires first encountered, which tends to blur your evidence a bit. Not all Zeros were equal, just like not all Spitfires were.

It's also worth remarking that despite what basic performance trials revealed between the two types, Spitfires regularly tackled the Japanese in combat and came off better in 1943. In March 1943 a force of nine B5Ns and 16 A6Ms were intercepted by 54 Sqn, with the loss of three Japanese aircraft and no Spitfires shot down, with ace Clive Caldwell credited with one kill. 54 Sqn's first kill was a Ki-46, as was 457's. On March 22, a force of 22 G4Ms escorted by 27 A6Ms was intercepted, in which six G4Ms and two A6Ms were shot down for the loss of four Spitfires. This was before the disastrous raid on 2nd May, in which 13 Spitfires were lost, five of which were shot down, the rest through mechanical failure.

Following the usual inquiry and public bashing of the Spitfire in the press, favourable results began emerging, on 20 June, 25 bombers escorted by a large number of A6Ms was intercepted and 16 enemy aircraft were shot down for the loss of two Spitfires.

The last major air incursion the early Capstans were involved in over Darwin was an odd one in which a single Ki-46 was escorted by no less than 20 A6Ms, the Japanese clearly getting tired of their recon birds being shot down. The final tally was seven enemy aircraft shot down for the loss of four Spitfires.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

It's worth noting in these interceptor clashes that the role of the interceptor is not specifically to be better than the fighters defending the bombers, but to be better than the bombers, as obvious as that might sound. Obviously, if the escort fighter is superior then the interceptors have work to do to avoid combat with them, but their aim is to shoot down the bombers, not just to tackle the fighter escorts.

I'll include a note that I left in another thread about the Bf 109E during the Battle of Britain, which had superior altitude performance compared to the Spitfire I and Hurricane I, Bf 109s accounting for a higher number of RAF fighters than vice versa, achieving a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio in favour of the Bf 109, but the clincher is that the RAF accounted for a greater number of enemy aircraft than the Luftwaffe did, achieving a nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio, which resulted in unsustainable losses the Luftwaffe could ill-afford to lose.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2021)

So, to illustrate my point, taking a look at my post above and the major combats mentioned, bearing in mind it isn't a comprehensive list of aircraft losses, the RAAF lost a total of 24 Spitfires in those I mentioned, I'd say most of which were shot down by A6Ms, whereas the Japanese lost a total of 36 aircraft of all types, which means in that period across the raids I mention, the Japanese are losing by a ratio of 3 to 2 to the RAAF.

Obviously this needs to be put into some meaningful context, such as total number of attackers versus total number of defenders and the ability of both sides to replenish their losses, but the point is made that the odds are against the Japanese in this scenario.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 19, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> As were the Spitfires  See my post above.


Well considering how many mechanical failures they had I'd dispute how ''new'' they were, they always seemed to be outnumbered also.


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 19, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It's worth noting in these interceptor clashes that the role of the interceptor is not specifically to be better than the fighters defending the bombers, but to be better than the bombers, as obvious as that might sound. Obviously, if the escort fighter is superior then the interceptors have work to do to avoid combat with them, but their aim is to shoot down the bombers, not just to tackle the fighter escorts.
> 
> I'll include a note that I left in another thread about the Bf 109E during the Battle of Britain, which had superior altitude performance compared to the Spitfire I and Hurricane I, Bf 109s accounting for a higher number of RAF fighters than vice versa, achieving a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio in favour of the Bf 109, but the clincher is that the RAF accounted for a greater number of enemy aircraft than the Luftwaffe did, achieving a nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio, which resulted in unsustainable losses the Luftwaffe could ill-afford to lose.


Over Darwin the tactics were the same as the BoB, priority targets were bombers, that explains why 19 of the 26 Spitfires lost were shot down while engaging them.


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 19, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I never said a Zero was better than a Spitfire mark IV or anything else.


Yes you have numerous times starting with post 1,243, you might try reading reply 1,305, puts your 26-1 kill ratio into perspective.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 19, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Depends on which Zero and which Spitfire, you repeatedly claim the Zero in your test, but that trial was done with a later variant of the Zero to the A6M2s that the Aussie Spitfires first encountered, which tends to blur your evidence a bit. Not all Zeros were equal, just like not all Spitfires were.
> 
> It's also worth remarking that despite what basic performance trials revealed between the two types, Spitfires regularly tackled the Japanese in combat and came off better in 1943. In March 1943 a force of nine B5Ns and 16 A6Ms were intercepted by 54 Sqn, with the loss of three Japanese aircraft and no Spitfires shot down, with ace Clive Caldwell credited with one kill. 54 Sqn's first kill was a Ki-46, as was 457's. On March 22, a force of 22 G4Ms escorted by 27 A6Ms was intercepted, in which six G4Ms and two A6Ms were shot down for the loss of four Spitfires. This was before the disastrous raid on 2nd May, in which 13 Spitfires were lost, five of which were shot down, the rest through mechanical failure.
> 
> ...



What is your source for these combat results? They don't tally too well with RAAF Combats in NWA


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Oct 19, 2021)

257 Spitfre mark V shipped to Australia, ignoring the group diverted to the Middle East, sorted by RAF Serial, 11 lost at sea, 1 damaged beyond repair en route. First dates, mark and engines from the online Spitfire histories, departure and arrival dates from either air force or ship movement records, unfortunately the dates themselves have had to be deleted to fit the message into the 20,000 character limit rule. Arrive -1st is the number of days between the first date and arrival in Australia, Arrive-depart is the number of days en route. The ADF serials web page has some interesting variations on the ship names.

Serial / Mark / Engine / RAAF / Ship / Arrive-1st / Arrive-depart / Note
AR510 / Vc / M46 / A58-1 / Waroonga / 175 / 69 / 
AR523 / Vc / M46 / A58-2 / Waroonga / 161 / 69 / 
AR526 / Vc / M46 / A58-3 / Waroonga / 163 / 69 / 
AR532 / Vc / M46 / A58-4 / Waroonga / 157 / 69 / 
AR558 / Vc / M46 / A58-5 / Port Wyndham / 119 / 43 / 
AR563 / Vc / M46 / A58-6 / Port Sydney / 113 / 69 / 
AR564 / Vc / M46 / A58-7 / Sussex / 255 / 38 / 
AR619 / Vc / M46 / A58-8 / Sussex / 86 / 40 / 
AR620 / Vc / M46 / A58-9 / Sussex / 82 / 40 / 
AR621 / Vc / M46 / A58-10 / Sussex / 82 / 40 / 
BR237 / VcT / M46 / A58-15 / Eurybates / 127 / 80 / 
BR238 / VcT / M46 / A58-16 / Hoperidge / 124 / 80 / 
BR239 / VcT / M46 / A58-17 / Hoperidge / 121 / 80 / 
BR240 / VcT / M46 / A58-18 / Hoperidge / 115 / 80 / 
BR241 / VcT / M46 / A58-19 / Hoperidge / 114 / 80 / 
BR386 / VcT / M46 / A58-22 / Stirling Castle / 95 / 54 / 
BR462 / VcT / M46 / A58-23 / Stirling Castle / 88 / 54 / 
BR468 / VcT / M46 / A58-24 / Hoperidge / 160 / 80 / 
BR471 / VcT / M46 / A58-25 / Stirling Castle / 84 / 54 / 
BR480 / VcT / M46 / A58-26 / Hoperidge / 146 / 80 / 
BR484 / VcT / M46 / A58-27 / Eurybates / 138 / 80 / 
BR485 / VcT / M46 / A58-28 / Eurybates / 137 / 80 / 
BR490 / VcT / M46 / A58-29 / Eurybates / 133 / 80 / 
BR493 / VcT / M46 / A58-30 / Eurybates / 129 / 80 / 
BR495 / VcT / M46 / A58-31 / Eurybates / 127 / 80 / 
BR497 / VcT / M46 / A58-32 / Eurybates / 127 / 80 / 
BR499 / VcT / M46 / A58-33 / Eurybates / 127 / 80 / 
BR526 / VcT / M46 / A58-34 / Hoperidge / 132 / 80 / 
BR527 / VcT / M46 / A58-35 / Hoperidge / 132 / 80 / 
BR528 / VcT / M46 / A58-36 / Hoperidge / 132 / 80 / 
BR530 / VcT / M46 / A58-37 / Hoperidge / 132 / 80 / 
BR531 / VcT / M46 / A58-38 / Hoperidge / 125 / 80 / 
BR532 / VcT / M46 / A58-39 / Eurybates / 122 / 80 / 
BR533 / VcT / M46 / A58-40 / Eurybates / 120 / 80 / 
BR535 / VcT / M46 / A58-41 / Hoperidge / 122 / 80 / 
BR536 / VcT / M46 / A58-42 / Hoperidge / 122 / 80 / 
BR537 / VcT / M46 / A58-43 / Hoperidge / 120 / 80 / 
BR538 / VcT / M46 / A58-44 / Hoperidge / 120 / 80 / 
BR539 / VcT / M46 / A58-45 / Hoperidge / 118 / 80 / 
BR540 / VcT / M46 / A58-46 / Hoperidge / 116 / 80 / 
BR541 / VcT / M46 / A58-47 / Hoperidge / 113 / 80 / 
BR542 / VcT / M46 / A58-48 / Hoperidge / 110 / 80 / 
BR543 / VcT / M46 / A58-49 / Hoperidge / 108 / 80 / 
BR544 / VcT / M46 / A58-50 / Hoperidge / 106 / 80 / 
BR545 / VcT / M46 / A58-51 / Hoperidge / 104 / 80 / 
BR546 / VcT / M46 / A58-52 / Hoperidge / 101 / 80 / 
BR547 / VcT / M46 / A58-53 / Hoperidge / 98 / 80 / 
BR548 / VcT / M46 / A58-54 / Hoperidge / 98 / 80 / 
BR549 / VcT / M46 / A58-55 / Hoperidge / 93 / 80 / 
BR568 / VcT / M46 / A58-56 / Stirling Castle / 86 / 54 / 
BR570 / VcT / M46 / A58-57 / Stirling Castle / 85 / 54 / 
BR572 / VcT / M46 / A58-58 / Stirling Castle / 85 / 54 / 
BR574 / VcT / M46 / A58-59 / Tekoa / 196 / 76 / 
BR584 / VcT / M46 / A58-60 / Hoperidge / 146 / 80 / 
BR589 / VcT / M46 / A58-61 / Hoperidge / 140 / 80 / 
BS158 / VcT / M46 / A58-11 / Eurybates / 124 / 80 / 
BS162 / VcT / M46 / A58-12 / Eurybates / 119 / 80 / 
BS163 / VcT / M46 / A58-62 / Hoperidge / 124 / 80 / 
BS164 / VcT / M46 / A58-63 / Hoperidge / 124 / 80 / 
BS165 / VcT / M46 / A58-13 / Hoperidge / 121 / 80 / 
BS166 / VcT / M46 / A58-64 / Hoperidge / 120 / 80 / 
BS169 / VcT / M46 / A58-65 / Hoperidge / 118 / 80 / 
BS171 / VcT / M46 / A58-66 / Hoperidge / 115 / 80 / 
BS173 / VcT / M46 / A58-67 / Hoperidge / 113 / 80 / 
BS174 / VcT / M46 / A58-68 / Hoperidge / 113 / 80 / 
BS175 / VcT / M46 / A58-69 / Hoperidge / 110 / 80 / 
BS178 / VcT / M46 / A58-70 / Hoperidge / 107 / 80 / 
BS181 / VcT / M46 / A58-71 / Hoperidge / 104 / 80 / 
BS182 / VcT / M46 / A58-72 / Hoperidge / 104 / 80 / 
BS184 / VcT / M46 / A58-73 / Hoperidge / 104 / 80 / 
BS186 / VcT / M46 / A58-74 / Hoperidge / 100 / 80 / 
BS187 / VcT / M46 / A58-75 / Hoperidge / 100 / 80 / 
BS188 / VcT / M46 / A58-76 / Hoperidge / 98 / 80 / 
BS190 / VcT / M46 / A58-77 / Hoperidge / 96 / 80 / 
BS191 / VcT / M46 / A58-78 / Hoperidge / 96 / 80 / 
BS193 / VcT / M46 / A58-79 / Terkoelei / 114 / 89 / 
BS197 / VcT / M46 / A58-80 / Hoperidge / 91 / 80 / 
BS199 / VcT / M46 / A58-81 / Terkoelei / 111 / 89 / 
BS201 / VcT / M46 / A58-82 / Port Sydney / 109 / 69 / 
BS218 / VcT / M46 / A58-83 / Hoperidge / 104 / 80 / 
BS219 / VcT / M46 / A58-84 / Hoperidge / 97 / 80 / 
BS220 / VcT / M46 / A58-85 / Port Sydney / 97 / 69 / 
BS221 / VcT / M46 / A58-86 / Raranga / 88 / 73 / 
BS222 / VcT / M46 / A58-87 / Port Wyndham / 89 / 43 / 
BS223 / VcT / M46 / A58-14 / Port Wyndham / 83 / 43 / 
BS224 / VcT / M46 / A58-88 / Port Wyndham / 82 / 43 / 
BS225 / VcT / M46 / A58-89 / Waroonga / 112 / 69 / 
BS226 / VcT / M46 / A58-90 / Port Wyndham / 77 / 43 / 
BS230 / VcT / M46 / A58-91 / Hoperidge / 90 / 80 / 
BS231 / VcT / M46 / A58-92 / Terkoelei / 111 / 89 / 
BS232 / VcT / M46 / A58-93 / Port Sydney / 100 / 69 / 
BS233 / VcT / M46 / A58-94 / Raranga / 90 / 73 / 
BS234 / VcT / M46 / A58-95 / Raranga / 89 / 73 / 
BS235 / VcT / M46 / A58-96 / Tekoa / 110 / 76 / 
BS236 / VcT / M46 / A58-97 / Tekoa / 108 / 76 / 
BS237 / VcT / M46 / A58-98 / Tekoa / 105 / 76 / 
BS238 / VcT / M46 / A58-99 / Port Wyndham / 83 / 43 / 
BS291 / VcT / M46 / A58-100 / Port Sydney / 103 / 69 / 
BS293 / VcT / M46 / A58-101 / Port Sydney / 100 / 69 / 
BS295 / VcT / M46 / A58-20 / Raranga / 93 / 73 / 
BS298 / VcT / M46 / A58-102 / Tekoa / 110 / 76 / 
BS300 / VcT / M46 / A58-21 / Raranga / 85 / 73 / 
BS305 / VcT / M46 / A58-103 / Tekoa / 101 / 76 / 
EE605 / Vc / M46 / A58-105 / Port Wyndham / 68 / 43 / 
EE606 / Vc / M46 / A58-106 / Port Wyndham / 68 / 43 / 
EE607 / Vc / M46 / A58-107 / Sussex / 75 / 40 / 
EE608 / Vc / M46 / A58-108 / Port Wyndham / 67 / 43 / 
EE609 / Vc / M46 / A58-109 / Port Wyndham / 67 / 43 / 
EE610 / Vc / M46 / A58-110 / Port Wyndham / 67 / 43 / 
EE636 / Vc / M46 / A58-111 / Taranaki / 108 / 59 / 
EE639 / Vc / M46 / A58-112 / Taranaki / 108 / 59 / 
EE669 / Vc / M46 / A58-113 / Australia Star / 141 / 42 / 
EE670 / Vc / M46 / A58-114 / Taranaki / 94 / 59 / 
EE671 / Vc / M46 / A58-115 / Port Dunedin / 124 / 71 / 
EE672 / Vc / M46 / A58-116 / Taranaki / 94 / 59 / 
EE673 / Vc / M46 / A58-117 / Port Dunedin / 124 / 71 / 
EE674 / Vc / M46 / A58-118 / Taranaki / 87 / 59 / 
EE675 / Vc / M46 / A58-119 / Port Dunedin / 124 / 71 / 
EE676 / Vc / M46 / A58-120 / Sarpendon / 118 / 90 / 
EE677 / Vc / M46 / A58-121 / Sarpendon / 118 / 90 / 
EE678 / Vc / M46 / A58-122 / Sarpendon / 118 / 90 / 
EE713 / Vc / M46 / A58-123 / Sarpendon / 108 / 90 / 
EE718 / Vc / M46 / A58-124 / Empire Strength / 123 / 68 / 
EE719 / Vc / M46 / A58-125 / Empire Strength / 131 / 68 / 
EE728 / Vc / M46 / A58-126 / Empire Strength / 123 / 68 / 
EE729 / Vc / M46 / A58-127 / Empire Strength / 123 / 68 / 
EE731 / Vc / M46 / A58-na / Empire Strength / 123 / 68 / Lost without receiving an RAAF serial
EE733 / Vc / M46 / A58-128 / Empire Strength / 124 / 68 / 
EE734 / Vc / M46 / A58-129 / Australia Star / 114 / 42 / 
EE735 / Vc / M46 / A58-130 / Empire Strength / 120 / 68 / 
EE736 / Vc / M46 / A58-131 / Unknown / 210 / 161 / Shipped on Empire Strength 11-Jan-43 but damaged in transit crossing the Atlantic and off loaded in New York, then later on shipped, Rec 2 AD ex UK 07-07-43. Never operated by RAAF.
EE737 / Vc / M46 / A58-132 / Empire Strength / 117 / 68 / 
EE748 / Vc / M46 / A58-133 / Australia Star / 98 / 42 / 
EE751 / Vc / M46 / A58-134 / Empire Strength / 109 / 68 / 
EE807 / Vc / M46 / A58-135 / Sussex / 104 / 38 / 
EE834 / Vc / M46 / A58-136 / Tijuca / 99 / 68 / 
EE835 / Vc / M46 / A58-137 / Tijuca / 99 / 68 / 
EE836 / Vc / M46 / A58-138 / Tijuca / 99 / 68 / 
EE837 / Vc / M46 / A58-139 / LS117 / 157 / 78 / Ship name unknown
EE842 / Vc / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
EE843 / Vc / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
EE844 / Vc / M46 / A58-140 / Sussex / 83 / 38 / 
EE845 / Vc / M46 / A58-141 / Sussex / 79 / 38 / 
EE848 / Vc / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
EE849 / Vc / M46 / A58-142 / Sussex / 83 / 38 / 
EE850 / Vc / M46 / A58-143 / Sussex / 83 / 38 / 
EE851 / Vc / M46 / A58-144 / Sussex / 83 / 38 / 
EE852 / Vc / M46 / A58-145 / Sussex / 79 / 38 / 
EE853 / Vc / M46 / A58-146 / Sussex / 83 / 38 / 
EF543 / VcT / M45 / A58-147 / Asphalion / 93 / 73 / 
EF544 / Vc / M46 / A58-148 / LS117 / 110 / 78 / Ship name unknown
EF545 / Vc / M46 / A58-149 / Asphalion / 91 / 73 / 
EF546 / Vc / M46 / A58-150 / Asphalion / 91 / 73 / 
EF556 / Vc / M46 / A58-151 / LS117 / 109 / 78 / Ship name unknown
EF557 / Vc / M46 / A58-152 / Lanarkshire / 159 / 38 / 
EF558 / Vc / M46 / A58-153 / LS117 / 110 / 78 / Ship name unknown
EF559 / Vc / M46 / A58-154 / Tekoa / 120 / 75 / 
EF560 / Vc / M46 / A58-155 / LS117 / 110 / 78 / Ship name unknown
EF562 / Vc / M46 / A58-156 / Tekoa / 125 / 75 / 
EF563 / Vc / M46 / A58-157 / Tekoa / 117 / 75 / 
EF564 / Vc / M46 / A58-104 / Sussex / 50 / 38 / 
EF565 / Vc / M45 / A58-158 / Tekoa / 116 / 75 / 
EF587 / Vc / M45 / A58-159 / Tekoa / 116 / 75 / 
EF588 / Vc / M46 / A58-160 / Tekoa / 109 / 75 / 
EF589 / Vc / M46 / A58-161 / Tekoa / 109 / 75 / 
EF590 / Vc / M46 / A58-162 / Nestor / 155 / 98 / 
ER735 / Vc / M46 / A58-163 / Empire Strength / 158 / 68 / 
ER760 / Vc / M46 / A58-164 / Taranaki / 102 / 59 / 
ES232 / Vc / M46 / A58-165 / Empire Strength / 112 / 68 / 
ES238 / Vc / M46 / A58-166 / Port Dunedin / 91 / 71 / 
ES249 / Vc / M46 / A58-167 / Port Dunedin / 92 / 71 / 
ES259 / Vc / M46 / A58-168 / Port Dunedin / 92 / 71 / 
ES307 / Vc / M46 / A58-169 / Empire Strength / 111 / 68 / 
ES367 / Vc / M46 / A58-170 / Australia Star / 86 / 42 / 
JG728 / Vc / M46 / A58-171 / Asphalion / 153 / 73 / 
JG731 / Vc / M46 / A58-172 / Australia Star / 83 / 42 / 
JG740 / Vc / M46 / A58-173 / Australia Star / 86 / 42 / 
JG795 / Vc / M46 / A58-174 / Australia Star / 86 / 42 / 
JG796 / Vc / M46 / A58-175 / Australia Star / 86 / 42 / 
JG807 / Vc / M46 / A58-176 / Tijuca / 117 / 68 / 
JG884 / Vc / M46 / A58-177 / Asphalion / 125 / 73 / 
JG891 / Vc / M46 / A58-178 / Tijuca / 101 / 68 / 
JG897 / Vc / M46 / A58-179 / Sussex / 104 / 38 / 
JG912 / Vc / M46 / A58-180 / Tijuca / 101 / 68 / 
JG954 / Vc / M46 / A58-181 / Sussex / 104 / 38 / 
JG957 / Vc / M46 / A58-182 / Tijuca / 101 / 68 / 
JK174 / Vc / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK176 / Vc / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK181 / VcT / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK184 / Vc / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK225 / Vc / M46 / A58-183 / Asphalion / 103 / 73 / 
JK229 / Vc / M46 / A58-184 / Sussex / 66 / 38 / 
JK231 / Vc / M46 / A58-185 / Sussex / 66 / 38 / 
JK257 / VcT / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK258 / VcT / M50A / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK273 / VcT / M45 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JK331 / VcT / M46 / / Silver Beech / na / na / Lost at Sea
JL247 / VcT / / A58-200 / Kent / 75 / 54 / 
JL314 / VcT / M50 / A58-201 / Lanarkshire / 63 / 38 / 
JL348 / VcT / / A58-202 / Nestor / 113 / 98 / 
JL360 / VcT / / A58-203 / Nestor / 113 / 98 / 
JL371 / VcT / M50 / A58-204 / Kent / 75 / 54 / 
JL378 / VcT / M50 / A58-205 / Kent / 75 / 54 / 
JL380 / VcT / M50 / A58-206 / Nestor / 112 / 98 / 
JL382 / VcT / M50 / A58-207 / Kent / 75 / 54 / 
JL386 / VcT / / A58-208 / Lanarkshire / 104 / 38 / 
JL392 / VcT / / A58-209 / Nestor / 113 / 98 / 
JL394 / VcT / M50 / A58-210 / Kent / 74 / 54 / 
LZ834 / VcT / M50 / A58-211 / Brisbane Star / 62 / 43 / 
LZ835 / VcT / M50 / A58-212 / Tongariro / 105 / 53 / 
LZ844 / Vc / M50 / A58-213 / Kent / 74 / 54 / 
LZ845 / Vc / M50 / A58-214 / Kent / 75 / 54 / 
LZ846 / Vc / M50 / A58-215 / Brisbane Star / 68 / 43 / 
LZ848 / Vc / M50 / A58-216 / Brisbane Star / 66 / 43 / 
LZ862 / VcT / M50 / A58-217 / Lanarkshire / 101 / 38 / 
LZ865 / Vc / M50 / A58-218 / Nestor / 114 / 98 / 
LZ866 / Vc / M50 / A58-219 / Brisbane Star / 68 / 43 / 
LZ867 / Vc / M50 / A58-220 / Nestor / 113 / 98 / 
LZ868 / Vc / M50 / A58-221 / Brisbane Star / 68 / 43 / 
LZ870 / Vc / M50 / A58-222 / Brisbane Star / 67 / 43 / 
LZ873 / Vc / M50 / A58-223 / Brisbane Star / 71 / 43 / 
LZ874 / Vc / M50 / A58-224 / Brisbane Star / 60 / 43 / 
LZ881 / Vc / M50 / A58-225 / Brisbane Star / 68 / 43 / 
LZ883 / VcT / M50 / A58-226 / Tongariro / 88 / 53 / 
LZ884 / VcT / M50 / A58-227 / Brisbane Star / 59 / 43 / 
LZ886 / VcT / M50 / A58-228 / Brisbane Star / 59 / 43 / 
LZ926 / VcT / M50 / A58-229 / Tongariro / 99 / 53 / 
LZ934 / VcT / M50 / A58-230 / Lanarkshire / 93 / 38 / 
MA352 / VcT / M50 / A58-231 / Lanarkshire / 65 / 38 / 
MA353 / VcT / M50 / A58-232 / Lanarkshire / 64 / 38 / 
MA354 / VcT / M50 / A58-233 / Lanarkshire / 65 / 38 / 
MA355 / VcT / M50 / A58-234 / Lanarkshire / 63 / 38 / 
MA356 / VcT / M50 / A58-235 / Lanarkshire / 61 / 38 / 
MA366 / VcT / M50 / A58-236 / Lanarkshire / 54 / 38 / 
MA385 / VcT / M50 / A58-237 / Lanarkshire / 57 / 38 / 
MA387 / VcT / M50 / A58-238 / Lanarkshire / 62 / 38 / 
MA389 / VcT / M50 / A58-239 / Lanarkshire / 61 / 38 / 
MA394 / VcT / M50 / A58-240 / Lanarkshire / 58 / 38 / 
MA395 / VcT / M50 / A58-241 / Durham / 66 / 51 / 
MA685 / VcT / M50 / A58-242 / Port Dunedin / 107 / 74 / 
MA689 / VcT / M50 / A58-243 / Lanarkshire / 51 / 38 / 
MA697 / VcT / M55 / A58-244 / Cornwall / 87 / 73 / 
MA699 / VcT / M55 / A58-245 / Horoata / 75 / 37 / 
MA863 / VcT / M50 / A58-246 / Horoata / 74 / 37 / 
MH306 / VcT / M50 / A58-247 / Cornwall / 93 / 73 / 
MH566 / VcT / M55 / A58-248 / Durham / 66 / 51 / 
MH585 / VcT / M55 / A58-249 / Durham / 65 / 51 / 
MH586 / VcT / M55 / A58-250 / Cornwall / 86 / 73 / 
MH587 / VcT / M55 / A58-251 / Horoata / 75 / 37 / 
MH588 / VcT / M55 / A58-252 / Horoata / 77 / 37 / 
MH589 / VcT / M55 / A58-253 / Horoata / 74 / 37 / 
MH591 / VcT / M55 / A58-254 / Horoata / 74 / 37 / 
MH642 / VcT / M55 / A58-255 / Durham / 65 / 51 / 
MH643 / VcT / M55 / A58-256 / Durham / 65 / 51 / 
MH644 / VcT / M55 / A58-257 / Durham / 65 / 51 / 
MH645 / VcT / M55 / A58-258 / Cornwall / 93 / 73 / 
MH646 / VcT / M55 / A58-259 / Cornwall / 93 / 73 /

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 19, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Well considering how many mechanical failures they had I'd dispute how ''new'' they were, they always seemed to be outnumbered also.



Considering they rolled straight out of the factory to the MUs then were put onto ships for Australia within a month of completion, that's pretty "new", don't ya think? Outnumbered isn't entirely relevant, considering the previous reference to the Battle of Britain, where the RAF interceptors were often outnumbered by significant margins by the German opposition.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 19, 2021)

Stig1207 said:


> What is your source for these combat results? They don't tally too well with RAAF Combats in NWA



I got the info from Stewart Wilson's Book Spitfire, Mustang and Kittyhawk In Australian Service. That's right, they don't...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 19, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Over Darwin the tactics were the same as the BoB, priority targets were bombers, that explains why 19 of the 26 Spitfires lost were shot down while engaging them.


Escorts have to be delt with whether they are Zeros, P38’s, P47’s, P51’s, Me109’s, or Wildcats. If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down. Two exceptions to that in my opinion are 1. defending a carrier, if they sink it you have no home to return to 2. If you have a BIG performance advantage over the escort ME262 vs P51, or in this case maybe a P38, P51, P47 or Spitfire VIII or IX (none of which were available) vs a Zero. Otherwise you have got to have at least some of your number engage and tie up the escorts.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 19, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Yes you have numerous times starting with post 1,243, you might try reading reply 1,305, puts your 26-1 kill ratio into perspective.


Kill ratio was 28-5 not 26-1. I will say it one more time: the Spitfire V with the tropical filter was in fact inferior to the Zero it fought. I don’t care what they had in Europe, or how much boost it made or how fast it climbed or how fast it was in level flight because it was not the Spitfire model that was shipped fo Australia so it is irrelevant. I have said repeatedly that the Spitfire was a fine plane especially the Spitfire VIII and IX on up. A Spitfire VIII or IX or XIV would likely have done fantastic, but they weren’t there. They were using a Spitfire V with a tropical filter and under 20,000 feet it could do virtually nothing better than the Zero according to the 2 test pilots that flew them head to head. If it had a 4000 ft height advantage then it could boom and zoom the Zero but virtually any 2 contemporary fighters could do that to each other.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Escorts have to be delt with whether they are Zeros, P38’s, P47’s, P51’s, Me109’s, or Wildcats. *If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down.* Two exceptions to that in my opinion are 1. defending a carrier, if they sink it you have no home to return to 2. If you have a BIG performance advantage over the escort ME262 vs P51, or in this case maybe a P38, P51, P47 or Spitfire VIII or IX (none of which were available) vs a Zero. Otherwise you have got to have at least some of your number engage and tie up the escorts.



OK - you need to back to aerial combat 101. Battle of Britain - Guadalcanal - Defense of the Reich - and in this discussion, the defense of Darwin was all about *bringing down the bombers so strategic and population targets could be protected. *

That's not to say that if a target is presented in front of you, you don't engage it!

From Wiki:

_By 11:04, Lindmayr's Dorniers had reached Calais. Wing Commander Lord Willoughby de Broke, Park's senior fighter controller, watched with the Prime Minister and Park as the Germans moved closer. De Broke had a problem of his own. He had no way of knowing which plots represented bombers and fighters. *Bombers had to be intercepted, fighters could be ignored. *The trick was to strike a balance and time the interception as well as possible._

Battle of Britain Day - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 19, 2021)

pinsog said:


> If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down


When said bomber is literally about to drop bombs on your home, and families there in, the escorts perhaps take a slightly lower tier of importance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2021)

pinsog said:
"If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down"

In more modern times read about "Operation Bolo" and how the North Vietnamese Airforce would not engage fighters but would go after bomb laden F-105s. Robin Olds tricked the NVAF and by this deception nearly wiped out their entire MiG-21 force.

If you're defending your territory against any type of bombardment, the aircraft carrying the bombs are always the primary aerial target!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2021)

Goerings fighters in the BoB outnumbered the RAFs by a considerable margin. The only strategy that could win was to shoot down bombers. Park ignored LW fighter sweeps, all his tactics were to stop bombers. It worked, the LW ran out of bombers so started putting bombs on fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 19, 2021)

All of you gentlemen are of course correct up to a point. I would like to restate my point and tweak it a bit. 

If you can safely make a pass at a bomber and avoid escorts then you should do so. 

On the other hand, if you ignore an escort to make a pass at a bomber and you lose a plane and/or a pilot then you have 1 less defending fighter for the next raid. 

Also, if you shoot down an escort, that is one less escort they will have for the next raid.

Would everyone agree that it all depends on the tactical situation at the time?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 19, 2021)

In a 1960 discussion with an Air Defense Command exF-86D pilot, he told us of the unofficial ideas of the Dog pilots, should formations of Tu-4 come over the pole or through Alaska. Keep in mind the Saber Dog was armed with only 24 unguided rockets on a retractable under nose tray. The rockets could be fired all 24 at once or 12 at a time. If the homeland was attacked by Nuclear armed bombers, the pilot would make one intercept fire 12, make a second and fire 12, make a third intercept and either ride the plane in or eject. When asked why ride the plane into the bomber, we were told bailing out over Alaska was the same thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 19, 2021)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> First dates, mark and engines from the online Spitfire histories, departure and arrival dates from either air force or ship movement records, unfortunately the dates themselves have had to be deleted to fit the message into the 20,000 character limit rule.



The dates are the most interesting part, why didn't you just break the thread into sections?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 19, 2021)

pinsog said:


> the Spitfire V with the tropical filter was in fact inferior to the Zero it fought.



It was, clearly, but what of it? It's been demonstrated here that the RAAF continued fighting and eventually the Japanese bombing campaign against Darwin ground to a halt. There are many examples of where the defenders have inferior equipment to the attackers, the PZL P.11 against the Bf 109, the Hawker Hurricane I , the Defiant, Gladiator, Blenheim, even the much vaunted Spitfire I had inferiorities compared to the Bf 109E, but they were still thrown into the fight. Why? Because they had no choice.



pinsog said:


> On the other hand, if you ignore an escort to make a pass at a bomber and you lose a plane and/or a pilot then you have 1 less defending fighter for the next raid.



Yes, and I get your point, but that one loss needs to be put into context. During the Battle of Britain it was routine that the Jagdgeschwader sent 30, 40, 50, 60, up to a hundred and more escort fighters with the bombers and the RAF sent interceptors to deal with them in Flights of threes, sixes, nines and 12s and sometimes combining squadrons along the way, yet the Luftwaffe singularly failed in its attempts at wiping out Fighter Command. As mentioned earlier, the Bf 109 equipped Jagdgeschwader established a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio over the defenders, because they were going out of their way to target the interceptors, yet the Luftwaffe still lost. A part of that winning strategy was the fact that Park deliberately _did not_ send large numbers of interceptors into the fray, despite the overwhelming disparity in enemy aircraft number.

Fighter Command made the losses that really mattered count with a kill ratio of almost 2 to 1 over the Luftwaffe, which German aircraft production could not replenish in time, and it's worth adding that by the official end of the battle, Fighter Command had more fighters than it began the battle with, so it had not only coped with the losses it had sustained at the hands of the escorts, but it had added more from local production. Statistically speaking, that tends to diminish the impact of what the escorts achieved.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, context reveals the price of statistics and taking the greater number of kills by escorts against interceptors has to be compared with total enemy losses to make sense in the battle environment and this particular scenario of interceptors versus the enemy. Because, that's why the interceptors are there, _not_ to destroy the escorts, but to destroy the _bombers_.

The fact that Zeros shot down a larger number of Spitfires over Darwin is pointless as a bare statistic, but when you add Japanese bomber losses with the escorts shot down by the interceptors you begin to see a bigger picture forming, then add the surrounding data, such as the number of losses to all causes on both sides and the rate at which both sides replenished their losses and that picture becomes broader and you begin to have greater situational awareness, which reveals a meaningful context within which that disparity makes sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2021)

pinsog said:


> All of you gentlemen are of course correct up to a point. I would like to restate my point and tweak it a bit.
> 
> If you can safely make a pass at a bomber and avoid escorts then you should do so.
> 
> On the other hand, if you ignore an escort to make a pass at a bomber and you lose a plane and/or a pilot then you have 1 less defending fighter for the next raid.


That's called "target of opportunity"


pinsog said:


> Also, if you shoot down an escort, that is one less escort they will have for the next raid.


Yes, but the more valued target is a bomber


pinsog said:


> Would everyone agree that it all depends on the tactical situation at the time?


Yes - but in the campaigns mentioned *the primary objective was to concentrate on the bombers*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Escorts have to be delt with whether they are Zeros, P38’s, P47’s, P51’s, Me109’s, or Wildcats. If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down. Two exceptions to that in my opinion are 1. defending a carrier, if they sink it you have no home to return to 2. If you have a BIG performance advantage over the escort ME262 vs P51, or in this case maybe a P38, P51, P47 or Spitfire VIII or IX (none of which were available) vs a Zero. Otherwise you have got to have at least some of your number engage and tie up the escorts.


Pick ANY naval engagement between USN and IJN fleet actions in the PTO and tell me at which point the defending fighters focused on the enemy escorts and let the dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers pass by unchallenged.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## jaydawg73 (Oct 20, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If it so outclassed, why is my company still building them, and why do we still have customers wanting it?


Outclassed may nor have been the best word, but when compared to its potential opponents its TTW ratio could be an issue and it’s ability to recover from a high AOA and gain energy when in a ’within visual range‘ ‘knife fight in a phone box’ scenario could leave it vulnerable. But it’s ability to stand on its tail in a high angle of attack at low speed and bring a fight onto its own terms is a unique and recognised characteristic of the F18. As we all know the F18 is a rugged, tough and reliable bit of kit that has the respect of those that fly it. And a master at the multi role package.

The comparison was more how WW2 pilots used their skill and knowledge to match the abilities of a better performing platform and those skills are still taught today at the FWS to make the F18 a potent adversary regardless of who it is up against. Having said that, the days of dog fights may well be in the passed where it is all BVR contact, where it’s the software on any platform and the ability of the crew that determines who might survive.


----------



## jaydawg73 (Oct 20, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Is that the same thing as a Thach Weave? Or perhaps it's a new form of baldness treatment for the discerning gentleman?
> 
> 
> 
> I wish to apologize for the above comment. I appear to be channeling my (sarcastic) inner pedant...AGAIN! Normal service will now resume!


Made me smile nonetheless! Auto correct caught me out!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> Made me smile nonetheless! Auto correct caught me out!


Been there, Bro’.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Pick ANY naval engagement between USN and IJN fleet actions in the PTO and tell me at which point the defending fighters focused on the enemy escorts and let the dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers pass by unchallenged.


I gotta tell you I tried to think of one instance and I couldn’t. The closest I could think of was a few Zeroes peeling off from escorting their strike package to attack USN bombers during the Battle of Cape Esperance (?).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> Outclassed may nor have been the best word, but when compared to its potential opponents its TTW ratio could be an issue and it’s ability to recover from a high AOA and gain energy* when in a ’within visual range‘ ‘knife fight in a phone box’ scenario could leave it vulnerable.*


And again, a close in VR knife fight is not the optimum way to conduct air to air combat unless one had to abide by some politician's Rules of Engagement. Although trained for the "knife fight" as a last resort, in modern unrestricted aerial combat, first blood should be accomplished BVR - unless you still have a copy of "Top Gun" in your old VCR!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2021)

pinsog said:


> You should read Shores last book when you can. They told of KI43’s intercepting a recon P38 and a recon Mosquito. The recon Mosquito was at, I think, 28,000 feet and the KI43 dove zoom climbed up and shot it down. I was floored. The Spitfires weren’t trying to dogfight but the Japanese tactics forced them to. I was floored on that as well. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of a contemporary fighter that I’d want to be in to fight a Spitfire VIII, they were a stud.
> 
> If I get a chance I’ll see if I can find the quotes and I’ll post them about the Spitfire VIII



Ki-43 was an _extremely_ deadly fighter, and stil_l quite_ dangerous in the hands of a good pilot well into 1944. The 'light fighter' approach to aircraft design had it's limitations but it was not entirely unsuccessful, and is generally something I think hard to grasp for people who are really into the Anglo-American aircraft, (and those who read and in some cases became enamoured of the various biographies and memoirs of the German pilots) since it's a different design philosophy. We tend to think in terms of more and more horsepower, more guns and more armor as the solution to all combat limitations, and top speed (esp. at high altitude) as being the single most important factor in combat. But both for the Japanese and Soviets the 'light(er) fighter' approach, which was maybe intentional and maybe just something they had to adapt to, was successful.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

All historical authors have some kind of bias I suspect Shores leans a bit toward the Japanese and Axis in general sometimes in but this is kind of an antidote to the postwar (and much later) grandstanding about how great the Allies did, and all that stuff about 11-1 "kill ratios" and so on which melts away when you double check the Axis records. That said, as incredibly valuable as his work has been, I don't think Shores is the last word.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 20, 2021)

The Bf109 was also a compact, lightweight design, initially.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 20, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Pick ANY naval engagement between USN and IJN fleet actions in the PTO and tell me at which point the defending fighters focused on the enemy escorts and let the dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers pass by unchallenged.


Please read my post #1315 again where I said exception to engaging escort over bombers 1. Defending a carrier. If your carrier is sunk you have no place to land.

I agree 100% with everyone that bombers were the main target, but you have to deal with the escort if they are in the way by either 1. having enough performance you can ignore them OR 2. by having some of your fighters engage them and tie them up. 

The quarterback is the main target but you have to get past the linemen to get to him. You can either 1. Have a guy with a speed advantage go around them or 2. Your linemen engage their linemen and fight their way through. Their linemen aren’t the target but they must be delt with


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2021)

pinsog said:


> Please read my post #1315 again where I said exception to engaging escort over bombers 1. Defending a carrier. If your carrier is sunk you have no place to land.
> 
> *I agree 100% with everyone that bombers were the main target, but you have to deal with the escort if they are in the way* by either 1. having enough performance you can ignore them OR 2. by having some of your fighters engage them and tie them up.
> 
> The quarterback is the main target but you have to get past the linemen to get to him. You can either 1. Have a guy with a speed advantage go around them or 2. Your linemen engage their linemen and fight their way through. Their linemen aren’t the target but they must be delt with


End of discussion - the rest are combat scenarios that could probably go in several different directions...

Now with that said, during the BoB I believe you did have Hurricanes concentrating on the bombers and Spitfires engaging the fighters, but at the end of the day, and at the expense of repeating myself, the bomber was the ultimate target.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2021)

pinsog said:


> I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn’t work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don’t work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don’t have a very good plane for this environment. Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine.
> 
> I’d like to point out that the US didn’t have anything in theater to do better than the Spitfire. *The Japanese just flew over the top of the P40’s and waved at them because the P40’s couldn’t play at that altitude. They needed P38’s but apparently none were available*



I previously posted this before in this thread here, but somehow whenever this debate comes up, with all the ink spilled about the Spitfire's defense of Darwin, the earlier defense by the P-40s of 49th FG seems to be utterly forgotten. It turns out that no, the Japanese did not just fly over the P-40s. Bombing from 27,000 ft was not as effective, but they did it anyway, and still got intercepted and suffered losses. Apparently they too were close to their altitude limitations, though obviously not suffering so badly as P-40s.

The summary is that in spite of operating well above their performance ceiling, in addition to suffering from all of the same disadvantages of training, preparation, and (to a large extent, maintenance) the P-40Es of the 49th FG did pretty well, and arguably a bit better than the Spitfires. They lost 19 aircraft and 4 pilots, and (according to postwar Japanese records) they shot down 19 Japanese planes, including 7 x A6M, 1 x Ki-46, and (most tellingly) 12 x G4M bombers, which was the reason the bombing raids stopped for a while.

The article in The Strategist, an Australian military think tank, which breaks down a high level overview of the action is good but rather clinical. I have looked a bit more into this episode. I found some useful detailed information on this website. The following is a summary.

Prior to their arrival, another unit of 10 x P-40s from the 33rd Pursuit squadron was massacred in a single day in February, (more detail here) losing 9 out of 10 aircraft in a single massive raid. They were on their way to reinforce Java and arrived in Darwin just as the raid was happening. Some of the survivors of that unit later joined the 49th.

The level of training suitable to prepare for modern fighters was appalling. Most of the pilots had never flown aircraft with retractable landing gear. The US sent ~ 330 P-40s to Australia during Spring of 1942, of which 170 were destroyed in accidents within weeks, before reaching the combat area. Many others were lost at sea such as those on the Langley. The initial attempt by the 49th FG to send fighters to the combat area near Darwin resulted in near catastrophe. Of 25 fighters sent from from Brisbane, 13 made it to Darwin on 18 March 1942.

Logistical support was also incredibly lacking. Prior to one combat sortie from Horn Island, pilots were given spark plugs and ammunition and instructions by mechanics and armorers on how to prep their aircraft for combat. The guns were not bore-sighted and the aircraft had no oxygen. They had no proper charts and were trying to use road maps and maritime charts to navigate. The aircraft were brand new, many of them literally the first batch of P-40Es, which had a wide range of teething issues that sill needed to be worked out (chief among them, problems with guns jamming). The aircraft flight manuals at that time stated that they could not be operated at more than 45" Hg (vs. the later default settings of 51" for military and 57" for WEP) making them extremely under-powered.

Though they were being taught correct tactics by their experienced commander Paul Wurtsmith, combat was chaotic and disorganized especially for the first couple of months. Two examples;

On 14 March 1942, 9 x Kittyhawks intercepted a formation of 8 x G4M and 12 x A6M2 of the 4th Kokotai. Two P-40s were damaged by A6Ms with their pilots wounded, a third P-40 was damaged when he deliberately rammed an A6M after his guns jammed (losing 3' of wing). Another P-40 was damaged and fled the battle area, the pilot then becoming lost, he flew 400 miles West and finally bailed out. He was saved by aboriginal people but was evacuated back to the US. In all the US lost 1 x P-40 destroyed (the one which got lost) and 3 x badly damaged but landed safely. They claimed 1 x bomber and 4 x A6M, actual losses were one bomber damaged and 4th Kokotai lost 2 x A6M, one of which was later discovered largely intact at the bottom of the Torres Strait in 1997.

On 16 June 1942 another raid came in with 27 x Japanese bombers (apparently mostly G4M) and 27 x A6M. 8th and 9th FS of 49th FG (with apparently two flights of 4 planes each) engaged the enemy. 1 P-40 from 8th FS piloted by Chester Namola was shot down (possibly went into a spin after being hit). Another P-40 burned out it's engine in a frantic dive to get away from Zeros, the pilot ditched in the water and was rescued by the Royal Navy the next day. A third P-40 piloted by Bruce Harris also dove away, but recovered, went into a zoom climb, caught up with the Japanese formation and attacked, firing until his guns jammed, but ran out of fuel heading back to base. He crash landed and his aircraft caught on fire and burned. He too was later rescued by an RAAF Wiwrraway after a harrowing ordeal. 9th FS did better and claimed 3 x A6M and 2 x G4M, while one P-40 was hit by return fire from a G4M and landed dead-stick. His aircraft was recovered the next day. Another made a belly landing on an artillery range. From the context it sounds like 9th FS was already at altitude when the raid came in, while 8th FS was climbing up. The site didn't indicate what Japanese losses actually were, but the US lost 3 planes, plus 2 badly damaged, with 1 pilot killed and one evacuated back home, claiming 3 fighters and 2 bombers.

My takeaway from all this is that the 49th FG was in a similar situation to the Spitfire pilots. 95 out of 102 pilots in the FG had never flown P-40s before they flew them to the combat area (resulting in as much as 50% losses en-route). This is similar to the Spitfire pilots and also Australian Kittyhawk pilots of 75 FS who fought at Milne Bay. Maintenance and logistics situation was extremely precarious to say the least, only gradually improving, and the mechanics were as inexperienced as the pilots were. Aircraft were brand new and still had many teething issues. Like with the Spitfire unit, the 49th FG were hampered by low throttle settings. The Spitfires had a couple of added / extra problems in the form of the wing heaters, 20mm ammunition, and a couple of other things - which were severe. Plus the Vokes filters. Range was also a major limitation.

Also, while postwar analysis tells us that any Allied fighter could dive away from a Zero in a pinch, every time I read about them actually doing so in these early battles in Darwin and New Guinea, it seems a hell of a lot more desperate and close-run. Sometimes they dove away and still got shot down. Sometimes they burned out their engine. Quite often it was extremely harrowing. I remember one Aussie pilot from the 75th FS mentioned he got away in a mad dive from three Zeros and then smoked a whole pack of cigarettes once he landed. Technique for the 'escape maneuver' improved as pilots gradually learned the specific limitations of the zero (rolling at high speed) but I think the Japanese fighters and their pilots continue to be underestimated. The incredibly steep learning curve and logistical nightmares faced by the Allied pilots is also rarely given due acknowledgement. In New Guinea on top of all the problems suffered at Darwin far more of the pilots also had Disentary and Malaria, and were living unprotected in clouds of mosquitoes.

I found one other interesting tidbit somewhere else related to the Spitfire which I'll post in a minute.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Oct 20, 2021)

Two thoughts:
1 While a bomber is more expensive than a fighter, downing enemy fighters instead moves you closer to air superiority, achieve that you will destroy a heck lot of enemy bombers.
2 AFAIK, during the BoB, most British fighters could deal with German fighters and bombers. During the Battle of Germany, this was somewhat less the case. A fighter optimized to go after a heavy four-engine bomber needed quite heavy armament and ideally extra armor, which however significantly reduced performance against fighters. By contrast, the lighter German bombers were not as tough a nut to crack.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2021)

So the next thing I ran across involves and Australian double-Ace named Wilfred Arthur, aka 'Woof'. He was part of the gang who fought in the Western Desert (where he scored most of his victories) and then in North - Australia / New Guinea zone, where he commanded 75 Sqn RAAF, then 71 Wing also in New Guinea and later (after recovering from a serious injury) 78 Wing RAAF. He received the DFC and DSO and was 'mentioned in despatches' twice. He was also in the Morotai Mutiny in 1945.







During his wartime service, 'Woof' Arthur flew Gladiators, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, Kittyhawks, and more briefly, Spitfires and Mustangs. He scored victories in Gladiators, Hurricanes and Kittyhawks.

I found the transcript of an interview with him online, and I thought he mentioned some interesting details perhaps of relevance to this discussion. Excerpt follows with interviewer's questions in bold for clarity. I put the parts where he mentions the Spitfire in red:

(5.00)* What were you saying? *

Well, in the main the Kittyhawks would have been inferior to the Zeros in altitude, ability to
operate properly at height, and probably also less able to turn inside to ... inside the Zeros
which were lighter and ... but had a lighter wing loading so that they would be difficult if you
attempted to turn with them. Your combat technique would be more likely to be one of an
attack and then a zoom and attack again.

* And getting out of the area as quickly as possible. *

Well ... no, getting ... zooming so that you've got the opportunity to turn around and make
another attack.

* I see, but not staying in close contact without ... *

Not ... yes, you wouldn't turn inside anybody. You'd get down and up again to ... of course it's
often, or sometimes the case that if you're in an aircraft that can't turn inside the other one it's
quite probable that you can dive much faster than he can and that ... and at a speedy dive and
then a zoom could easily get you in a position of advantage - height advantage - over the other
one. It could be much more manoeuvrable in a steady turn.

* Perhaps if I could just ask you about the Kittyhawk now, I was going to in a 
minute, Wilfred. Of course they were supposed to be very good at diving, they 
were really quite heavy with all their armour plating and so on. What would 
you recall as the main strengths and also the weaknesses of the Kittyhawk and 
what was it like to fly as a plane? Did you enjoy it? *

Yes, yes. I enjoyed it. It wasn't as docile an aircraft as the Hurricane and Spitfire and other 
aircraft but it was ... you had good vision, you had good guns and quite good range and those
factors were of course the very important ones in New Guinea where you did have a lot of
advantage if you could stay in the air a fairly long time. Quite unlike, say, the combat must
have been in England where it was speed off the ground and short ... the aircraft you'd be
attacking would have to be attacked very quickly and the operation would be over in a short
time.

* Mmm. There's very little long distance flying to engage the enemy. *

Yes. I mean, that's why any sort of flat comparisons which aircraft is the better are just not
relevant unless you describe the particular situation. There is no doubt that under many ... 
many conditions the Kittyhawk was far better than the Spitfire and under the other conditions 
that is where a speedy take off is required because you had short intervals from when you 
knew the aircraft were coming and when they'd actually arrive. Then the speed off the ground 
of the Spitfire was very important, the ability to manoeuvre was very important, large amount
of ... large number of guns very important because perhaps the, you know, you'd be likely to 
have a short and furious fight. 

* Mmm. Of course the Kittyhawk was very robust. Do you think, for example, 
would Spitfires have stood up to the rough terrain of New Guinea airstrips? *

I don't think they would have stood up quite as well and then they did also have another 
problem and that is that they had a big problem of overheating in New Guinea. This was in 
spite of the fact that they had bigger radiators than the ... I mean, they were equipped with 
bigger radiators after arriving in Australia, which of course made them slightly better in their 
ability to keep the temperatures right, but it also meant that it reduced their speed slightly 
because the radiator was bigger than the previous ones. 

* Was that the Kittyhawk or Spitfires you were talking about?*

Spitfire. 

* Right. *

Oh no, the Kittyhawk was pretty good from cooling. It didn't get into much trouble taxiing or
doing the other things that some aircraft did.

-----
So it sounds like he says the Spitfires were having serious overheating problems in that zone and that the range limitation remained a big problem (at least presumably until Spit VIII were around in some numbers)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2021)

Acheron said:


> 1 While a bomber is more expensive than a fighter, downing enemy fighters instead moves you closer to air superiority, achieve that you will destroy a heck lot of enemy bombers.
> 2 AFAIK, during the BoB, most British fighters could deal with German fighters and bombers.



1. Not really. Intercepting the fighter escorts is surely a waste of material. It goes against the sensible tactic that proved to work in sending small numbers of interceptors up despite the size of attacking force. The RAF fighters sent up were more often than not numerically inferior compared to the force they were intercepting and this was done deliberately to conserve aircraft and to be able to send interceptors to different vectors at different times, especially when the Germans sent several waves over at once attacking different targets. The concept worked as long as the interceptors didn't get carried away and go chasing after the fighter escorts because a handful of Spitfires is no match for around 60 to a hundred Bf 109s.

The British realised that their fighter numbers were inferior, so Park and Dowding planned accordingly and used their interceptors sparingly. When the Germans figured this out, via Theo Osterkamp, who flew escort sorties in a Bf 109 so he could see what was happening first hand, thus becoming the only German commander who had a clear idea of what was going on - smart man, they changed their tactics by sending large formations of Bf 109s as a diversion to alert the radar stations into thinking they were bomber formations, but the Brits got wise to this and refrained from attacking.

2. Yes, by and large, the superiority of the Bf 109 was its altitude performance and the tactic of diving attacks from height, which is when most achieved their kills against unwary British interceptors. I remember reading a passage that stated a British pilot, when informed of the superior altitude performance of the Bf 109, said "well, they have to come down here and get us..."

But as what almost always happened, after diving on their prey, the Bf 109s then got into individual dogfights that descended in height, which is where the Spits and Hurris were in their element and could overcome unsuspecting Bf 109 pilots, the other problem was that this chewed up their precious fuel reserves, which meant they had to scurry back to France while the bombers were left undefended.



Schweik said:


> Yes. I mean, that's why any sort of flat comparisons which aircraft is the better are just not
> relevant unless you describe the particular situation.



Yup, all about the context... Great interview, thanks for posting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jaydawg73 (Oct 20, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And again, a close in VR knife fight is not the optimum way to conduct air to air combat unless one had to abide by some politician's Rules of Engagement. Although trained for the "knife fight" as a last resort, in modern unrestricted aerial combat, first blood should be accomplished BVR - unless you still have a copy of "Top Gun" in your old VCR!


Interesting response to a positive post I wrote. Perhaps you are somebody who just chooses to pick points from someone’s post that you do not like and comment on those as opposed to reading and taking in the whole post and evaluating it for how it was intended. But I shall leave you with that thought and will not be responding to anymore of your posts. Thank you for your points of view.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So it sounds like he says the Spitfires were having serious overheating problems



Yup, it wasn't just a problem in hot climes, the overheating issue was a problem in Britain as well while waiting to taxy. This from the Spitfire Mk.I and II Pilot's Notes:

"Warming up should not be unduly prolonged, as the temperature rises quickly and some margin must be kept in hand for taxying. If it is 130 degrees before the aeroplane taxies out it will become excessive if there is any distance to taxy downwind. The engine should not idle for any length of time in a light wind, and the aircraft should always face into wind."

There are warnings about never exceeding radiator and oil temps as well as keeping the radiator flap open on the ground. It was a well known issue of the Spit.

I should clarify this, while the aircraft could overheat if not acted on, it was maintained under control in normal use because of reductions in waiting time on the ground, rather than it being a serious problem. Pilots had to be aware that if they took too long to taxy they could overheat the engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2021)

jaydawg73 said:


> Interesting response to a positive post I wrote. Perhaps you are somebody who just chooses to pick points from someone’s post that you do not like and comment on those as opposed to reading and taking in the whole post and evaluating it for how it was intended. But I shall leave you with that thought and will not be responding to anymore of your posts. Thank you for your points of view.


Well how about debating this instead of acting like a butt-hurt child? There are some of us on this forum who have worked around this equipment, operated and flown same, so unless you're in a position to discuss this based on first hand knowledge, actual experience, or show references to back your statements, I suggest a comfy armchair.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 20, 2021)

Schweik said:


> On 16 June 1942 another raid came in with 27 x Japanese bombers (apparently mostly G4M) and 27 x A6M. 8th and 9th FS of 49th FG (with apparently two flights of 4 planes each) engaged the enemy. 1 P-40 from 8th FS piloted by Chester Namola was shot down (possibly went into a spin after being hit). Another P-40 burned out it's engine in a frantic dive to get away from Zeros, the pilot ditched in the water and was rescued by the Royal Navy the next day. A third P-40 piloted by Bruce Harris also dove away, but recovered, went into a zoom climb, caught up with the Japanese formation and attacked, firing until his guns jammed, but ran out of fuel heading back to base. He crash landed and his aircraft caught on fire and burned. He too was later rescued by an RAAF Wiwrraway after a harrowing ordeal. 9th FS did better and claimed 3 x A6M and 2 x G4M, while one P-40 was hit by return fire from a G4M and landed dead-stick. His aircraft was recovered the next day. Another made a belly landing on an artillery range. From the context it sounds like 9th FS was already at altitude when the raid came in, while 8th FS was climbing up. The site didn't indicate what Japanese losses actually were, but the US lost 3 planes, plus 2 badly damaged, with 1 pilot killed and one evacuated back home, claiming 3 fighters and 2 bombers.


According to "The Empire Strikes South" and "Eagles over Darwin" the Japanese suffered no losses on this raid.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 20, 2021)

Acheron said:


> Two thoughts:
> 1 While a bomber is more expensive than a fighter, downing enemy fighters instead moves you closer to air superiority, achieve that you will destroy a heck lot of enemy bombers.
> 2 AFAIK, during the BoB, most British fighters could deal with German fighters and bombers. During the Battle of Germany, this was somewhat less the case. A fighter optimized to go after a heavy four-engine bomber needed quite heavy armament and ideally extra armor, which however significantly reduced performance against fighters. By contrast, the lighter German bombers were not as tough a nut to crack.


My thoughts are you are completely miss understanding the Battle of Britain, For Dowding the most important thing above all else was that the RAF fighter command had to continue to exist. The LW could trade at losses of 2 to 1 in fighters and still wipe out the RAF fighter command completely.



1 Dowding had to maintain air superiority over the UK. As far as air attack that meant preventing attacks all around the south coast of England and the eastern coast of England and Scotland as far as Scapa Flow in the Orkney isles north of Scotland itself. The only important thing was stopping the LW bombers.
This was done very quickly with raids from Norway, the Me110 _Dackelbauch_ was batted out of the game and with it most raids from Norway ceased because they suffered too many losses. Raids by Ju 87 on the south coast of England were stopped, they suffered high losses because they were very difficult to escort and protect. There were then many raids on airfield and industrial targets, almost all were met and countered, no airfield or RADAR station was put out of commission for a serious length of time. But with these raids the LW suffered heavy losses of bombers. Not only shot down but also badly damaged and damaged on landing, plus many crew who returned were injured. By mid September when the LW switched to mass raids on London, this was a strategic decision, but also the only strategy left. So many bomber squadrons had been reduced to 3 or 4 operational planes with crews that the only thing to do with what was left was to give a simple form up point and a simple target. Even so, the escorts of German bombers outnumbered the whole of the RAF fighter command's operational fighters, let alone those who were able to be brought to the fight, only approximately half of RAF fighters were available to defend London, but still the escorts were not able to prevent unsustainable losses of bombers.

2 British fighters and German fighters could deal with bombers, if they had the time and were left alone. The British attempted to bring cannon into the fight in 1940. The LW increased the armament on their interceptors partly because of American bombers defensive armour and defensive firepower but mailny because the presence of escorts gave them very little time to hit the target. Both sides discovered after the war how many planes they didnt shoot down but riddled with bullets made it to somewhere but neither the plane or many of the crews flew again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2021)

Wildcat said:


> According to "The Empire Strikes South" and "Eagles over Darwin" the Japanese suffered no losses on this raid.


Cool, thanks for turning me on to those books they both look great!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

So while it seems that some aircraft did not do so well in torrid tropical conditions of excessive heat and moisture, was the reverse also true? How many aircraft didn't do well in cooler conditions of Northern Europe? I know the early P-38 had problems with the (lack of) heaters. Did the A6M have any problems operating in Alaska? 

Conversely, did Fw 190s have any problems in North Africa? I know they did pretty well in combat down there when they were deployed (I think JG 2)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So while it seems that some aircraft did not do so well in torrid tropical conditions of excessive heat and moisture, was the reverse also true? How many aircraft didn't do well in cooler conditions of Northern Europe? I know the early P-38 had problems with the (lack of) heaters. Did the A6M have any problems operating in Alaska?
> 
> Conversely, did Fw 190s have any problems in North Africa? I know they did pretty well in combat down there when they were deployed (I think JG 2)


The only negative thing I ever heard about the Zero with regards to maintenance was that part interchangeability was poor as well as the spare part supply chain, but I think this was common across the board for most Japanese aircraft. I don't have a reference for that but I know it's been mentioned several times

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

The comparative reliability of the A6M and Ki-43 were probably a lot of why they remained in use for so long. An aircraft with 150% of the capability but 30% of the availability is just not as good. If you are the unit commander you aren't going to want the latter.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The comparative reliability of the A6M and Ki-43 were probably a lot of why they remained in use for so long. An aircraft with 150% of the capability but 30% of the availability is just not as good. If you are the unit commander you aren't going to want the latter.


Seems reasonable. A serviceable Ki-43-II is more valuable than a Ki-84 grounded with a sheared gear leg and smoking engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

Exactly. This is in fact why the unit from the above mentioned Darwin defense, 49th FG, which was (I think) the first unit to get P-38s in the PTO, (and the original unit of McGuire and Bong) was still very slowly and painfully transitioning to P-38s as late as 1944. I think they had one of three squadron, plus another spin-off squadron, flying P-38s by then. A lot of the war in the South Pacific was being fought with 1941-42 vintage aircraft on both sides until what was probably after the tipping point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Exactly. This is in fact why the unit from the above mentioned Darwin defense, 49th FG, which was (I think) the first unit to get P-38s in the PTO, (and the original unit of McGuire and Bong) was still very slowly and painfully transitioning to P-38s as late as 1944. I think they had one of three squadron, plus another spin-off squadron, flying P-38s by then. A lot of the war in the South Pacific was being fought with 1941-42 vintage aircraft on both sides until what was probably after the tipping point.


The 39th, 9th and eventually the 80th were the tipping point and it started in December 42'. These units gained aerial superiority over New Guinea when they started operating P-38s. I think you'll find that transition happened a lot quicker than 1944 although V fighter command was never able to get their hands on enough P-38s and for a spell, the 348th had P-47s (Neil Kearby's unit). From what I can see the 13th AF was fully engaged by October, 43.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The 39th, 9th and eventually the 80th were the tipping point and it started in December 42'. These units gained aerial superiority over New Guinea when they started operating P-38s. I think you'll find that transition happened a lot quicker than 1944 although V fighter command was never able to get their hands on enough P-38s and for a spell, the 348th had P-47s (Neil Kearby's unit)



The 9th FS was the first unit of the 49th FG which was flying P-38s. The other two fighter squadrons (7th and 8th) were still flying P-40s well into 1944. Bong and McGuire flew for the 9th FS (and also breifly for the 39th FS, an operational training / transition unit). Ninth fighter squadron was also flying P-47s for a while in early 1944.

All three squadrons of the 49th FG were 'elite' units and did very well. Aside from Bong, McGuire, and Gerald Johnson, who were outliers, the 9th FS had about the same rate of success.
The 9th FS had 15 Aces (including Bong, McGuire and Johnson and one more double ace), the 8th FS had 14 Aces (including 3 double aces), and the 7th FS had 8 aces including one double-ace.

Robert DeHaven (14 victories) who flew with the 7th Fighter Squadron and scored about half of his victories in the P-40 and half in the P-38, noted that the main difference was really the range, the P-38 could be used on the offensive at further distances beyond Southern New Guinea. The P-38 had the potential to be a game changer but it was not around in enough numbers to really make the difference, and not enough pilots had the skills to deal with all of the challenges of flying it, at least until after that tipping point. A lot of the heavy lifting (and eventual combat success) in New Guinea specifically and South Pacific more generally was with P-40s, Wildcats, and P-39s.

80th FS was originally flying P-39s (P-400s) and then went back to P-40s, converting to P-38s in March 43.

I think the F4U Corsairs were making a difference fairly early as well (I think VMF 124 was first, early in 43) though in similarly small numbers to the P-38s.

The Hellcats were not around until fall of 1943. The P-47s were around by early 44 though I'm not sure how much difference they made, P-51s did make a difference but I think they were also arriving in 44.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> *The P-38 had the potential to be a game changer but it was not around in enough numbers to really make the difference,* and not enough pilots had the skills to deal with all of the challenges of flying it, at least until after that tipping point. A lot of the heavy lifting (and eventual combat success) in New Guinea specifically and South Pacific more generally was with P-40s, Wildcats, and P-39s.


I don't know about that - if you review the history and V and XIII fighter command (and the P-38 squadrons under them), it seems by early/ mid 43, their operations expanded because they had a fighter that was capable of long range sweeps and escorts, well documented in the book "Peter Three Eight." Additionally you had many aces emerging from these units. I don't know if you can say they were "elite, " just had some great pilots assigned to them. Don't forget the 433rd and the 475th (McGuire's squadron) Now with that said, nothing is taken away from the P-39s and P-40s still being operated in theater. Now you mention Wildcats - Guadalcanal?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

yes Guadalcanal and the Navy units


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> yes Guadalcanal and the Navy units


Well when the P-38 arrived in theater V Fighter command went from about a 1 to 1.5/ 1 to 2 kill/ loss ratio to well over 4 to 1, depending who you talk to. I think overall in the PTO the P-38 "claimed" a 17 to 1 kill ratio. Without the P-38 the V and 13th AF would not have been able to advance out of New Guinea in the same amount of time as they did. You said it yourself, "the P-38 could be used on the offensive at further distances beyond Southern New Guinea." As far as not enough pilots or aircraft, that could have been said just about anywhere in the PTO, but I think it's obvious results were apparent. The P-38 enabled 5th AF medium bombers to attack targets with escorts and finally without the P-38 the Yamamoto mission would have never happened. If that didn't make a difference, I don't know what else will!


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

Given the small numbers of P-38s (especially before 1943), their fairly low serviceability especially early on, and the fact that the other units were racking up victories at the same rate more or less (especially if you exclude Bong and McGuire) - plus the inevitable overclaiming - I think the changes may have had less to do specifically with the P-38s and more to do with more gradual improvements in training, logistics, and the more gradual improvement of the existing aircraft. In the 49th G, the loss rates per combat sortie of the 7th and 8th FS went way down from the catastrophic levels of the spring and early summer, more or less the same as they did for the 9th. Part of this was better equipment.

By late 1942 for example 7th and 8th FS were receiving P-40Ks which had improved ammunition storage (therefore much less jamming problems) and 400+ additional horsepower at lower altitude (making the escape maneuver + zoom climb a much more sure thing). The surviving pilots had learned many hard lessons, they had established tactics and procedures to deal with the Japanese fighters, I think they had mosquito nets, and (I think) DDT and quinine, and the replacement pilots coming in were fare better trained. All of those things individually are minor but put together add up to a lot.

And you had Corsairs in the Islands and Spitfires in Darwin in early 1943 and later East Indies, not sure when they got the Spitfire VIIIs but those were a major improvement - and Beaufighters (in the New Guinea area starting in mid-1942), and much more heavily armed Allied bombers like the B-25s and B-24s coming in more and more.

Finally, perhaps the most telling factor is that by the end of 1942, the Japanese units were starting to really feel the effects of attrition, and had lost a lot of their most experienced aircrews like at Midway and in the steady fighting around New Guinea. 

I think it's an overly simplistic story to credit it all to the P-38s, personally. I think the P-38 and especially that handful of pilots who really learned how to make the most out of it, were a major part, but not the whole thing or even necessarily the decisive factor. I know that was the post-war narrative though.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

The biggest difference the P-38 did make was as you said, the longer range escort ability, though Japanese fighters weren't super effective against B-25s and B-24s even unescorted


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Given the small numbers of P-38s (especially before 1943), their fairly low serviceability especially early on, and the fact that the other units were racking up victories at the same rate more or less (especially if you exclude Bong and McGuire) - plus the inevitable overclaiming - I think the changes may have had less to do specifically with the P-38s and more to do with more gradual improvements in training, logistics, and the more gradual improvement of the existing aircraft. In the 49th G, the loss rates per combat sortie of the 7th and 8th FS went way down from the catastrophic levels of the spring and early summer, more or less the same as they did for the 9th. Part of this was better equipment.


How can you exclude Bong and Maguire, during that period? Why don't you disregard other participants as well? McGuire didn't even arrive until March 1943. They were not even the higher scoring aces at the time, you had others contributing like Tom Lynch, Danny Roberts, Robert Vaught, Stan Sparks and even George Welch, and I'm talking from late 1942 into the summer of 1943.

Over claiming it’s a given regardless, but I do agree with you on better training and logistics support



Schweik said:


> By late 1942 for example 7th and 8th FS were receiving P-40Ks which had improved ammunition storage (therefore much less jamming problems) and 400+ additional horsepower at lower altitude (making the escape maneuver + zoom climb a much more sure thing). The surviving pilots had learned many hard lessons, they had established tactics and procedures to deal with the Japanese fighters, I think they had mosquito nets, and (I think) DDT and quinine, and the replacement pilots coming in were fare better trained. All of those things individually are minor but put together add up to a lot.


Agree, but even with the improved P-40 K, they were not going to drive the Japanese out of the New Guinea skies. I’m not addressing the Australian effort here, I’m just talking about the Fifth and 13th Air Force.



Schweik said:


> Finally, perhaps the most telling factor is that by the end of 1942, the Japanese units were starting to really feel the effects of attrition, and had lost a lot of their most experienced aircrews like at Midway and in the steady fighting around New Guinea.


Agree


Schweik said:


> *I think it's an overly simplistic story to credit it all to the P-38s, personally*. I think the P-38 and especially that handful of pilots who really learned how to make the most out of it, were a major part, but not the whole thing or even necessarily the decisive factor. I know that was the post-war narrative though.


You keep saying "handful of pilots" small numbers and serviceability issues - exactly when? The first major P-38 combat sorties were flown in late 1942. By mid-1943 how many squadrons do think were operational in the SWP?

No, I'm not giving* all* the credit to the P-38 and I recognize the units flying them were not the only game in town, my point is it DID make a difference - a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> How can you exclude Bong and Maguire, during that period? Why don't you disregard other participants as well? McGuire didn't even arrive until March 1943. They were not even the higher scoring aces at the time, you had others contributing like Tom Lynch, Danny Roberts, Robert Vaught, Stan Sparks and even George Welch, and I'm talking from late 1942 into the summer of 1943.



I'm just saying Bong and Maguire were outliers, they (and arguably) Gerald Johnson were the guys who really learned to make the P-38 sing, and live up to it's true potential even while it still had so many teething problems. The other P-38 pilots did well but so did the P-40 pilots in 49th FG.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Over claiming it’s a given regardless, but I do agree with you on better training and logistics support
> 
> 
> Agree, but even with the improved P-40 K, they were not going to drive the Japanese out of the New Guinea skies. I’m not addressing the Australian effort here, I’m just talking about the Fifth and 13th Air Force.



Well I'd say the Aussies and N-Zeds were also a critical factor. They were comparable to the 49th in impact.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree
> 
> No, I'm not giving* all* the credit to the P-38, my point is it DID make a difference - a BIG DIFFERENCE.



Yeah we aren't that far apart, I'm just squeezing in a _little_ more nuance here. People tend to forget that the aircraft which were being used in early 1942 did get improved, as did tactics and conditions etc.. 49th FG got the P-40K and later N, and also even got some P-40Fs (they were the only unit in the PTO to get any). I think even the P-39s in Theater improved, the early ones were P-39D and those P-400s that they couldn't hook up oxygen for, later they got at least slightly more capable models.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

It would be really interesting to see some kind of estimate of how many fighter pilots (and trained bomber crews) the IJA and IJN had from early 1942 to the end of the year, and through 1943


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'm just saying Bong and Maguire were outliers, they (and arguably) Gerald Johnson were the guys who really learned to make the P-38 sing, and live up to it's true potential even while it still had so many teething problems. The other P-38 pilots did well but so did the P-40 pilots in 49th FG.


Agree, but also look at the timelines when they were in theater. Bong even went on leave for a bit before he was finally ordered home. Agree about the pilots in the 49th but none of them reached the same scores as the P-38 drivers, but then again they were flying a different mission.


Schweik said:


> Well I'd say the Aussies and N-Zeds were also a critical factor. They were comparable to the 49th in impact


Agree


Schweik said:


> Yeah we aren't that far apart, I'm just squeezing in a _little_ more nuance here. People tend to forget that the aircraft which were being used in early 1942 did get improved, as did tactics and conditions etc.. 49th FG got the P-40K and later N, and also even got some P-40Fs (they were the only unit in the PTO to get any). I think even the P-39s in Theater improved, the early ones were P-39D and those P-400s that they couldn't hook up oxygen for, later they got at least slightly more capable models.


IIRC the main P-38 models first used in the SWP was the G and H. If I’m not mistaken, as soon as the J came along, the older models were replaced pretty quickly. I believe by mid/late 1944 all earlier P-38 models were replaced by the J.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

My point about the victories was if you look at the two units, 8th did almost as well as the 9th even counting their three top aces. 8th FS had 14 aces including three double aces, 9th had 15. According to Osprey, 9th FS claimed 254 victories, 8th FS - 207, and 7th FS - 178.

That's better, but it's not_ wildly _better, and MacGuire and Bong by themselves can make up that difference. Those two guys alone probably put a serious dent in the local IJA air forces. They may not have gotten as many as they claimed but it's a sure bet they waxed more than a few of the experienced Japanese fighter pilots and left some units hollowed out.



> IIRC the main P-38 models first used in the SWP was the G and H. If I'm not mistaken, as soon as the J came along, the older models were replaced pretty quickly. I believe by mid/late 1944 all earlier P-38 models were replaced by the J.



Yes but 1944, as we tend to forget, is well past the tipping point for the Japanese. Not that the fighting was over by any means, but the ratio of experienced crew was way down and the numerical superiority and other advantages were all on the Allied side. And while P-38G and H were also good weapons, they sill had some serious issues. Even the J still did IIRC.

Also think of the level of training of the early pilots. Most of those guys had mastered say, a Steerman but were not up to a high performance fighter that complex, probably not really up to flying twin engined aircraft period. They crashed half of their P-40s before they even got to the combat area. Robert DeHaven said he had 14 hours on a P-40 when he went into combat the first time. It was really an unusual character who could step up that steep learning curve for something like a P-38 in 1942.

Does anyone know precisely when Spitfire Mk VIII were active in Theater?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> My point about the victories was if you look at the two units, 8th did almost as well as the 9th even counting their three top aces. 8th FS had 14 aces including three double aces, 9th had 15. According to Osprey, 9th FS claimed 254 victories, 8th FS - 207, and 7th FS - 178.
> 
> That's better, but it's not_ wildly _better, and MacGuire and Bong by themselves can make up that difference. Those two guys alone probably put a serious dent in the local IJA air forces. They may not have gotten as many as they claimed but it's a sure bet they waxed more than a few of the experienced Japanese fighter pilots and left some units hollowed out.


But aside from the victories, its a matter of controlling the skies over the SWP, and the units in New Guinea started making that happen in late 42/ early 43. As far as over claiming by Bong or Maguire, I’ve never seen any evidence to support this, not to say it wasn’t possible. I know there was one mission where Bong and Lynch shot up a base and fifth Air Force brass wanted him to take an aerial kill for a ground target, he refused to do so


Schweik said:


> Yes but 1944, as we tend to forget, is well past the tipping point for the Japanese. Not that the fighting was over by any means, but the ratio of experienced crew was way down and the numerical superiority and other advantages were all on the Allied side. And while P-38G and H were also good weapons, they sill had some serious issues. Even the J still did IIRC.


When you say serious, what do you mean? Operational? Maintenance? In the Pacific issues with these aircraft were addressed by training. The P 38 was not an easy aircraft to maintain but the attrition and mission capable rate of the aircraft was way higher than what was found in Europe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> My point about the victories was if you look at the two units, 8th did almost as well as the 9th even counting their three top aces. 8th FS had 14 aces including three double aces, 9th had 15. According to Osprey, 9th FS claimed 254 victories, 8th FS - 207, and 7th FS - 178.
> 
> That's better, but it's not_ wildly _better, and MacGuire and Bong by themselves can make up that difference. Those two guys alone probably put a serious dent in the local IJA air forces. They may not have gotten as many as they claimed but it's a sure bet they waxed more than a few of the experienced Japanese fighter pilots and left some units hollowed out.
> 
> ...


We have discussed the lack of multi engine training on here many times, at the beginning of World War II it was just about nonexistent. Most of the better P 38 pilots either were brought up on the aircraft (and survived training) or they had plenty of multi engine time or before they jumped into the P 38, or they managed to get some multi engine time as they were getting trained up to fly the P 38. A favorite aircraft to do this in was the B 25.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Does anyone know precisely when Spitfire Mk VIII were active in Theater?



The first Mark VIIIs arrived in Australia in October 1943, the first squadrons began equipping with them in April 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But aside from the victories, its a matter of controlling the skies over the SWP, and the units in New Guinea started making that happen in late 42/ early 43.


And I don't think there were enough P-38s active at that time to really account for the difference. Part of it sure, but I think a lot of it was the other P-40 units and the Navy and Marine F4Fs out in the Solomon Islands. And the Beaufighters and even the P-39s.



FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as over claiming by Bong or Maguire, I’ve never seen any evidence to support this, not to say it wasn’t possible. I know there was one mission where Bong and Lynch shot up a base and fifth Air Force brass wanted him to take an aerial kill for a ground target, he refused to do so



I don't know the ratios of overclaiming on those guys but it's pretty much inevitable to some extent, with a few very rare exceptions. Not due to fraud or anything, but because say you see an aircraft on fire (but the fire goes out), or you see one blow up (but two people claimed the same one) or you see black smoke and it's going down (but it recovers and limps home) and etc.


FLYBOYJ said:


> When you say serious, what do you mean? Operational? Maintenance? In the Pacific issues with these aircraft were addressed by training. The P 38 was not an easy aircraft to maintain but the attrition and mission capable rate of the aircraft was way higher than what was found in Europe


I don't know precise timeline, but specific issues with early P-38s were of course the diving / compressibility problem (I gather not completely fixed until P-38L?), problems with the turbos and / or intercoolers, the slow ailerons (fixed by boosted ailerons in P-38J I believe), engine overheating at altitude (fixed in P-38H I think), the electrical generators (I believe a second generator was added mid run in the J series?) pilot heaters (not sure when that was fixed),


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> And I don't think there were enough P-38s active at that time to really account for the difference. Part of it sure, but I think a lot of it was the other P-40 units and the Navy and Marine F4Fs out in the Islands.


Sorry but history dictates otherwise. Read the book “Peter 38“ and other sources about the P 38 operations over New Guinea. We were not making any progress to hold down air superiority until the P 38 came on scene. From one of its first combat operations in December 1942, things started to change, And I am just talking about US Army Air Force operations over New guinea


Schweik said:


> I don't know the ratios of overclaiming on those guys but it's pretty much inevitable to some extent, with a few very rare exceptions. Not due to fraud or anything, but because say you see an aircraft on fire (but the fire goes out), or you see one blow up (but two people claimed the same one) or you see black smoke and it's going down (but it recovers and limps home) and etc.


Agree


Schweik said:


> I don't know precise timeline, but specific issues with early P-38s were of course the diving / compressibility problem (I gather not completely fixed until P-38L?), problems with the turbos and / or intercoolers, the slow ailerons (fixed by boosted ailerons in P-38J I believe), engine overheating at altitude (fixed in P-38H I think), the electrical generators (I believe a second generator was added mid run in the J series?) pilot heaters (not sure when that was fixed),


You’re quoting issues that were mainly encountered in Europe. Earlier J models had their dive flaps installed so that issue was fixed, as far as avoiding compressibility, it seems like the PTO pilots were better trained on the aircraft.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Does anyone know precisely when Spitfire Mk VIII were active in Theater?


First MkVIII operational sorties were flown on the following:-
79 sqn RAAF - 18 Feb 45 from Morotai (Sweep of the North coast of Halmahera Is).
452 sqn RAAF - 22 Dec 44 from Morotai (11 aircraft night patrol over Pitoe airstrip for Japanese intruders).
457 sqn RAAF - 11 Oct 44 from Darwin (Scramble - identified as a friendly aircraft).
54 sqn RAF - 21 Apr 44 from Darwin (Scramble - identified as friendly).
548 sqn RAF - 5 Sep 44 from Darwin (Strafing attack against Japanese held Lingat village on Selaru Is)
549 sqn RAF - 16 Jul 44 from Darwin (Scramble - identified as friendly).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> *And I don't think there were enough P-38s active at that time to really account for the difference*. Part of it sure, but I think a lot of it was the other P-40 units and the Navy and Marine F4Fs out in the Solomon Islands. And the Beaufighters and even the P-39s.


Now that I'm at my desk - referencing "P-38 Lightning at War" (Christy/ Ethell) in Jan 43' the 5th AF fighter command had 330 fighters on hand; 80 P-38s, 72 P-400s, 178 P-40s. May 1943 115 P-38Gs arrived in Australia and they made up the 475th FG, the first all P-38 fighter group in theater. I don't know what the attrition rate was for the 80 P-38s on hand in January, but it would seem those numbers were comparative with other aircraft being operated in theater at the same time. The Japanese attempted to regain air superiority over eastern New Guinea with operation "I-go" (April 43) which failed. According to the referenced book the Japanese lost 32 bombers and 23 fighters mainly to P-38s. On April 18, 1943 Yamamoto was killed by 347th FS P-38s.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2021)

Schweik said:


> The biggest difference the P-38 did make was as you said, the longer range escort ability, though Japanese fighters weren't super effective against B-25s and B-24s even unescorted


Unescorted bombers (regardless of type) were dead meat without escort unless they were operating above the operational ceiling of the A6M (or KI-43).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

Wildcat said:


> First MkVIII operational sorties were flown on the following:-
> 79 sqn RAAF - 18 Feb 45 from Morotai (Sweep of the North coast of Halmahera Is).
> 452 sqn RAAF - 22 Dec 44 from Morotai (11 aircraft night patrol over Pitoe airstrip for Japanese intruders).
> 457 sqn RAAF - 11 Oct 44 from Darwin (Scramble - identified as a friendly aircraft).
> ...



When did the Mk V Spitfires in Theater lose or replace their Vokes filters?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2021)

> You're quoting issues that were mainly encountered in Europe. Earlier J models had their dive flaps installed so that issue was fixed, as far as avoiding compressibility, it seems like the PTO pilots were better trained on the aircraft.



I believe all of those were issues in the MTO and PTO as well, just not as severe in the PTO because the P-38s could more easily outpace the Japanese fighters and could evade them in a high-speed limb. They didn't have to do the Split-S to vertical dive escape maneuver that the other fighters used.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Now that I'm at my desk - referencing "P-38 Lightning at War" (Christy/ Ethell) in Jan 43' the 5th AF fighter command had 330 fighters on hand; 80 P-38s, 72 P-400s, 178 P-40s.



Add to that 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons RAAF (all flying P-40s, and all as part of No. 9 Operational Group under 5th Airforce) and 79 sqn flying Spitfire Vc, and No.s 14 and 15 RNZAF flying P-40s from Guadalcanal, plus the Marine and Navy Wildcats also at Guadalcanal, and soon after, Marine Corsairs.



FLYBOYJ said:


> May 1943 115 P-38Gs arrived in Australia and they made up the 475th FG, the first all P-38 fighter group in theater. I don't know what the attrition rate was for the 80 P-38s on hand in January, but it would seem those numbers were comparative with other aircraft being operated in theater at the same time. *The Japanese attempted to regain air superiority *over eastern New Guinea with operation "I-go" (*April 43*) which failed. According to the referenced book the Japanese lost 32 bombers and 23 fighters mainly to P-38s. On April 18, 1943 Yamamoto was killed by 347th FS P-38s.



Point being, they had already lost air superiority by then.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I believe all of those were issues in the MTO and PTO as well, just not as severe in the PTO because the P-38s could more easily outpace the Japanese fighters and could evade them in a high-speed limb. They didn't have to do the Split-S to vertical dive escape maneuver that the other fighters used.


Can you show where any unit in the SWP complained about cockpit heat? Turbos blowing up? Chronic engine failures? There were documented problems with intercoolers that were handled at the squadron level, PTO P-38 pilots knew when to avoid compressibility issues and because of tactics didn't complain about not having boosted ailerons (but welcomed them when the J model became available)


Schweik said:


> Add to that 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons RAAF (all flying P-40s, and all as part of No. 9 Operational Group under 5th Airforce) and 79 sqn flying Spitfire Vc, and No.s 14 and 15 RNZAF flying P-40s from Guadalcanal, plus the Marine and Navy Wildcats also at Guadalcanal, and soon after, Marine Corsairs.


OK they all contributed but I don't know what your point is.


Schweik said:


> Point being, they had already lost air superiority by then.


While there were other contributors to winning air superiority over eastern New Guinea, the P-38 pushed it over the edge (again late 1942, early 1943)


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Can you show where any unit in the SWP complained about cockpit heat?



I don't think I have to point out, it's cold at 25,000 ft regardless of where you are on the globe.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Turbos blowing up? Chronic engine failures? There were documented problems with intercoolers that were handled at the squadron level, PTO P-38 pilots knew when to avoid compressibility issues and because of tactics didn't complain about not having boosted ailerons (but welcomed them when the J model became available)


I don't think all the problems just went away when they arrived in the Pacific Ocean. They were just a bit more severe in Europe because the German and Italian planes were a lot faster, negating the P-38s main advantage. A P-38 couldn't escape from a Bf 109 in a high speed climb like they could from a Ki-43 or a Zero, so the risks associated with diving were more telling.

That said, I didn't say anything about chronic engine failures.



FLYBOYJ said:


> OK they all contributed but I don't know what your point is.



There were plenty of other fighters engaging the enemy all through 1942 (and 43) and the P-38s were just a small part of that.


FLYBOYJ said:


> While there were other contributors to winning air superiority over eastern New Guinea, the P-38 pushed it over the edge (again late 1942, early 1943)



My point is, I don't think it was down to the P-38s. Not purely, not even mostly. Certainly not in 1942. That is basically a postwar cliche, IMO.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> PTO P-38 pilots knew when to avoid compressibility issues and because of tactics didn't complain about not having boosted ailerons (but welcomed them when the J model became available)



Did P-38s operate at lower altitudes in the PTO, avoiding the compressibility issues?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

From the pilot interview I was just reading, (from a guy stationed at Guadalcanal in early 1943) they were routinely flying at 25,000 ft


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I don't think I have to point out, it's cold at 25,000 ft regardless of where you are on the globe.


The PTO saw average operating altitudes lower than 25,000 feet.
The ETO was about the only theater (with certain exceptions for the CBI) where high altitude operations were the norm.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> From the pilot interview I was just reading, (from a guy stationed at Guadalcanal in early 1943) they were routinely flying at 25,000 ft


The standard lapse rate in aviation is that temperature drops 2C per thousand feet. If it’s 95F/35C on an island in the SWP, then it’s -5C/23F at 20k an -15C/5F at 25k.

Europe at sea level temp of 0C/32F (freezing) is -40C/-40F at 20k and -45C/-49F at 25k.

There is quite a difference in temp between the two, and the ability to warm the cockpit in one does not mean it’s a given for the other. Or vice versa.

I consider Rome to be in Southern Europe. It’s just over 60 miles south of New York, NY iIRC. When you watch the weather babe this week and she shows the cold air bulges poking down into the US, note how much bigger they are in Canada. Canadas weather is much more like Europes than the US.

Also of note is the contrails level. In Germany they can be down into the low 20s, hence all the photos showing them during raids / air battles. In the US low cons would be in the high 30s. Add about 5k or more for summer.

Cloud thickness is unbelievable in Europe. In the Eagle we had normal fingertip (close formation) with a 3’ spacing between wings. Use that formation in Europe and you can’t see the other jet. So they made a “weather” close formation for the Eagle where we overlapped wings just so you could see the other guys wingtip. I’ve been there and could see only his wingtip and not more than 2 feet of wing.

Start noting attire for guys in the SWP during the early part of the war, and guys operating out of Okinawa / Tinian during the latter part or closing days. Summer flying early on, heavier later due to operating over Japan during cold weather. Flight profiles early on were lower than later but on whole much lower than Europe as well. Big picture it’s not an apples to apples comparison weather wise between Europe and the SWP.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2021)

There are (or were) several 'standards' for temperature at altitude charts/curves.

The one I have in a old book shows that a 40 degree difference at sea level between standard (59 degrees F) and 'hot day' (100 degrees F at sea level and staying 100 degrees F to about 6,000ft) shows a difference of 40 degrees F from 35,000ft and on up. There is about a 60 degree difference at 6,000ft with the extra 20 degrees differecne fading out up to 35,000ft.

Other curves/standards could very well be different but Biff is spot on. Temps at altitude in the SW Pacific are way different than temps at altitude over Europe.
P-38s were also thrown into combat in Europe in the late Fall of the year. No time to figure things out or slowly acquire experience.

edit for typo 30 degree difference at 6000ft should be 60 degrees.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I don't think I have to point out, it's cold at 25,000 ft regardless of where you are on the globe.
> 
> I don't think all the problems just went away when they arrived in the Pacific Ocean. They were just a bit more severe in Europe because the German and Italian planes were a lot faster, negating the P-38s main advantage.* A P-38 couldn't escape from a Bf 109 *in a high speed climb like they could from a Ki-43 or a Zero, so the risks associated with diving were more telling.


You did not have PTO pilots experiencing the same issues as in the ETO because there were operating at lower altitudes most of the time.

Read about the lapse rate in the posts above...

As far as your second statement - what model P-38 and -109? The Later model P-38s had great climbing ability


Schweik said:


> That said, I didn't say anything about chronic engine failures.


But they were part of the issues in the ETO - you said the P-38 had the same issues in the PTO! So again, show us proof of this!


Schweik said:


> There were plenty of other fighters engaging the enemy all through 1942 (and 43) and the P-38s were just a small part of that.


There were plenty of fighters in theater during the period, but where you're wrong is the P-38 had a BIG part of the mission getting accomplished with regards to AAF operations. I'm not saying that it's presence was a war winning factor, bit it made a greater difference than that you're giving it credit for.


Schweik said:


> My point is, I don't think it was down to the P-38s. Not purely, not even mostly. Certainly not in 1942. That is basically a postwar cliche, IMO.


Again, you're opinion. If this was down to a "postwar cliche," why did General Kenney make P-38 acquisition one of his top priorities? Yep, just your opinion


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2021)

Some fighters do well in a "mix". 
Such as P-38s providing top cover and/or handling the higher altitudes while other fighters operate at lower altitudes. 

Without the top cover the lower altitude fighter's job gets a lot harder as the enemy can engage from a height advantage (not all the time).

The top cover fighters may be able to disrupt this tactic or eliminate it from use at times (not always) even if they post few kills on the score board. 

The P-38s range was also useful in some areas. In the Med the P-38s could provide cover for the Sicilian landings from bases in North Africa. The single engine fighters available at the time could not do this no matter how many there were. 

If you can't reach the target area it doesn't matter how good the single engine fighter is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Did P-38s operate at lower altitudes in the PTO, avoiding the compressibility issues?


In general they did but did have some high altitude missions. There is a publication titled "General Kenney Reports" written by the old man and it details 5th AF operations, I think this is indicated in this book.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The PTO saw average operating altitudes lower than 25,000 feet.
> The ETO was about the only theater (with certain exceptions for the CBI) where high altitude operations were the norm.



Au contraire mon frere. At least not when it came to P-38s

Some quotes from P-38 pilot interviews, 1943. They note specifically that the P-38s preferred to fly at 25 or 26,000 ft, as did the heavy bombers, and that it sometimes caused them trouble seeing the dive bombers way down below. Also as I pointed out earlier, 49th FG P-40s were defending Darwin at 25 - 27,000 ft, and per the below Wildcats were operating that high over Guadalcanal sometimes, though it was 'above their altitude'.



[email protected] - 1943 P-38 Pilots of Guadalcanal interview



_The P-40's, acting as front cover as well as escort, flew with the bombers. They asked us to fly about 3,000 feet above them but when they were at 12,OOO that was not high enough; *it was usually more desirable for the P-38's to go in at about 24,000 or 25,000. *We had so few P-38's that's the only way we could do it; had we been jumped from above, we would have been wiped out, and the B-17's also. It is easier to work down, than up in a surprise attack.
...

Major Mitchell and his men flew six or seven missions, dirty missions with bombers to Kahili in P-40's, meeting lots of opposition. Their job was top cover; the bombers flew very high, *at 25,000 to 26,000 feet*, the p-40' s a little lower, and the Marines (Grummans) at about 15,000, working with the SBD's._
...

_*Four Grummans, away beyond their altitude at 26,000 feet, were jumped by some Japs from above. We P-38's went in *at 240-250 miles an hour indicated and had a lot of speed when we got up to the Jap planes. I got a direct hit at one; another pulled off to the side and followed me. I pulled away at full throttle, about 180-190 miles indicated. The Jap fell back and back, keeping at the same level but no longer shooting. When he turned around to leave, My wing man got him._

...
_ Several times when bombers had engaged Zeros, the P-38's, weaving back and forth up high, didn't see the fighting. That's quite possible! It happened two or three times and was extremely embarrassing. They'd come back and say to the P-38 pilots, "Where the hell were you when the fight was going on? We could have used you!" We'd say, "What fighting?" (As you all know, the radios never work in combat when you need them. The Navy flyers were on the main frequency, and we on another, so we had to switch to the main frequency to call the SBD's or be called by them. Quite often only one or two of our radios would be in operation - and the wrong man would hear the call). Well, two or three times the P-38's went blithely on their way while fighting was going on. They began to call our P-38's "high altitude fox holes"!_

...
_The P-38's never tried to tangle with the Japs at any altitude. *We'd follow them from 30,000 feet to sea level*, but never tried to fight them; couldn't possibly do it at any altitude, regardless of whether we used our flaps or not. (Those new flaps, incidentally, are a great help in turning). We can outrun the Zeros straight and level at any altitude, from sea level up._

The same interview does also mention that they did not have problems with compressibility, due to pulling out their dives when they encountered the warning buffet:

_Q. Did the handbook restrictions on P-38 compressibility in higher altitudes hinder you in combat?

A. We out there didn't know the meaning of the word! It means "the absolute", does it not? Apparently the P-38 can become unmanageable in a dive. All of us, I guess, have tested that at least once; but you don't have to hold it that long usually. It builds up a lot of "compressibility", but you could indicate between 400 and 500 miles an hour around 20,000 feet and pull out without any trouble. You get a shudder but bring it out on the bridge of the shudder instead of going into it, and let it buck. In that bucking you won't snap anything off; ordinarily in bucking you vibrate right down to the ground, but you get back on the edge and ease it out.

Q. Does that bucking build up pretty heavily as you go down?

A. Yes.

Major
Mitchell: We never thought of that in any of our fighting; we'd go ahead. The Zeros would roll, and we'd roll with them chase them around and down._

This was pretty interesting too:

_Captain Lanphier: We had some trouble fighting Zeros. We can't turn and approach as fast as they can. Some of us used our flaps and slowed up, staying behind the Zeros when they turned, then turning under them. That was frequently effective. If we had planned an attack on the bombers, I think I'd have had my people dive with the flaps (making an overhead approach and using the flaps to keep slow until making a run), then fold the flaps and dive. We can turn inside the Grumman with the flaps._

I think this means maybe doing a low-yo-yo, this is the same maneuver Robert DeHaven described using in the P-40
​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Some fighters do well in a "mix".
> Such as P-38s providing top cover and/or handling the higher altitudes while other fighters operate at lower altitudes.
> 
> Without the top cover the lower altitude fighter's job gets a lot harder as the enemy can engage from a height advantage (not all the time).
> ...


You have brought this up many times before - it's the general assumption about the MTO as well. But when you get into the weeds in the squadron histories and day by day action reports, the fact is, both in the Pacific and the MTO, quite often the 'low altitude fighters' had to figure out how to fend for themselves, and they figured out tactics to do so. Much harder in the MTO by the way. Most of the missions flown by the 49th FG in 1942 for example were not structured in that way with top cover. The P-38s didn't arrive that early and even once they were there there weren't enough of them to cover every mission.

In China, the 23rd FG established Air Superiority over the same kind of IJA aircraft basically with only P-40s (notably P-40K was very prominent, and later N and some M). It became enough of a problem for the Japanese that they launched a major ground offensive to dislodge them. They still had the altitude disadvantage but they figured out how to adapt to it.



Shortround6 said:


> The P-38s range was also useful in some areas. In the Med the P-38s could provide cover for the Sicilian landings from bases in North Africa. The single engine fighters available at the time could not do this no matter how many there were.
> 
> If you can't reach the target area it doesn't matter how good the single engine fighter is.


That's very true, and I think that was the main niche for the P-38 in general for a long time.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> The standard lapse rate in aviation is that temperature drops 2C per thousand feet. If it’s 95F/35C on an island in the SWP, then it’s -5C/23F at 20k an -15C/5F at 25k.
> 
> Europe at sea level temp of 0C/32F (freezing) is -40C/-40F at 20k and -45C/-49F at 25k.
> 
> ...


I'll defer to your greater experience on that - what I remember from flying light planes years ago was that it got much colder when you reached 10,000 ft. 

However, -5F is pretty damn cold without a heater. I've experienced those kinds of temperatures. Ground temperature in the Pacific is also often in the 80s. For example as I type this the current temperature in Port Moresby is 78. Per your calculation that would mean -24C at 25,000 ft and that is -11F, which is chilly brotha.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

I don't claim to be an expert on the P-38, but I have read the unit history of the US 49th FG, 75 and 76 Sqn RAAF, and a few other squdarons in the PTO very closely. I was actually really surprised to see how well they did with the P-40s and that the 8th FS compared pretty well to the 9th FS in victory claims.

I think the p-38 was a great fighter, definitely a better fighter (certainly in it's potential) than a P-40, but it also had it's limitations and it seemed to take a long time to go through the usual teething process with a new fighter, and to figure out how to use it to optimal advantage. That's why they sent Lindburgh out there, right? The P-38 had the range and the altitude performance sufficient to put it in a dominant role in the PTO. Having that second engine made a big difference in operations in the Pacific as well, it saved the life of many pilots.

This is what Robert DeHaven said about the P-40 vs P-38

_"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. [...] The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did not [believe] that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do."__[64]_​

This was his comment on what I think was a low-yo-yo technique similar to what was mentioned in the P-38 interview I just posted:

_[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight.

By the way, this is one of the pilots in the interview, he flew 97 missions, got 4 victories, and was on the famous Yammamoto assassination mission (he was at one time given credit for the victory on Yamamoto's plane but they seem to have reversed that later)









Thomas George Lanphier Jr. - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





This is the other guy, he was also on the same mission. He got 3 victories on the P-39, and 5 more flying P-38s, and ended up with 8 victories overall while at Guadalcanal, he got three more victory flying P-51s over with 15th FG flying from Iwo Jima, for 11 total.









John W. Mitchell (United States Air Force) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> [email protected] - 1943 P-38 Pilots of Guadalcanal interview
> 
> 
> ​


A great document from two of the pilots who participated in the Yamamoto mission.

Mitchell











Lamphier

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I think the p-38 was a great fighter, definitely a better fighter (certainly in it's potential) than a P-40, but it also had it's limitations and* it seemed to take a long time to go through the usual teething process* with a new fighter, and to figure out how to use it to optimal advantage. That's why they sent Lindburgh out there, right?


Now that's a post war "cliche" If you examine the operational history of any US Figher in service during WW2, there were issues. P-47 also had compressibility issues, P-51 stability issues, for example (there are many more)

Lindberg was sent to the SWP to show pilots proper leaning techniques so they can get more range out of their aircraft. He also visited a Marine Squadron. He flew with Tommy McGuire's squadron.



Charles Lindbergh - Helps the 5th Air Force




_Soon after General George C. Kenny arrived to command the allied air forces under General Douglas MacArthur, he asked Washington for two things: _


_Give his Air Force a number and_
*Send him some P-38s*
_*The Result:-* The Fifth Air Force was born and enough P-38s to equip one squadron (28 aircraft), a fighter squadron, was authorized. The 39th and 40th Fighter Squadrons had just returned to Australia from a nine week's tour of duty at Port Moresby. It was decided that one of the two squadrons would get the P-38s. Since both squadrons had about the same record of accomplishment, a coin was tossed to determine the winner. The 39th won the toss. As soon as their planes were received and the pilots were checked out, the 39th returned to New Guinea. As Teddy W. Hanks recalls, they got official credit for 74 enemy planes destroyed in aerial combat before losing a pilot._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'll defer to your greater experience on that - what I remember from flying light planes years ago was that it got much colder when you reached 10,000 ft.
> 
> However, -5F is pretty damn cold without a heater. I've experienced those kinds of temperatures. Ground temperature in the Pacific is also often in the 80s. For example as I type this the current temperature in Port Moresby is 78. Per your calculation that would mean -24C at 25,000 ft and that is -11F, which is chilly brotha.



Of course its colder at 10,000 than at sea level. They, however, still use the same standard lapse rate today that they did 75 years ago. 2 degrees change per thousand feet. Does not matter where in the globe you are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I don't claim to be an expert on the P-38,



Too bad someone else can’t admit the same about the P-39. 

Ok, I will show myself to the door.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> This is what Robert DeHaven said about the P-40 vs P-38
> 
> _"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. [...] The real problem with it was lack of range. *As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did not [believe] that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do.*_


Nuff said...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A great document from two of the pilots who participated in the Yamamoto mission.
> 
> Mitchell
> 
> ...



Yep - if you look upthread I already posted these passages


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Of course its colder at 10,000 than at sea level. They, however, still use the same standard lapse rate today that they did 75 years ago. 2 degrees change per thousand feet. Does not matter where in the globe you are.



Right. And -5F to -11F is still damn cold no matter where on the globe you are...


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now that's a post war "cliche" If you examine the operational history of any US Figher in service during WW2, there were issues. P-47 also had compressibility issues, P-51 stability issues, for example (there are many more)
> 
> Lindberg was sent to the SWP to show pilots proper leaning techniques so they can get more range out of their aircraft. He also visited a Marine Squadron. He flew with Tommy McGuire's squadron.
> 
> ...



Yes I agree, all new fighters particularly later in the war had teething issues, quite often prolonged. Some took longer than others to shake out. The issues with the P-38 were serious and took a while to sort out. Not just compressibility and turbos and turning, but also the heater and the electrical generator. But the Corsairs had a lot of problems too, P-47 as you said, P-51 to some extent, the Helldiver had a ton of problems. Typhoon was real bad for the RAF. Many of the newer Japanese types of course famously struggled. Many other US types never made the battlefield due to ongoing issues they couldn't sort out.

If they had sorted out the problems with the P-38 more quickly I think it would have become the long range escort fighter for 8th AF and would have shortened the war. It definitely could have shortened the campaign in the MTO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2021)

Used to go winter camping in Temps near zero. With the right gear it is not too bad. Sure wouldn't want to try it at 30-40 below. 
Snowshoe in on Friday night. Come out on Sunday. 

Or talk to motorcycle riders. 50 degree F at 60 mph isn't too bad for a short period of time. Several hours is misery. 75 degrees at 60mph is much nicer. 

Sometimes 20-30 degrees over several hours makes a huge difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Yes I agree, all new fighters particularly later in the war had teething issues, quite often prolonged. Some took longer than others to shake out. The issues with the P-38 were serious and took a while to sort out.


The aircraft was just entering service at the start of the war and was initially designed as an interceptor. It's mission changed and during that time issues were worked out. Some of these "fixes" had to first be approved by the government so there was a delay there, but by the time the P-38J was introduced (August 1943) many of these issues were worked out. These issues and their time line to fix would compare to other fighters. If you research mission capable rates these so called issues in the SWP they didn't factor much.



Schweik said:


> Not just compressibility and turbos and turning, but also the heater and the electrical generator. But the Corsairs had a lot of problems too, P-47 as you said, P-51 to some extent, the Helldiver had a ton of problems. Typhoon was real bad for the RAF. Many of the newer Japanese types of course famously struggled. Many other US types never made the battlefield due to ongoing issues they couldn't sort out.


The generator issue was solved with the H and definitely with the J model, I believe and the only issue with the generator is you had only one, a configuration initially accepted by the AAF. Again, show evidence that PTO pilots complained continually about the heater issue which would actually exist in any twin engine aircraft that used engine heat exchangers in lieu of a dedicated heater unit.


Schweik said:


> If they had sorted out the problems with the P-38 more quickly I think it would have become the long range escort fighter for 8th AF and would have shortened the war. It definitely could have shortened the campaign in the MTO.


I can somewhat agree but at the same time if you researched those who gave a negative critique of the P-38 in Europe, they did not like flying a twin engine fighter. It was more complicated and harder to train new pilots on. There were many improvements offered by Lockheed and it took awhile for approval or these recommendations were rejected.



Lockheed P-38K Lightning

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Right. And -5F to -11F is still damn cold no matter where on the globe you are...



Sure, but I can tell you an aircraft heating system that runs on bleed air is going to heat a cockpit/cabin better in an aircraft operating at -5 than one operating at -25. Its only going to warm the cabin so much. So a pilot operating a P-38 at 19,000 ft is probably going to be more comfortable than one operating at lets say 27,000 ft. Granted I have never operated an unpressurized aircraft at those altitudes, so I am purely guessing. I have, however, crewed military helicopters at 12,000 ft, and the cabin temp was more easily maintained at altitudes much lower. There were times at the higher altitudes I did not feel the heater was working.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Used to go winter camping in Temps near zero. With the right gear it is not too bad. Sure wouldn't want to try it at 30-40 below.
> Snowshoe in on Friday night. Come out on Sunday.
> 
> Or talk to motorcycle riders. 50 degree F at 60 mph isn't too bad for a short period of time. Several hours is misery. 75 degrees at 60mph is much nicer.
> ...



I have sat in an APC when it was about 10F (above Zero) and I can tell you if you are just sitting there it gets damn cold fast. Hiking is a little different. It certainly does help to dress properly regardless, but hours long flights at 25,000 ft were probably pretty chilly. 

I suspect the reason you don't hear the same litany of complaints about the P-38, or not as loudly as it were, as you do from England or North Africa, is because the P-38 units did a lot better in the Pacific. Nobody was pressing them trying to find out what was wrong, because by and large they were making it work. Against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica they had more trouble.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now that's a post war "cliche" If you examine the operational history of any US Figher in service during WW2, there were issues. P-47 also had compressibility issues, P-51 stability issues, for example (there are many more)


Did the wind tunnel research on the P-38 introduce the term "compressibility" into the aviation lexicon? The Typhoon is said to have had compressibility issues with its thick wings and chin radiator, but previously the Tornado (same plane with a Vulture engine) was said to have dive and stability issues with the radiator further back even though it is obviously the same compressibility problem.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I suspect the reason you don't hear the same litany of complaints about the P-38, or not as loudly as it were, as you do from England or North Africa, is because the P-38 units did a lot better in the Pacific. *Nobody was pressing them trying to find out what was wrong, because by and large they were making it work. *Against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica they had more trouble.


Now you're speculating. I do know that there was a trouble reporting system for the P-38 that was funneled through their field service group (I worked with some guys that were in that group during the war years). I don't know if you ever served in the military but the contractor is continually receiving feedback from operators and I know for a fact this was the norm 78 years ago as it is today. I can't argue that the Pacific had a better environment to operate in if you don't consider areas with hostile bugs and wildlife.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did the wind tunnel research on the P-38 introduce the term "compressibility" into the aviation lexicon? The Typhoon is said to have had compressibility issues with its thick wings and chin radiator, but previously the Tornado (same plane with a Vulture engine) was said to have dive and stability issues with the radiator further back even though it is obviously the same compressibility problem.


There was a time when Kelly Johnson was denied use of a wind tunnel so the issue wasn't initially captured, I'll have to look up specifics.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did the wind tunnel research on the P-38 introduce the term "compressibility" into the aviation lexicon? The Typhoon is said to have had compressibility issues with its thick wings and chin radiator, but previously the Tornado (same plane with a Vulture engine) was said to have dive and stability issues with the radiator further back even though it is obviously the same compressibility problem.


From Wiki with references -
_
Johnson said in his autobiography[52]​ that he pleaded with National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics to do model tests in its wind tunnel. They already had experience of models thrashing around violently at speeds approaching those requested and did not want to risk damaging their tunnel. Gen. Arnold, head of Army Air Forces, ordered them to run the tests, which were done up to Mach 0.74.[53]​ The P-38's dive problem was revealed to be the center of pressure moving back toward the tail when in high-speed airflow. The solution was to change the geometry of the wing's lower surface when diving to keep lift within bounds of the top of the wing. In February 1943, quick-acting dive flaps were tried and proven by Lockheed test pilots. The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles, and in action they extended downward 35° in 1.5 seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake; they affected the pressure distribution in a way that retained the wing's lift.__[54]_​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'll defer to your greater experience on that - what I remember from flying light planes years ago was that it got much colder when you reached 10,000 ft.
> 
> However, -5F is pretty damn cold without a heater. I've experienced those kinds of temperatures. Ground temperature in the Pacific is also often in the 80s. For example as I type this the current temperature in Port Moresby is 78. Per your calculation that would mean -24C at 25,000 ft and that is -11F, which is chilly brotha.


Schweik,

As Shortround mentioned, the colder it gets the harder it is to keep warm. In planes that cruise for long periods at altitude a phenomenon called soaking occurs. Cold soaking in this case, heat soaking in the case of the Reno warbirds trying to win a race. The plane feels okay when you get to altitude , but several hours later it’s colder than hell (I’ve experienced this numerous times in the Eagle). Also remember that the planes were unpressurised and drafty, so you fought cold with minimal heat that could be vacuumed overboard.

The Europe template called for extended high altitude cruise in sometimes extremely cold temperatures. It is my understanding the SWP did not use the same profile. 10k with oxygen mask off until nearing the threat area then push it up and take it up. Post fight cruise descent until 10k, then lower as you neared the field. The plane had the same problems regardless of where it was, they just weren’t obvious (cockpit temp wise) in the SWP.

There are also physiological problems with extended cruise. Frostbite if it’s cold enough, sinus pain from extended breathing of cold air (sinus drip which in turn can cause problems clearing your ears) and oxygen saturation of the inner ear. The latter rears it’s head, not painfully but uncomfortably, during the time post flight when you are sleeping. Oxygen gets absorbed into the inner ear canal and then vents out causing you to keep clearing. This would wake me several times usually after each extended high altitude flight.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 22, 2021)

The book: Lindbergh, 1976
The author: Leonard Mosley

"When he (Lindbergh) ventured to suggest at one Washington lunch table - at which Brigadier General Louis E. Wood of the Marines happened to be present-that someone with expert knowledge of the new Corsair ought to go out to the Pacific and see how it was behaving, Wood said: 'Why not you?' "I'm not in the service," said Lindbergh simply. " What does that matter?" replied Wood, "Why can't you go as a civilian?" "The White House would never allow it," he said. [ Lindbergh & Roosevelt ware at odds] Wood: "Why does the White House have to know?" Admiral DeWitt Ramsey had been bought in to provide a cover for Lindbergh's new mission: take a Corsair to the combat areas of the South Pacific and demonstrate how to get the best out of it. He spent four months in the South Pacific.
There were four Corsairs in his flight. They were to cover a raid on Rabaul. No Japanese planes appeared, so on the was home they strafed targets on Green Island. On return the C.O. was waiting, "you didn't fire your guns, did you?"
General Kenney heard of Lindbergh's presence and cleared it with MacArthur to have him assist the P-38 pilots. He shot down the Japanese plane, 28 July. flying Col. Charles Mac Donald's wing. A few days later, he came close to getting shot down himself. The next day the news spread through the American command. It was bad enough to have him, a civilian, to shoot down an enemy, but what if he had been shot down? He was recalled from the combat area to Brisbane. Forty two was too old for a fighter pilot. He had taken part in fifty combat missions,179 combat hours.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did the wind tunnel research on the P-38 introduce the term "compressibility" into the aviation lexicon? The Typhoon is said to have had compressibility issues with its thick wings and chin radiator, but previously the Tornado (same plane with a Vulture engine) was said to have dive and stability issues with the radiator further back even though it is obviously the same compressibility problem.



Are you talking about the ventral radiator that was initially fitted to the Tornado?

My understanding is that the radiator didn't work in that location because of boundary layer buildup on the lower surface of the fuselage and wing roots. I don't think that is related to compressibility, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The aircraft was just entering service at the start of the war and was initially designed as an interceptor. It's mission changed and during that time issues were worked out. Some of these "fixes" had to first be approved by the government so there was a delay there, but by the time the P-38J was introduced (*August 1943*) many of these issues were worked out. These issues and their time line to fix would compare to other fighters. If you research mission capable rates these so called issues in the SWP they didn't factor much.


Which brings up the issue of when was the tipping point in the PTO. It's say probably a fairly wide period (~ 6 months) was still fiercely contested, but if I had to put the _middle_ of the tipping point in that Theater I'd place it near the end of 1942. At that time you still had a lot of P-38G and then H with the various issues. 

And by that point, the older types had already in large part broken, or at least severely blunted the air superiority of the Japanese in New Guinea and the Solomons. The Navy and then Marines had developed their Thach Weave tactic (and others) with the Wildcat, the Army and ANZAC units had figured out effective escape maneuvers with the P-40 and how to use BnZ tactics, increased their horsepower and largely resolved their issues with ammunition. In both places they had improved their coast watcher network and had developed effective pilot rescue systems (something the Japanese severely lacked). If you read pilot interviews from 49th FG or 76 Sqn RAAF there is a major shift in tone from spring to fall 1942, by the latter period they are much more confident.



FLYBOYJ said:


> The generator issue was solved with the H and definitely with the J model, I believe and the only issue with the generator is you had only one, a configuration initially accepted by the AAF. Again, show evidence that PTO pilots complained continually about the heater issue which would actually exist in any twin engine aircraft that used engine heat exchangers in lieu of a dedicated heater unit.


I don't know there is any, though I'll look into it. I just doubt it would be an issue in say, Tunisia or Algeria but not in New Guinea.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I can somewhat agree but at the same time if you researched those who gave a negative critique of the P-38 in Europe, they did not like flying a twin engine fighter. It was more complicated and harder to train new pilots on. There were many improvements offered by Lockheed and it took awhile for approval or these recommendations were rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed P-38K Lightning


I'm not blaming it all on Lockheed, I'm just pointing out there _were _issues and it took a while to resolve them all. Aside from problems with the actual machine there was also the training issue which seemed to get better in 1943. In the interview I linked one of those guys mentioned that each new group that came in was assigned a veteran to show them the ropes so that has to be helpful. But when they went in (earlier) they had very little time on type.

Regardless, the P-38 units were doing pretty well and giving worse than they got by early 1943, which was not the case in the MTO. German and Italian fighters could escape a P-38 more or less at will in a vertical dive, and depending on the specific opponent and the altitude, P-38s did not necessarily have a speed advantage. In the PTO they did, and even the fastest Japanese planes really couldn't outrun them. Some could out-climb, but the P-38s high speed climb abilities allowed them to extend away in relative safety without needing to dive precipitously. They couldn't do that against a Bf 109G or a Macchi C.205 though.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> As Shortround mentioned, the colder it gets the harder it is to keep warm. In planes that cruise for long periods at altitude a phenomenon called soaking occurs. Cold soaking in this case, heat soaking in the case of the Reno warbirds trying to win a race. The plane feels okay when you get to altitude , but several hours later it’s colder than hell (I’ve experienced this numerous times in the Eagle). Also remember that the planes were unpressurised and drafty, so you fought cold with minimal heat that could be vacuumed overboard.



Yes I have experienced that in an APC - especially once they stop and the heater is turned off. That thick aluminum alloy can suck the life out of you.


BiffF15 said:


> The Europe template called for extended high altitude cruise in sometimes extremely cold temperatures. It i*s my understanding the SWP did not use the same profile. 10k with oxygen mask off until nearing the threat area then push it up and take it up. * Post fight cruise descent until 10k, then lower as you neared the field. The plane had the same problems regardless of where it was, they just weren’t obvious (cockpit temp wise) in the SWP.



Read the post upthread with the P-38 pilots interview. They routinely flew 3-4 hours long missions at 25,000 ft, it was the preferred operating altitude and they even refused to fly lower in some cases.



BiffF15 said:


> Cheers,
> Biff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Which brings up the issue of when was the tipping point in the PTO. It's say probably a fairly wide period (~ 6 months) was still fiercely contested, but if I had to put the _middle_ of the tipping point in that Theater I'd place it near the end of 1942. At that time you still had a lot of P-38G and then H with the various issues.


The P-38s first missions in force were actually flown in late 1942 so how can that be? If you want a start of the "tipping point" research the mission flown on December 31, 1942

_On December 31, 1942 took off from 14 Mile Drome (Schwimmer) near Port Moresby piloted by 2nd Lt. Kenneth Sparks as one of twelve P-38s led by Thomas J. Lynch on a mission to escort A-20 Havocs, B-25 Mitchells and B-26 Marauders on a bombing mission against Lae Airfield near Lae. Over the target, the P-38s engaged eight Zeros (actually Ki-43 Oscars from the 11th Sentai). During the combat, Sparks fired at a Zero (actually a Ki-43 Oscar) and witnessed it crash. During the combat, Ki-43 Oscar pilot Hasegawa collided with this P-38, damaging the right aileron and wingtip. Returning, to 14 Mile Drome Sparks made a direct landing approach and nearly collided with P-38F piloted by 1st. Carl G. Planck who was also damaged and landing in the opposite direction. To avoid a head on collision, Planck swerved off the runway. jammed on his breaks and narrowly missing the control tower. The P-38s claimed a total of ten enemy "Zeros" shot down. In fact, only Ki-43 piloted by Shishimoto was shot down and bailed out and his fighter crashed into the sea._









Pacific Wrecks - P-38F-5-LO Lightning Serial Number 42-12652 Nose 33


Assigned to the 5th Air Force (5th AF) and served in New Guinea until written off in early 1944 and buried at Finschafen Airfield. During late 1999, dug up and exported to Australia then to the United States and restored.




pacificwrecks.com





Although there were overclaims on this mission, the importance was the ability of the P-38 to provide long range escort for the noted bombers.



Schweik said:


> And by that point, the older types had already in large part broken, or at least severely blunted the air superiority of the Japanese in New Guinea and the Solomons. The Navy and then Marines had developed their Thach Weave tactic (and others) with the Wildcat, the Army and ANZAC units had figured out effective escape maneuvers with the P-40 and how to use BnZ tactics, increased their horsepower and largely resolved their issues with ammunition. In both places they had improved their coast watcher network and had developed effective pilot rescue systems (something the Japanese severely lacked). If you read pilot interviews from 49th FG or 76 Sqn RAAF there is a major shift in tone from spring to fall 1942, by the latter period they are much more confident.


They did to a point - as stated, the 5th AF with P-39s and P-40s were less than 1 to 1 against the Japanese until the P-38 arrived on scene. Because of their lack of range they were basically fighting on the defensive, your own posts validate this!!! I've shown evidence that proves a lot of the Japanese fighter force was neutralized. Compare the P-40 claims to the P-38 as well as those pilots who shot down 5 or more aircraft from that period until the PI was secured. 


Schweik said:


> I'm not blaming it all on Lockheed, I'm just pointing out there _were _issues and it took a while to resolve them all. Aside from problems with the actual machine there was also the training issue which seemed to get better in 1943. In the interview I linked one of those guys mentioned that each new group that came in was assigned a veteran to show them the ropes so that has to be helpful. But when they went in (earlier) they had very little time on type.


Agree


Schweik said:


> Regardless, the P-38 units were doing pretty well and giving worse than they got by early 1943, which was not the case in the MTO. German and Italian fighters could escape a P-38 more or less at will in a vertical dive, and depending on the specific opponent and the altitude, P-38s did not necessarily have a speed advantage. In the PTO they did, and even the fastest Japanese planes really couldn't outrun them. Some could out-climb, but the P-38s high speed climb abilities allowed them to extend away in relative safety without needing to dive precipitously. They couldn't do that against a Bf 109G or a Macchi C.205 though.


The earlier P-38s I can agree to a point, the P-38J was a different story


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-38s first missions in force were actually flown in late 1942 so how can that be? If you want a start of the "tipping point" research the mission flown on December 31, 1942
> 
> _On December 31, 1942 took off from 14 Mile Drome (Schwimmer) near Port Moresby piloted by 2nd Lt. Kenneth Sparks as one of twelve P-38s led by Thomas J. Lynch on a mission to escort A-20 Havocs, B-25 Mitchells and B-26 Marauders on a bombing mission against Lae Airfield near Lae. Over the target, the P-38s engaged eight Zeros (actually Ki-43 Oscars from the 11th Sentai). During the combat, Sparks fired at a Zero (actually a Ki-43 Oscar) and witnessed it crash. During the combat, Ki-43 Oscar pilot Hasegawa collided with this P-38, damaging the right aileron and wingtip. Returning, to 14 Mile Drome Sparks made a direct landing approach and nearly collided with P-38F piloted by 1st. Carl G. Planck who was also damaged and landing in the opposite direction. To avoid a head on collision, Planck swerved off the runway. jammed on his breaks and narrowly missing the control tower. The P-38s claimed a total of ten enemy "Zeros" shot down. In fact, only Ki-43 piloted by Shishimoto was shot down and bailed out and his fighter crashed into the sea._
> 
> ...


They also flew P-40 missions to Lae, going back to mid 1942



FLYBOYJ said:


> They did to a point - as stated, the 5th AF with P-39s and P-40s were less than 1 to 1 against the Japanese until the P-38 arrived on scene. I've shown evidence that proves a lot of the Japanese fighter force was neutralized. Compare the P-40 claims to the P-38 *as well as those pilots who shot down 5 or more aircraft.*



That is what I did earlier, comparing 8th to 9th FS of 49th FG. 9th was on P-38s from late 1942, 8th was still flying P-40s into 1944. The 9th had 15 Aces, the 8th had 14. Same number of double Aces (3 each).

The overall rate of victories to losses may have been close to 1-1 with P-39 units and possibly some of the P-40 units, but that was not the case with the 49th FG. There were more than 30 US aces flying P-40s in the PTO (mostly with 49th and 18th FG), compared to 1 flying P-39s. So I don't think it's really comparable.

P-38s scored a lot more claims granted (1700 in the PTO vs 660 for P-40s) but I think that also has to do with when they were operational, as P-40s were kind of left behind in the war due to range. Also without a doubt, later model P-38s were superior to P-40s in combat.

I generally believe that the Allied pilots scored a lot more victories _after _(and on the downslope of) the 'tipping point' as the Japanese pilot quality declined and Allied numerical superiority, training and logistics ramped up. Look at the number of claims by the F6F (5600!) which is more than P-40 + P-38 claims combined.

Incidentally, I just learned that the 18th FG also got some P-40Fs in Theater. Found pics here


FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree
> 
> The earlier P-38s I can agree to a point, the P-38J was a different story



I don't disagree with that. P-38J was clearly a lot more capable. It was also the fastest variant according to Joe Baugher.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

If you combine Wildcat PTO victories (986) with US P-40 (660) and P-39 / P-400 (288) claims, that's almost 2,000 victory claims right there. No doubt many of these were overclaims but it probably boils down to a few hundred Japanese aircraft destroyed during the critical phase of the war, a high percentage of them being manned by elite and highly trained aircrew. Australian and NZ squadrons also shot down at least a couple of hundred enemy planes, and some percentage of the P-38s claims were also in this period too. This was the hardest and most important part of the air war in the Pacific in WW2, IMO.

Later Hellcat (5160), F4U (2140), P-38 (1700), P-47 (695), FM-2 (422) and P-51 (297) claimed almost 10,000 enemy aircraft, (and probably overclaimed a bit less than in earlier periods) but most of these were during the decline for the Japanese forces, after most (though certainly not all) of the elite highly trained pilots were already gone. Not to say it was a cakewalk. But it wasn't quite the same death-struggle.


One big difference from the early days, is that so many of the Allied pilots survived their early catastrophic experiences, compared to the Japanese. When P-40s and F4Fs were being shot down, quite often the pilot would survive and be rescued within a couple of days. When a Ki-43 or A6M was shot down it was far less likely they would survive and if they did, they don't seem to be rescued nearly as often. The knock on effect was more veteran pilots surviving to learn from their mistakes on the Allied side and fewer of the elite and veteran pilots in the Japanese units surviving to 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Are you talking about the ventral radiator that was initially fitted to the Tornado?
> 
> My understanding is that the radiator didn't work in that location because of boundary layer buildup on the lower surface of the fuselage and wing roots. I don't think that is related to compressibility, but I could be wrong.


From what I read that was one problem, another was that the original position on the Tornado increased the maximum cross sectional area and of course the maximum frontal area so it had to be moved either forwards or backwards. The intake/ exhaust and radiator set up on the P-51 was big, but cleverly didnt increase the maximum cross section because most is behind the wings and the radiators are mainly in the fuselage, it didnt hugely increase maximum frontal area either because of the taper in the fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Oct 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Did the wind tunnel research on the P-38 introduce the term "compressibility" into the aviation lexicon? The Typhoon is said to have had compressibility issues with its thick wings and chin radiator, but previously the Tornado (same plane with a Vulture engine) was said to have dive and stability issues with the radiator further back even though it is obviously the same compressibility problem.


Herman Glauert published his paper "The Effect of Compressibility on the Lift of an Aerofoil" in 1928.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1928.0039 
In it he has a footnote on page 117 that states:
This result is quoted without proof by Ackeret in the "Handbuch der Physik", vol. 7, p. 340 (1927), as given by Prandtl in his lectures at Gottingen in 1922.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> They also flew P-40 missions to Lae, going back to mid 1942


They did, but this time they had medium bombers in mass and they were able to be escorted by a fighter that wasn’t range limited


Schweik said:


> That is what I did earlier, comparing 8th to 9th FS of 49th FG. 9th was on P-38s from late 1942, 8th was still flying P-40s into 1944. The 9th had 15 Aces, the 8th had 14. Same number of double Aces (3 each).


And compare them with the 80th and 475th FG as well


Schweik said:


> The overall rate of victories to losses may have been close to 1-1 with P-39 units and possibly some of the P-40 units, but that was not the case with the 49th FG. There were more than 30 US aces flying P-40s in the PTO (mostly with 49th and 18th FG), compared to 1 flying P-39s. So I don't think it's really comparable.


You're not going to win a war swapping fighter to fighter with an enemy while flying a range limited aircraft. Again, the P-38 entered the scene and for AAF operations thengs changed quickly.


Schweik said:


> P-38s scored a lot more claims granted (1700 in the PTO vs 660 for P-40s) but I think that also has to do with when they were operational, as P-40s were kind of left behind in the war due to range. Also without a doubt, later model P-38s were superior to P-40s in combat.
> 
> I generally believe that the Allied pilots scored a lot more victories _after _(and on the downslope of) the 'tipping point' as *the Japanese pilot quality declined* and Allied numerical superiority, training and logistics ramped up. Look at the number of claims by the F6F (5600!) which is more than P-40 or P-38 claims combined.


Sorry but in the SWP especially talking about JAAF pilots, not true. I'll agree with "Allied numerical superiority, training and logistics ramped up." Your time line and area of operation is wrong if you're trying to compare the F6F to the P-38 - the F6F first saw combat in *September 1943. * The IJN lost many good pilots at Midway and over Guadalcanal but attrition really started to take it's bite by mid-1943. Because of where it was operating (aircraft carriers) and the campaigns it was deployed in, it was able to engage a target rich environment. Lastly when it did engage, it was well after that time the Japanese started losing the best of its pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They did, but this time they had medium bombers in mass and they were able to be escorted by a fighter that wasn’t range limited
> 
> And compare them with the 80th and 475th FG as well


Do you have those stats available?


FLYBOYJ said:


> You're not going to win a war swapping fighter to fighter with an enemy while flying a range limited aircraft. Again, the P-38 entered the scene and for AAF operations thengs changed quickly.


49th FG turns out to have had about a 1-1 ratio during their desperate defense of Darwin starting in March through Sept of 42, but by the fall of that year I think they were doing considerably better than that. I believe this is also true for the US 44th Sqn (active from Dec 42) and 76 Sqn RAAF. 14 and 15 RNZAF weren't deployed until Spring 1943 but they were definitely doing better than 1-1.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry but in the SWP especially talking about JAAF pilots, not true. I'll agree with "Allied numerical superiority, training and logistics ramped up." Your time line and area of operation is wrong if you're trying to compare the F6F to the P-38 - the F6F first saw combat in September 1943. Because of where it was operating (aircraft carriers) and the campaigns it was deployed in, it was able to engage a target rich environment. Lastly when it did engage, it was well after that time the Japanese started losing the best of its pilots.


That is subjective - as is, admittedly, my perception that the P-38 pilots in the PTO were not complaining so much (or we don't read about their complaints if they had them) because they were doing a lot better operationally.

I think our debate hinges on this factor of precisely _when_ the tipping point actually was in the South Pacific. I'd say after the battles of Coral Sea (May 42), Milne Bay (Aug-Sept 42) the end of the first Japanese bombing offensive at Darwin (Sept 42) and the Second Battle of Guadalcanal (Nov 42) the Japanese offensives in both the New Guinea and Solomons were blunted, they no longer had air supremacy and at that point it was up to them to try to regain it. Guadalcanal and Port Moresby were firmly in Allied hands. Darwin was going to suffer another series of raids in 1943 but there was no longer a sense (however misguided) that the Japanese were about to invade Australia.

To me this was the turning point, basically a six month period from August 42 to maybe March 43, with the middle being probably Nov or Dec 42.

It would be really interesting to look at Japanese aircraft losses in this period, I hope to have some new (to me) books arriving in a few weeks which will help with that analysis.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Do you have those stats available?


I have a list of the entire 5th AF P-38 aces with those units combined


> *49th FG turns out to have had about a 1-1 ratio during their desperate defense of Darwin starting in March through Sept of 42, *but by the fall of that year I think they were doing considerably better than that. I believe this is also true for the US 44th Sqn (active from Dec 42) and 76 Sqn RAAF. 14 and 15 RNZAF weren't deployed until Spring 1943 but they were definitely doing better than 1-1.


Depending on the timeframe they may have done better than 1:1 but not much better. I have no info on the RNZAF or the RAAF units flying the P-40. 


Schweik said:


> That is subjective - as is, admittedly, my perception that the P-38 pilots in the PTO were not complaining so much (or we don't read about their complaints if they had them) because they were doing a lot better operationally.


Well that's your opinion - I can tell you there were plenty of Lockheed tech reps in theater assisting with issues. Now IMO there may have not been many complaints (as you put it) because the pilots flying the P-38 basically liked their aircraft. It also comes back to the operational environment. 



> I think our debate hinges on this factor of precisely _when_ the tipping point actually was in the South Pacific. I'd say after the battles of Coral Sea (May 42), Milne Bay (Aug-Sept 42) the end of the first Japanese bombing offensive at Darwin (Sept 42) and the Second Battle of Guadalcanal (Nov 42) the Japanese offensives in both the New Guinea and Solomons were blunted, they no longer had air supremacy and at that point it was up to them to try to regain it. Guadalcanal and Port Moresby were firmly in Allied hands. Darwin was going to suffer another series of raids in 1943 but there was no longer a sense (however misguided) that the Japanese were about to invade Australia.


I disagree - the tipping point started when we (and our allies) went on the offensive and that was in early 1943. The Japanese main supply hub was Rabual and once we started hitting Rebaul and severing the Japanese supply lines, things started changing. During this time the JAAF starting loosing some of their better pilots.



> To me this was the turning point, basically a six month period from August 42 to maybe March 43, with the middle being probably Nov or Dec 42.


As stated, into 1943. 



> It would be really interesting to look at Japanese aircraft losses in this period, I hope to have some new (to me) books arriving in a few weeks which will help with that analysis.


Please share

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2021)

Simon Thomas said:


> Herman Glauert published his paper "The Effect of Compressibility on the Lift of an Aerofoil" in 1928.
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1928.0039
> In it he has a footnote on page 117 that states:
> This result is quoted without proof by Ackeret in the "Handbuch der Physik", vol. 7, p. 340 (1927), as given by Prandtl in his lectures at Gottingen in 1922.


Thanks, what I meant by "into the aviation lexicon" was moving out of academia and the design offices of companies into the world where pilots had it and its efects explained and what to do about it. According to wiki wind tunnel testing of the P-38 for these issues started late 1941 which was the same time as the Hawker Tempest with laminar flow wings was ordered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Oct 22, 2021)

Gentlemen,

Concerning cockpit heat on the P-38, please see page 3 (near the bottom)of the attachment from Mike William's site. At least for me, a non-pilot, it gave me an idea about the temperatures the pilots dealt with. W.K. Giroux, who flew the P-39, P-47 and P-38 with the 8th FG in the Pacific said about the P-38 that they rarely flew above 25,000 feet, and that cockpit heating was not an issue. He wrote that 'a little coolness at altitude felt very refreshing after a day in the hot jungles.' As for dives, he implied that it was not necessary to dive into the compressibility region to escape a Japanese fighter. Giroux was talking about the "J" model in the book (Source: Pacfic Sweep , by William N Hess) 

FWIW

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 22, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It would be really interesting to look at Japanese aircraft losses in this period, I hope to have some new (to me) books arriving in a few weeks which will help with that analysis.


You need the "South Pacific Air War" Series if you haven't already got them. Volume 4 states Japanese losses from 8 Dec 41 - 8 Sep 42 as being 235 aircraft. These are verified losses from Japanese records, not claims. Allied losses in the same time frame were 361 aircraft.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2021)

I have been collecting them gradually but don't have them all yet. What are the losses from Sept 42 for the next few months or is that published yet?

EDIT: I see Volume 5 isn't out yet. Maybe we'll have some more data next year. From the publishers blurb it sounds like the Japanese were suddenly starting to have major problems:

_Volume Five of this series chronicles aerial warfare primarily in the New Guinea theater in the critical period between September and December 1942. It can be read alone or as a continuation of the previous four volumes which span the first nine months of the Pacific War.

By early September the strategic picture in the theater had changed markedly within just six weeks. From their new Buna beachhead, the Japanese Army commenced a Papuan mountain campaign which threatened the Allied bastion of Port Moresby. Meanwhile the battle for Guadalcanal was raging, with the outcome of the wider Pacific War in the balance.

Against this background a strengthened US Fifth Air Force took the fight to the IJA with direct air support. While this was being conducted by P-39s, P-40Es, A-20As and B-25s, raids by B-17s against Rabaul aided US forces in the neighboring Solomons. RAAF Beaufighters, Beauforts, Bostons, and Hudsons also contributed substantially to these efforts.

At Rabaul, a wide variety of fresh IJN fighter and bomber units poured in the theater, although these became focused mainly on the Solomons. *Such were the massive losses experienced, by November the IJN undertook a complete operational and administrative reorganization of its air power. *Then, despite a strong reluctance to become involved, the IJA sent an advance reconnaissance detachment to Rabaul, the forerunner of major reinforcements that would arrive in December._

Sounds like we are getting close to a tipping point to me, somewhere between September and December. Definitely going to get this book in spite of the high price tag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Sounds like we are getting close to a tipping point to me, somewhere between September and December. Definitely going to get this book in spite of the high price tag.


Read my post AGAIN (1415)

From your post;



> _By early September the strategic picture in the theater had changed markedly within just six weeks. From their new Buna beachhead, the Japanese Army commenced a Papuan mountain campaign which threatened the Allied bastion of Port Moresby. Meanwhile the battle for Guadalcanal was raging, with the outcome of the wider Pacific War in the balance.
> 
> Against this background a strengthened US Fifth Air Force took the fight to the IJA with direct air support. While this was being conducted by P-39s, P-40Es, A-20As and B-25s, raids by B-17s against Rabaul aided US forces in the neighboring Solomons. RAAF Beaufighters, Beauforts, Bostons, and Hudsons also contributed substantially to these efforts.
> 
> At Rabaul, a wide variety of fresh IJN fighter and bomber units poured in the theater, although these became focused mainly on the Solomons. *Such were the massive losses experienced, by November the IJN undertook a complete operational and administrative reorganization of its air power. *Then, despite a strong reluctance to become involved, the IJA sent an advance reconnaissance detachment to Rabaul, the forerunner of major reinforcements that would arrive in December._


P-38s began major operations staring in late 1942/ early 1943

You claim there were still issues with the P-38 at this time - tell us what they are, if they hampered operations and what the attrition rates were!

This is the reason why Yamamoto launched I-GO



The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: I-Go



_"The exaggerated claims of success prompted Yamamoto to visit the forward air bases to personally congratulate the air crew. However, Yamamoto's itinerary was broadcast in a code the Allies were able to penetrate, and his aircraft was intercepted and shot down on 18 April 1943. None of the passengers and crew of Yamamoto's aircraft survived. _*(Shot down by the only aircraft in theater that was able to pull off this type of mission, the P-38)*

_*The "Big Raid".* Another series of raids began on 7 June 1943. On that day and on 12 June, Japanese aircraft raided Guadalcanal but again failed to achieve decisive results. On 16 June came a much larger raid by over 100 aircraft. Two Allied ships were forced to beach and six Allied fighters were shot down, but the Allies claimed 98 Japanese aircraft destroyed, and the Japanese admitted the loss of about 30 aircraft."_

So to go full circle here - I cannot fathom anyone saying that the presence of the P-38 did not make an impact in the SWP. There were other aircraft that performed well but it was the P-38 that brought the fight to the enemy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Overlooked this - with regards to cockpit heating issues in the Pacific...

"The P-38 was used most extensively and successfully in the Pacific theater, where it proved more suited, combining exceptional range with the reliability of two engines for long missions over water. The P-38 was used in a variety of roles, especially escorting bombers at altitudes of 18,000–25,000 ft (5,500–7,600 m). The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other USAAF fighter.[4]​ *Freezing cockpit temperatures were not a problem at low altitude in the tropics. In fact, the cockpit was often too hot since opening a window while in flight caused buffeting by setting up turbulence through the tailplane. Pilots taking low-altitude assignments often flew stripped down to shorts, tennis shoes, and parachute"*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read my post AGAIN (1415)
> 
> From your post;



I'm not sure if this was clear, so I'll point this out carefully - the italicized part of my post was from the publishers blurb for the Clarinbould book, South Pacific Air War Volume 5, which is coming out this February. I.e. *those are their words, not mine*, though they are saying pretty much what i was saying. I would say it sounds like the Japanese air forces in the NG and Solomons region were, to use their words, 'experiencing a crisis' already in Sept to Nov of 1942. This crisis was already starting in other words, before significant numbers of P-38s were deployed.

As for the rest of it, you seem to take this as an attack on or dismissal of the P-38. We have a difference in emphasis, but I am not making such a sweeping argument. I said before - the P-38 was an important type in the region, it was a better fighter than any others in the region when it first appeared in battle, and certainly did have an impact on the enemy. I'm pointing out a nuance. But to reiterate I have stated that though I do think the P-38 was still experiencing some issues in the South Pacific just as it was everywhere else, it was clearly very successful in this Theater. *Just having slightly less effusive praise of the aircraft and it's role is not the same as denigrating it. So please don't characterize me as some kind of P-38 detractor.*

You have made some definitive factual statements about victory to loss ratios before and after introduction of the P-38. I don't yet have enough data to answer this decisively - part of that will come from Clarinbould's book coming out in February, part perhaps can be found in a couple of other books I should have sooner. Right now, I have several unit histories from the region but they are all the older type which doesn't include the cross-referencing of day by day losses on both sides, (although I do have some histories of Japanese forces and could do some cross referencing of my own if I had the time).

From what I have in my library, I _think _your claim that P-40 units like 7th and 8th FS of the 49th FG were still achieving a 1-1 victory to loss ratio in the third and fourth quarter of 1942 is incorrect. However, I don't have enough data yet to be certain. I should have more data soon. So I suggest suspending this part of the argument until we can shed more light on it.

As for the subjective side of this (i.e. that P-38 was *the* decisive factor in the South Pacific air battle, or that the 'tipping point' was in the middle of 1943 vs. the end of 1942), we can probably debate that forever, which could be fun, but won't necessarily get anywhere. I suspect this too will be greatly assisted by having some more data.



FLYBOYJ said:


> P-38s began major operations staring in late 1942/ early 1943
> 
> You claim there were still issues with the P-38 at this time - tell us what they are, if they hampered operations and what the attrition rates were!


It's a documented fact that there were still issues with the P-38 at this time, they didn't disappear when they appeared over the Pacific Ocean. As for attrition rates, I don't have that data. Why don't you post them if you have them.



FLYBOYJ said:


> This is the reason why Yamamoto launched I-GO
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No doubt P-38 brought new capabilities to the region (especially for offensive operations), certainly no other US aircraft could have killed Yamamoto, and by June 1943 the P-38 was playing a crucial role - again, especially in offensive strikes. But that doesn't change my argument. I was never claiming they didn't, especially by that time period. I was saying that June 1943 was arguably past the tipping point, though clearly heavy fighting was still going on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Overlooked this - with regards to cockpit heating issues in the Pacific...
> 
> "The P-38 was used most extensively and successfully in the Pacific theater, where it proved more suited, combining exceptional range with the reliability of two engines for long missions over water. The P-38 was used in a variety of roles, especially escorting bombers at altitudes of 18,000–25,000 ft (5,500–7,600 m). The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other USAAF fighter.[4]​ *Freezing cockpit temperatures were not a problem at low altitude in the tropics. In fact, the cockpit was often too hot since opening a window while in flight caused buffeting by setting up turbulence through the tailplane. Pilots taking low-altitude assignments often flew stripped down to shorts, tennis shoes, and parachute"*



Freezing temps were not a problem at low altitude, agreed. 

However, they did routinely fly missions at 25,000 ft (and higher)

I guarantee no P-38 pilot was wearing shorts, tennis shoes and a parachute when flying at 25,000'


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure if this was clear, so I'll point this out carefully - the italicized part of my post was from the publishers blurb for the Clarinbould book, South Pacific Air War Volume 5, which is coming out this February. I.e. *those are their words, not mine*, though they are saying pretty much what i was saying. I would say it sounds like the Japanese air forces in the NG and Solomons region were, to use their words, 'experiencing a crisis' already in Sept to Nov of 1942. This crisis was already starting in other words, before significant numbers of P-38s were deployed.


All good...


Schweik said:


> As for the rest of it, you seem to take this as an attack on or dismissal of the P-38. We have a difference in emphasis, but I am not making such a sweeping argument. I said before - the P-38 was an important type in the region, it was a better fighter than any others in the region when it first appeared in battle, *and certainly did have an impact on the enemy.*


And that's been my point from the get go. Although short in numbers it was the most important AAF fighter in the PTO until the P-51 came on board.


Schweik said:


> It's a documented fact that there were still issues with the P-38 at this time, they didn't disappear when they appeared over the Pacific Ocean. As for attrition rates, I don't have that data. Why don't you post them if you have them.


OK - I'll give you one, a big one off the top of my head. April 18, 1943. 18 aircraft were assigned - 2 aborted. Mission completed, Yamamoto dead. I'll have to sift through some web sites but off the top of my head in the PTO you were looking at about 5% abort rate during this period but I'll have to double check that number


Schweik said:


> *No doubt P-38 brought new capabilities to the region (especially for offensive operations), certainly no other US aircraft could have killed Yamamoto, and by June 1943 the P-38 was playing a crucial role - again, especially in offensive strikes*. But that doesn't change my argument. I was never claiming they didn't, especially by that time period. I was saying that June 1943 was arguably past the tipping point, though clearly heavy fighting was still going on.



Your original statement 

"The P-38 had the potential to be a game changer but it was not around in enough numbers to really make the difference, and not enough pilots had the skills to deal with all of the challenges of flying it, at least until after that tipping point."

I think it was shown here, even by some of your own posts that this was totally inaccurate!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Freezing temps were not a problem at low altitude, agreed.
> 
> However, they did routinely fly missions at 25,000 ft (and higher)
> 
> *I guarantee no P-38 pilot was wearing shorts, tennis shoes and a parachute when flying at 25,000'*


Agree, but they weren't complaining about being too cold either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your original statement
> 
> "The P-38 had the potential to be a game changer but it was not around in enough numbers to really make the difference, and not enough pilots had the skills to deal with all of the challenges of flying it, at least until after that tipping point."
> 
> I think it was shown here, even by some of your own posts that this was totally inaccurate!


This seems to be a mix of two different points. I'll try to unravel. 

1) I was contesting your (apparent) claim that P-38 was the single decisive factor in checking and breaking Japanese Air Power in the South Pacific. I think that was actually largely done using 'lesser' fighter types, mainly the F4F and the P-40, and the various bombers in Theater A-20, B-25, and B-17.
2) This largely hinges on when we believe the 'tipping point' actually was in New Guinea and the Solomons. I put it a few months earlier than you seem to do if I understand you correctly. 
3) I think P-38 had the potential to be a game changer *in the MTO (and probably NW Europe too)*, but didn't mainly due to technical issues and training. I don't think it was around in enough numbers in the PTO *in 1942*. 
4) There were enough P-38s to make a serious impact in 1943 and they probably were a game changer, I just think their role is a little bit overstated compared to the other fighter types (including the ones mentioned above plus ANZAC units and Marine F4U units).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree, but they weren't complaining about being too cold either.


But are we certain of that?

I grant you, so far in the pilot interviews I read the (Pacific Theater) P-38 drivers seem to _love_ their birds. But of the five I have read so far, they were all P-39 pilots before that! Safe bet you'll appreciate the P-38 after combat in a P-400! I still need to read the full interview with Robert DeHaven.

But seriously, most Allied pilots clearly did appreciate the P-38, including those who weren't flying them. They were like the Spitfire in the BoB, they brought a sense of superiority over the enemy, both figuratively and literally (since the P-38s often flew so high). But I am also reading that they had figured out how to fight successfully in the P-40s and F4Fs, same planes more or less but much more confidence and much higher rates of success by the end of 1942 compared to the beginning or even the middle. I think this corresponded with damage to the enemy.

My eyes were opened to the nuances and problems of even very good aircraft when I read a personal commentary by a Marine Corps F4U Ace talking about his ride. He went through this long litany of major problems they were dealing with on a daily basis with Corsairs. He still liked the aircraft, but basically said it was a pain in the ass and only heroic efforts by the maintenance crews kept them mission-capable.

I read a similar description once by a P-38 pilot operating out of England, talking about all the issues he faced and everything you had to do before combat if you got bounced.

And I've also read descriptions like this about P-39s, P-40s, and even the almost universally beloved Spitfire, particularly in the Darwin situation but also in the MTO.

I don't think all those Lockheed reps would have been around in the Pacific region if they weren't having some problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> This seems to be a mix of two different points. I'll try to unravel.
> 
> 1) I was contesting your (apparent) claim that P-38 was the single decisive factor in checking and breaking Japanese Air Power in the South Pacific.


I never said that - but with regards to AAF operations it was the aircraft pushed aerial superiority over the SWP


Schweik said:


> I think that was actually largely done using 'lesser' fighter types, mainly the F4F and the P-40, and the various bombers in Theater A-20, B-25, and B-17.


Not completely true - as shown in previous posts the P-40 and F4F were range limited. Once fighters with legs (The P-38 and the F4U) entered the scene then longer operations were possible (I'm excluding carrier ops)


Schweik said:


> 2) This largely hinges on when we believe the 'tipping point' actually was in New Guinea and the Solomons. I put it a few months earlier than you seem to do if I understand you correctly.


Ok


Schweik said:


> 3) I think P-38 had the potential to be a game changer *in the MTO (and probably NW Europe too)*, but didn't mainly due to technical issues and training. I don't think it was around in enough numbers in the PTO *in 1942*.


I can agree with your first statement about numbers and training. MTO technical issues seem to be less reported then in the ETO. Also remember that Kenney was denied P-38s for a while because they went to the Med, that's why he got P-47s


Schweik said:


> 4) There were enough P-38s to make a serious impact in 1943 and they probably were a game changer,* I just think their role is a little bit overstated compared to the other fighter types* (including the ones mentioned above plus ANZAC units and Marine F4U units).


And that's your opinion. I hold the F4U in the same light when land based units started to replace Wildcats in the theater. We weren't going to win the war with Wildcats, P-40s and P-39s, sustain maybe, but to really go on the offensive better equipment was necessary, that when the P-38 enters (as well as the F4U for the Marines). The ANZAC units did well in a tactical role but even their units eventually received better equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Freezing temps were not a problem at low altitude, agreed.
> 
> However, they did routinely fly missions at 25,000 ft (and higher)
> 
> I guarantee no P-38 pilot was wearing shorts, tennis shoes and a parachute when flying at 25,000'


Eagledad's post Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
covers that.

In SoCal, we often flew from Orange County airport (SNA) out to the desert and back for the day.
The barrier between the Inland Empire and the high desert were the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains that had peaks in the neighborhood of 10,000-12,000 feet ASL, which saw us averaging well above that.
At no point were we "freezing", especially with the Ercoupe's canopy partially slid back to keep us cool.

There is a huge difference in upper air temps depending on geographic location and time of year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> But are we certain of that?


Yes - there are no published reports or documented stories of PTO pilots complaining about cockpit heat in the PTO, at least that I have come across in my 40 years+ studying this stuff


Schweik said:


> I grant you, so far in the pilot interviews I read the (Pacific Theater) P-38 drivers seem to _love_ their birds. But of the five I have read so far, they were all P-39 pilots before that! Safe bet you'll appreciate the P-38 after combat in a P-400! I still need to read the full interview with Robert DeHaven.
> 
> But seriously, most Allied pilots clearly did appreciate the P-38, including those who weren't flying them. They were like the Spitfire in the BoB, they brought a sense of superiority over the enemy, both figuratively and literally (since the P-38s often flew so high). But I am also reading that they had figured out how to fight successfully in the P-40s and F4Fs, same planes more or less but much more confidence and much higher rates of success by the end of 1942 compared to the beginning or even the middle. I think this corresponded with damage to the enemy.
> 
> ...


OK


Schweik said:


> I don't think all those Lockheed reps would have been around in the Pacific region if they weren't having some problems.


Correct - and each manufacturer had reps in the field as well taking care of "issues." Now you say the P-38's *role is a little bit overstated compared to the other fighter types, *I think some of the issues (with the exception of the compressibility issue) were overstated and have been amplified over the years due to the infamous "Col. Rau Memo" bashing the P-38.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I read a similar description once by a P-38 pilot operating out of England, talking about all the issues he faced and everything you had to do before combat if you got bounced.


And that's another situation that was stretched and mentioned in the Rau memo - 

Look at any other twin engine fighter from the period, very similar controls - throttle, mixture, prop - all had fuel transfer valves and a process that needed to be undertaken before going into combat. You trained to expedite that process.

Again - not a problem for PTO pilots - better trained?

I had a former neighbor who flew both P-38s and P-51s in the ETO and he had no issues flying the P-38, he did say it was a cold airplane at altitude but in some cases preferred it over the P-51, especially when attacking ground targets. As one would expect he said the P-51 was more maneuverable and faster, the P-38 was a better gun platform.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Eagledad's post Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
> covers that.
> 
> In SoCal, we often flew from Orange County airport (SNA) out to the desert and back for the day.
> ...


When I lived in SoCal, I flew out of Mojave - many days in shorts and a T shirt and flew up to 12K. Felt refreshing when the temperature on the ground was 95F

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

12k feet isn't 25k feet.

Pilots flying out of Algiers and Tunisia _were_ experiencing issues with cockpit heaters along with everything else.

We may have to agree to disagree - on balance, in the PTO, I concede that the P-38 was clearly successful. But I don't think the issues like electrical generators, compressibility, maneuverability, yes heaters, engines / turbos and so on were negligible and I do think they were factors, but it was not enough of a factor to prevent them doing their mission nor was it enough to make a P-38 look like a bad option especially after flying missions in a P-39. Speed, altitude and an extra engine meant a much greater safety margin.

For the rest, I think we need more actual data. We can go round and round forever, it's just a slight difference in emphasis really, which is getting widened into a bigger dispute for some reason, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere like this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> 12k feet isn't 25k feet.


No it isn't and on those days it would have been 25F at 20K 


Schweik said:


> Pilots flying out of Algiers and Tunisia _were_ experiencing issues with cockpit heaters along with everything else.


Do you have any examples of this?


Schweik said:


> We may have to agree to disagree - on balance, in the PTO, *I concede that the P-38 was clearly successful.* But I don't think the issues like electrical generators, compressibility, maneuverability, yes heaters, engines / turbos and so on were negligible and I do think they were factors, but it was not enough of a factor to prevent them doing their mission nor was it enough to make a P-38 look like a bad option especially after flying missions in a P-39. Speed, altitude and an extra engine meant a much greater safety margin.


The electrical generator is a non issue. One was installed on early models per the original AAF contract. Of course it became an issue if your lost that engine. Corrected on later aircraft.


Schweik said:


> For the rest, I think we need more actual data. We can go round and round forever, it's just a slight difference in emphasis really, which is getting widened into a bigger dispute for some reason, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere like this.


Agree...


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No it isn't and on those days it would have been 25F at 20K
> 
> Do you have any examples of this?



yes but it would take me a while to run it down.


FLYBOYJ said:


> The electrical generator is a non issue. One was installed on early models per the original AAF contract. Of course it became an issue if your lost that engine. Corrected on later aircraft.


I guess this is partly subjective, but it does not sound like a non-issue to me.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree...



Will revisit all this when we do have a little more data, hopefully shortly after Halloween I'll have something further to contribute.


----------



## GregP (Oct 23, 2021)

Hi Schweik,

When it first got to Europe, the P-38 had 5 main issues.

1) No pilot training. The new P-38 pilots were going into battle areas with cruise settings and it can take some time to turn on the gunsight, reduce MAP, increase rpm, increase MAP and fight. Many were shot down while doing these tasks. This took a bit of time to correct, but not really that much. Being shot down for this sort of eliminates the issue for next time.
2) The Allison intake was smooth inside and they needed to install turbulators inside the minifolds. This was done before the planes got to the Pacific.
3) The first P-38s were jetted to US fuels and they were running UK fuels. There was and is nothing wrong with the fuels used, but they were different from one another. This was corrected within 7 - 8 months and was NOT an issue in the Pacific.
4) The P-38 had a bad cockpit heater for Europe. This was not an issue in the Pacific.
5) The limiting Mach number was low. This was never corrected but the dive brakes could limit the severity of the issues. Not really an issue against Japan.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I guess this is partly subjective, but it does not sound like a non-issue to me.


There were dozens of twin aircraft of that day (and even today) designed with only one generator. From what I understand if the generator was knocked off line all electrical power would be run off the battery until it was discharged. Once battery power was gone, the props would remain in the configured pitch setting and of course you would lose all electrical power. Engines would still run because of magnetos. I think the AAF accepted one generator as a weight saver.


Schweik said:


> Will revisit all this when we do have a little more data, hopefully shortly after Halloween I'll have something further to contribute.


OK


----------



## Greyman (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only negative thing I ever heard about the Zero with regards to maintenance was that part interchangeability was poor as well as the spare part supply chain, but I think this was common across the board for most Japanese aircraft. I don't have a reference for that but I know it's been mentioned several times



A bit from REPORT ON THE BRITISH NAVAL AIR TRIALS UNIT AT CLARK FIELD

_The maintenance problems on the Japanese aircraft were numerous and repair difficult as no two planes of the same type had directly interchangeable parts._
_
...

Interchangeability is extremely poor.

Cowling panels, fairings, wing and stabilizer tips, access doors, etc., seem to be individually fitted. Even with the correct panels for the aircraft the difficulty in removing and replacing them is often great.
_
_It appears that the jigging tolerances in various factories vary widely -- or even that each panel is made to fit one aircraft only._

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2021)

Goes a ways to explaining why they had so much maintenance trouble


----------



## pbehn (Oct 23, 2021)

Greyman said:


> _Cowling panels, fairings, wing and stabilizer tips, access doors, etc., seem to be individually fitted. Even with the correct panels for the aircraft the difficulty in removing and replacing them is often great._


I think early or maybe most Spitfires were like that, but is that a serious problem for a carrier aircraft? Most were lost or completely wrecked on landing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 23, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure if this was clear, so I'll point this out carefully - the italicized part of my post was from the publishers blurb for the Clarinbould book, South Pacific Air War Volume 5, which is coming out this February. I.e. *those are their words, not mine*, though they are saying pretty much what i was saying. I would say it sounds like the Japanese air forces in the NG and Solomons region were, to use their words, 'experiencing a crisis' already in Sept to Nov of 1942. This crisis was already starting in other words, before significant numbers of P-38s were deployed.
> 
> As for the rest of it, you seem to take this as an attack on or dismissal of the P-38. We have a difference in emphasis, but I am not making such a sweeping argument. I said before - the P-38 was an important type in the region, it was a better fighter than any others in the region when it first appeared in battle, and certainly did have an impact on the enemy. I'm pointing out a nuance. But to reiterate I have stated that though I do think the P-38 was still experiencing some issues in the South Pacific just as it was everywhere else, it was clearly very successful in this Theater. *Just having slightly less effusive praise of the aircraft and it's role is not the same as denigrating it. So please don't characterize me as some kind of P-38 detractor.*
> 
> ...


When they were just starting to think of the Yamamoto plan, the F4U Corsair was brand new to the theater. There was some discussion of using the F4U. Ultimately, the better choice was made, and the P-38 got the job.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think early or maybe most Spitfires were like that, but is that a serious problem for a carrier aircraft? Most were lost or completely wrecked on landing.


This would be a MAJOR problem on any production combat aircraft. Even if wrecked, unless there is fire, you can always find something salvageable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This would be a MAJOR problem on any production combat aircraft. Even if wrecked, unless there is fire, you can always find something salvageable.


Would it? I have seen lots of planes wrecked on landing or slightly to badly damaged, the engine cowling seems to be the least likely to be damaged and compared to snapped fuselages, collapsed wheels and shattered or bent props just a minor issue, lots were pushed over the side regardless just to get others on the deck.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2021)

GregP said:


> 2) The Allison intake was smooth inside and they needed to install turbulators inside the minifolds. This was done before the planes got to the Pacific.
> 3) The first P-38s were jetted to US fuels and they were running UK fuels. There was and is nothing wrong with the fuels used, but they were different from one another. This was corrected within 7 - 8 months and was NOT an issue in the Pacific.




OK, I am confused.

P-38s started showing up in the Pacific in April of 1942. Granted these are a small handful of planes used as recon planes from Australia. 
May of 1942 sees a squadron of P-38Es show up in the Aleutian Islands. 
June of 1942 sees the first P-38s fly over the Atlantic to England. 
August 1942 is a very busy month for the P-38.
Aug 9th the Aleutian P-38s claim two Japanese flying boats. 
Aug 22nd sees a few show up at Henderson Field with the 67th fighter squadron. 
Aug 28th sees the the US 1st fighter group go operational in England. However it takes until Oct 15th for the P-38s to fly their first B-17 escort mission in Europe. Operations over Europe are stopped while all available P-38s in Europe (or in route) are readied for deployment to North Africa as part of operation Torch. 
Oct. 1942 also sees the 339th squadron show up at Henderson Field with P-38s. 
Nov of 1942 sees 2 P-38 fighter groups fly from England to North Africa. A 3rd flies down in Dec. 
Dec of 1942 also sees the 70thFS and 39th FS go into action in the South Pacific with P-38s although some of these squadrons are operating a mix of aircraft as there were not enough P-38s as most were going to NA. 

Now my confusion comes in with the fact that Allison didn't start working on the turbulators until the winter of 1942/43 or the spring of 1943. By the time they had come up with a satisfactory design and gotten it into production it was the late fall of 1943. It took a while for production engines to be installed in planes on the production lines but Allison also made extra manifolds to be shipped overseas to be installed on engines in the field. 
To me it sure looks like P-38 planes were showing up in the Pacific around a year before the turbulators showed up?

In late 42 or very early 43 the JOINT specification for 100/130 fuel for both the British and Americans was changed to ALLOW both higher amounts of lead (from 4.0 cc per US gallon to 4.6cc per US gallon) and higher percentages of certain heavy aromatic compounds. Not all batches of fuel from even the same refineries needed to use the maximum allowable amounts of lead and/or these heavier compounds. 
ALL engine companies got samples of fuel blended to the new specification so they could look for, identify, and solve any potential in service problems. This is why Allison started working on the turbulators. The radial engines with their shorter intake pipes didn't seem to suffer much. Some engines needed either different spark plugs or to be cruised at slightly different settings or needed bursts of power to clear the plugs with the higher lead fuels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Would it? I have seen lots of planes wrecked on landing or slightly to badly damaged, the engine cowling seems to be the least likely to be damaged and compared to snapped fuselages, collapsed wheels and shattered or bent props just a minor issue, lots were pushed over the side regardless just to get others on the deck.


When there are time or combat constraints, salvage would be the last thing a maintenance chief would think of, but if time permits there are many components that are worth stripping. Something like a small access door could prevent an aircraft from flying. When I was in the Navy, if we had an aircraft down for something major, we would continually "borrow" components to keep our other birds flying. This is an aviation norm and I'm sure it was the same way during WW2. It would really suck if you try to salvage a fillet or fairing just to discover the fastener pattern don't match up to your aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2021)

The IJN suffered considerable losses just in ground accidents - going by memory, the Tinian Air Group's ground incidents amounted to something like 28% of their numbers.
* Any correction to that percentage would be welcome, as I don't have my books handy - but it was a substantial loss rate.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

So did the Allied units, if by ground accidents you include landing and takeoff accidents. Easily 50% in the early days.


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 24, 2021)

During 'normal' pre-war operations, for carrier squadrons the FAA figured a 15%/month attrition rate and the USN figured 20%/month. These were pre-war estimates, but were found to generally apply during war-time as a minimum non-combat loss rate. When operations intensified the attrition rates were higher, and of course you need to add in the losses due to enemy action.

I have not found readily accessible detailed records of individual carrier squadrons losses, but I have read of 40%/month loss rates being common during sustained operations involving combat.

I have not run across any pre-war operational loss estimates for RAF and USAAF squadrons. Does anyone have any info on this subject?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

It was much harder to land on a carrier than a landing strip, but the Navy also tended to train their pilots a lot more before they got to the combat area.

Some of the Army pilots in New Guinea and the Solomons went into combat with less than 10-20 hours on type, and for many of them that was their first 10-20 hours flying aircraft with retractable landing gear, high landing speed, 1,000+ hp engines with the associated torque, higher wing loading, 300+ mph speed etc. Same for the Aussie guys in 75 and 76 sqn, although from what I understand the New Zealand pilots had more training before they were thrown into the breach.


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 24, 2021)

I have read that there was a much higher % of high time pilots in the FAA and USN than in the RAF and USAAF, but not from any authoritative detailed sources.

I wonder how much having solid clear carrier decks (despite the small size) made up for inconsistently solid, pot holed, not flat surface landing strips.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> It was much harder to land on a carrier than a landing strip, but the Navy also tended to train their pilots a lot more before they got to the combat area.
> 
> Some of the Army pilots in New Guinea and the Solomons went into combat with less than 10-20 hours on type, and for *many of them that was their first 10-20 hours flying aircraft with retractable landing gear, high landing speed,* 1,000+ hp engines with the associated torque, higher wing loading, 300+ mph speed etc. Same for the Aussie guys in 75 and 76 sqn, although from what I understand the New Zealand pilots had more training before they were thrown into the breach.


During the cadet program before the US was in the war fighter pilots had about 150 - 200 hours before they got their wings. At the beginning of the war, flight training lasted about nine months, with three months of primary, three months of basic, and three months of advanced training. Each pilot had 65 flying hours of primary training and *75 hours of both basic and advanced training at a minimum. In advanced training they were flying an aircraft with retractable landing gear*, getting gunnery training and learning to fly instruments. 









Flight Training on the Eve of WWII


During the Depression of the 1930s, the number of pilots the U.S. Army Air Corps trained decreased until in 1937 only 184 graduated from advanced pilot training. Facing resurgent German militarism and



www.nationalmuseum.af.mil


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

Generally USAAF pilots were pretty well trained, but in the "early war*" (including at least the first half of 1942) they had very little _time on type_. They mention this explicitly in the history of the 49th FG and of the Australian 75th and 76 FS. Both the 49th and the two Aussie units destroyed half of their P-40s just getting them to the combat area around Darwin, flying in stages from Brisbane. For many of them this was their first time ever flying a P-40. If needed I can quote these passages. 49th FG history also mentions that they had no gunnery training and their guns had not even been boresighted. The P-38 pilot in one of the interviews I think I linked upthread mentioned that he was given his first gunnery practice at Guadalcanal by the Navy, and practiced their system. IIRC he also said he had 14 hours on the P-38 when he got to Guadalcanal.

I don't know what they were using for an advanced trainer prior to the outbreak of the war but many of these guys had problems with the landing gear, they kept forgetting to put the gear down in landings and cracking up the aircraft. It was also the same with the AVG (which was also mostly USAAC, Marine or Navy pilots) and the Australian pilots.

All of this changed pretty quickly though, by fall of 1942 I know the US Army pilots arriving in the Middle East were well trained and were familiar with their aircraft, and had received gunnery training etc. The British Aces commented on this favorably as they themselves hadn't recieved gunnery training prior to combat and had come up with their own field expedient methods in the field (including shooting at aircraft shadows).

* Early part of the American involvement in the War, I know the British were already in it for 2 years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Generally USAAF pilots were pretty well trained, but in the "early war*" (including at least the first half of 1942) they had very little _time on type_. They mention this explicitly in the history of the 49th FG and of the Australian 75th and 76 FS. Both the 49th and the two Aussie units destroyed half of their P-40s just getting them to the combat area around Darwin, flying in stages from Brisbane. For many of them this was their first time ever flying a P-40. If needed I can quote these passages. 49th FG history also mentions that they had no gunnery training and their guns had not even been boresighted. The P-38 pilot in one of the interviews I think I linked upthread mentioned that he was given his first gunnery practice at Guadalcanal by the Navy, and practiced their system. IIRC he also said he had 14 hours on the P-38 when he got to Guadalcanal.


I think this was more of the exception than the norm and was quickly rectified. The first pilots to be deployed were already serving prior to Pearl Harbor. There was a rush of green pilots at the start of the war to replace early losses and I do know you had some pilots show up minimum or inadequate training as all as minimum time "in type." Stateside there were thousands of pilots going through flight training that was pretty rigorous and ample for the most part. What I posted was about the norm for most of the war. I've seen others post about training on here with references and hours required before a trainee was cut loose.


Schweik said:


> I don't know what they were using for an advanced trainer prior to the outbreak of the war but many of these guys had problems with the landing gear, they kept forgetting to put the gear down in landings and cracking up the aircraft. It was also the same with the AVG (which was also mostly USAAC, Marine or Navy pilots) and the Australian pilots.


Even with "quick and ample training", this is bound to happen, even with pilots with 2 to 300 hours. Admittingly I've flown aircraft with retractable landing gear and if it wasn't for a checklist I would had scraped some runway. (GUMPS)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So did the Allied units, if by ground accidents you include landing and takeoff accidents. Easily 50% in the early days.


That was the Tinian Air Group I referenced, comprised of mostly veteran pilots and a strength of less than 100 aircraft.

So...


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

No doubt seeing a few people wreck planes, or wrecking one yourself, assuming you survived helped to burn it into the memory. These first few guys rushing into the breach really had a rough go of it, but yeah I agree, training standards seemed to improve very quickly. For the mechanics too.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> That was the Tinian Air Group I referenced, comprised of mostly veteran pilots and a strength of less than 100 aircraft.
> 
> So...


Finish your thought, that elipsis could be going in a couple of different directions...


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Finish your thought, that elipsis could be *going in a couple of different directions*...


Much like this "pseudo P-39" discussion.

The only thing that hasn't entered into the discussion, is the redistribution of armor and the elimination of the IFF.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

Ok so now I'm "pseudo P-39 guy" is it? Lol ok bruh.

I haven't engaged in speculation, I'm not talking about re-arranging parts, changing designs or rewriting history. I've posted actual historical facts here, as I try to do regardless of the nature of the discussion - to help keep a fairly high signal to noise ratio in most of my posts on here. 

If we all just stay in the ruts established in the 1960s about everything that happened in the war, we won't really learn anything or have much to discuss, since we are already familiar with all those tropes. If that is where you want to stay, by all means block my posts so you don't get offended.

I think it's pretty exciting that the combat records of both sides are really being examined more closely by a variety of researchers, with new data coming to light every few months now. And I personally think that the new data does merit re-examining some of the old legends, which sometimes deserve a bit more nuance or context, and sometimes need to be overthrown. 

Let me throw out another provocative concept. *Japanese Air power in the Pacific was largely broken by the US Navy and Marine Corps,* and until the end of 1943, that meant the humble F4F Wildcat and the SBD bomber. They bore the brunt of the fighting and faced the best (IJN) pilots and the best aircraft. They developed tactics to make their middling fighter into a winner, and their pilots had the skills to turn their 'slow but deadly' dive bomber into a lethal ship annihilator (something Army pilots were unable to do with the same aircraft). And because aircraft carriers, they were able to project power all over the Pacific, with a longer reach than any land based fighter.

The Hellcat pilots shot down many more enemy planes than the Wildcat pilots did, by almost 4-1, but they had much more of a numerical, qualitative and technological advantage (including from things like ship borne radar) and _faced an enemy that had already been largely broken in the earlier phases of the war_.

When we look back at WW2 aviation, we tend to always lean into the end of the war with the coolest planes. So much ink has been spilled on Spit 21, Ta-152, Ki-84, Me 262, P-51H, P-47M and etc. but these aircraft didn't really have a major impact on the war necessarily, and were only relevant (if at all) for a small part of it. The war took place in many phases, and we each have our own particular interests.

Part of what made military aircraft great was being available, and being capable of doing their mission when they were most needed. P-38 ticks both of these marks in the Pacific, but so did the F4F, the P-40, and to some extent the P-39. 

I can see that people get upset when certain notions are challenged, and I appreciate the merits of harmony, but I don't think the point of history is to stay comfortable. Your mileage may vary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Let me throw out another provocative concept. *Japanese Air power in the Pacific was largely broken by the US Navy and Marine Corps,* and until the end of 1943, that meant the humble F4F Wildcat and the SBD bomber. They bore the brunt of the fighting and faced the best (IJN) pilots and the best aircraft. They developed tactics to make their middling fighter into a winner, and their pilots had the skills to turn their 'slow but deadly' dive bomber into a lethal ship annihilator (something Army pilots were unable to do with the same aircraft). And because aircraft carriers, they were able to project power all over the Pacific, with a longer reach than any land based fighter.


That's arguable - there is no doubt the US Navy and Marine Corps had a huge role in sustaining Japanese expansion in the PTO I think you need to examine *where and when they made a difference*, and equally across the board with the AAF 5th AF. The 5th AF had bomber and attack aircraft that brought more bomb tonnage to target than what the Navy and Marine Corps were capable of during the early part of the way, especially when the Navy was down to one carrier.


Schweik said:


> The Hellcat pilots shot down many more enemy planes than the Wildcat pilots did, by almost 4-1, but they had much more of a numerical, qualitative and technological advantage (including from things like ship borne radar) and _faced an enemy that had already been largely broken in the earlier phases of the war_.


They also had the advantage of being placed in target rich environments being operated from aircraft carriers


Schweik said:


> *When we look back at WW2 aviation, we tend to always lean into the end of the war with the coolest planes*. So much ink has been spilled on Spit 21, Ta-152, Ki-84, Me 262, P-51H, P-47M and etc. but these aircraft didn't really have a major impact on the war necessarily, and were only relevant (if at all) for a small part of it. The war took place in many phases, and we each have our own particular interests.


That's your opinion.


Schweik said:


> Part of what made military aircraft great was being available, and being capable of doing their mission when they were most needed. P-38 ticks both of these marks in the Pacific, but so did the F4F, the P-40, and to some extent the P-39.


The F4F, P-39 and P-40 held the line, the P-38 gave the AAF to expand the line, as did the F4U and F6F. You also have to consider when we had carriers available to support the later.


Schweik said:


> I can see that people get upset when certain notions are challenged, and I appreciate the merits of harmony, but I don't think the point of history is to stay comfortable. *Your mileage may vary.*


And so do opinions...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

I also think one of the reasons we like to look at some of those 1944-1945 era fighters is that they are closer to being 'without flaws'. If you look at fighters active in 1940-43, they all have flaws, usually quite significant ones. Their pilots learned to minimize the problems and maximize their advantages, they developed tactics to fight to their strengths. Flaws are kind of annoying from a design perspective, but to me part of what makes all these planes interesting is their flaws and the problems with the designs. That was part of the whole package, and part of the reality of what they were really dealing with.

Even when it comes to the elite aircraft, the best designs of the war, quite often when they were doing the heaviest and most consequential fighting, it was the flawed versions that faced the enemy. The F2G is cool as hell, but the old birdcage F4U-1 which probably mattered the most in the war. The P-38L was an outstanding combat machine but the G and H probably did more fighting at the critical moment. Spitfire XIV was a lethal bird but Spit V was the one shoved in the breech for a long time. Etc.*

At the same time, older less capable aircraft were also being improved. The Wildcat didn't change much in the critical period, but I don't think it's realistic to compare the earliest versions of a P-40E to the more perfected (1944) versions of the P-38 or F4U.

*And that is what made the Spit IX so important, because it became available and brought massively improved performance and capabilities early enough to still play a major role. You could say the same for the P-38J, as it was a highly improved version which arrived in time to make a difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's arguable - there is no doubt the US Navy and Marine Corps had a huge role in sustaining Japanese expansion in the PTO I think you need to examine *where and when they made a difference*, and equally across the board with the AAF 5th AF. The 5th AF had bomber and attack aircraft that brought more bomb tonnage to target than what the Navy and Marine Corps were capable of during the early part of the way, especially when the Navy was down to one carrier.
> 
> They also had the advantage of being placed in target rich environments being operated from aircraft carriers
> 
> ...



All reasonable... good point about the bombers of the 5th AF too, F4Fs and even SBDs weren't as effective against ground targets though TBF came in handier there. 5th AF may have even shot down more enemy planes by say, end of 1943, but I think the Navy killed the most elite Japanese pilots by that same timeframe. And did it mainly with Wildcats.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> All reasonable... good point about the bombers of the 5th AF too, F4Fs and even SBDs weren't as effective against ground targets though TBF came in handier there. 5th AF may have even shot down more enemy planes by say, end of 1943, but *I think the Navy killed the most elite Japanese pilots by that same timeframe. And did it mainly with Wildcats.*


Is that your opinion or do you facts to back that up? Again, I think you're really speculating.


----------



## special ed (Oct 24, 2021)

Jeff DeBlanc USMC, Medal of Honor at Guadalcanal, said he had just 10 hours in type on his F4F before combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

I might be wrong about this but I thought carrier strength was built up pretty rapidly in 1943?

Quick check of Wikipedia shows the following six *CV*s built before June 1943, by my count:
Ranger, Saratoga, Enterprise, Essex, Yorktown (Essex class version), Bunker Hill

The following were also built but sunk before that time - Lexington (sunk May 1942), Yorktown (sunk June 1942), Wasp (sunk Sept 1942), Hornet (sunk Oct 1942)

I see four *CVL* built before June 1943*:*
Independence, Princeton (sunk 1944), Belleau Wood, Cowpens

And eighteen *CVE*s:
Long Island, Charger, Copahee, Nassau, Santee, Sangamon, Altamaha, Chenango, Suwannee, Bogue, Card, Core, Barnes, Princeton (Sunk in 1944), Block Island (Sunk 1944), Prince William, Breton, Croatan

I may have missed or miscounted some...

I know some of those were in the Atlantic or Med, some were away from the combat area escorting supply and cargo ships and on ASW duties and so on, and some of the extant carriers, especially the larger CVs, were in the shipyard getting fixed part of the time. But after all the carnage of 1942, US carrier strength did seem to bounce back before the Hellcat arrived.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Is that your opinion or do you facts to back that up? Again, I think you're really speculating.



Well, we know the numbers from Midway and some of the other major sea battles in 1942 and 43, and the assumption here is that the IJN pilots were the better pilots, which I think is commonly accepted (they had the highest victory claim scores, for example). I believe the IJ Navy had longer training time and more of their pilots were officers, which may or may not mean anything.

And while I am a defender and a 'fan' of the Ki-43, I think the A6M was a better and more dangerous opponent simply because of the 20mm guns, though that is certainly debatable. I believe Ki-43 pilots actually made more victory claims during the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Well, we know the numbers from Midway and some of the other major sea battles in 1942 and 43, and the assumption here is that the IJN pilots were the better pilots, which I think is commonly accepted (they had the highest victory claim scores, for example).


Overall they probably were, but tactics somewhat took away their advantage in training and experience. The IJN lost their cream of the crop fighter pilots at Midway, but most of the losses were not due to air to air combat. Rich Leonard, who's dad actually fought at Midway has posted tons of information on here, I suggest reading this posts

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

Oh I agree, the IJN lost a lot of guys to flak and (especially) when their ships got sunk, which is why I included the SBD in my comment. With the improved tactics, F4Fs were slowly becoming more capable, at the time of Midway I think is one of the first times they started trying Thach Weave and Jimmy Thach himself used it successfully. Then IIRC they were also improving fighter direction and coordination. By the end of the year I think they were much more effective with the F4F. Certainly once you are a few months into 1943.


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 24, 2021)

I can’t remember where I read it but many of the IJN aircrew were picked up and not lost. There were far greater casualties from the maintenance crews who were lost with the carriers. 
I can only imagine that those aircrews were banished to forever remain at the front like the others who served at Midway and did face F4Fs, P-400s, P-40s and P-38s. 
I have no sources, just that if those pilots were rescued, they didn’t go home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I can’t remember where I read it but many of the IJN aircrew were picked up and not lost. There were far greater casualties from the maintenance crews who were lost with the carriers.
> I can only imagine that those aircrews were banished to forever remain at the front like the others who served at Midway and did face F4Fs, P-400s, P-40s and P-38s.
> I have no sources, just that if those pilots were rescue, they didn’t go home.


IIRC I believe only 2 Japanese POWs were recovered during Midway

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 24, 2021)

The most detailed account of Spitfires over Darwin is called oddly enough Darwin Spitfires
Amazon product
Highly recommended. It describes all the combats in great detail.
The authors makes several points about the real problems. He does not blame the Spitfire itself but rather poor leadership and inexperienced pilots along with constant speed unit failures and cannon failures. Clive Caldwell does not come off well in this narrative. He seems have been a micro manger. He insisted on flying as a big wing which negated the Spitfire's big advantage as a fast climber. As a result the Spitfires never intercepted the bombers until after they bombed and they never had the height advantage they should have enjoyed. In addition once they were up, Caldwell wasted further time by trying to direct the perfect interception. The Japanese refused to cooperate resulting in some of the formation not actually engaging (think Leigh Mallory, Sholto Douglas).

Most of the Spitfires losses were not actually to Zeros in dogfights. _"A review of the causes of Spitfire air combat losses in previous combats bears this out: out of a maximum possible 19 Spitfires previously shot down by enemy fighters, no more than five were lost while dogfighting; most were surprised from behind while conducting firing runs or while re-climbing for their next run._" This is a problem for any interceptor as they must put themselves in a vulnerable position to attack the bombers which is their primary goal. Escorting fighters should always have a positive kill ratio over the interceptors they are battling.

In the case of the Darwin Spitfires this was compounded by poor situation awareness. As mentioned previously they were flying in obsolete formations, primarily line astern, but also vics. When they did use a finger four formation it was more of a box with the wingmen behind the leaders. These formations quickly deteriorated in combat with the pilots flying individually and hence vulnerable. I was surprised to learn that the pilots were very inexperienced although the units were transferred from the UK the pilots were mostly rookies.

As noted the CSU problems were severe causing about as many losses as the Japanese. Even more troubling were the cannon failures. One in four aircraft that opened fire lost 1 or both cannons.

The Spitfire as an aircraft seems to have performed well but as a weapons system it did not. The author does point out that the Spitfires forced the bombers to fly high with a significant reduction in accuracy to the point that the damage caused was minimal so in that respect the defense was a success. He also states that the performance of the Spitfire VCs wasn't that much worse than VCs in other theaters.

Again I highly recommend reading the book.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2021)

> Most of the Spitfires losses were not actually to Zeros in dogfights. _"A review of the causes of Spitfire air combat losses in previous combats bears this out: out of a maximum possible 19 Spitfires previously shot down by enemy fighters, no more than five were lost while dogfighting; most were surprised from behind while conducting firing runs or while re-climbing for their next run._"



While I'm sympathetic to the problems faced by the Darwin Spitfire units, many of which were not their fault, this is a bit of a stretch in terms of excuses. I think most fighter shoot-downs occurred 'from behind' and / or when they were concentrating on something else.

As for the 'Big Wing' strategy, that was kind of a life or death thing where Caldwell was coming from in the Western Desert, even though it probably wasn't the right tactic with Spitfires against Japanese fighters.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> IIRC I believe only 2 Japanese POWs were recovered during Midway


There was another, who landed on Niihau, and that turned into a huge mess that provided gravity to the continental internerment decision...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> *I can’t remember where I read it but many of the IJN aircrew were picked up and not lost. There were far greater casualties from the maintenance crews who were lost with the carriers.*
> I can only imagine that those aircrews were banished to forever remain at the front like the others who served at Midway and did face F4Fs, P-400s, P-40s and P-38s.
> I have no sources, just that if those pilots were rescued, they didn’t go home.


Shattered Sword, they make the best case for that scenario. Also that Midway was NOT the graveyard of the elite IJN pilot corps, that was the attrition of the Solomon Islands campaign and New Guinea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 25, 2021)

Just out of curiosity, what's the title of this thread again?



That's what I love about this place.

And just so you guys don't think I've gone totally soft, why are we talking about these second rate Hellcat, Corsair and Lightnings? This discussion should now turn toward its rightful subject, the torpedo carrying, A-Bomb dropping P-51. I forgive you all for your negligence in this respect.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 25, 2021)

One thing I'd say, re: the title - is when it comes to Fw 190 vs Spitfire, the version matters a lot. Spit I and Spit V and Spit IX and XIV are all the same plane in one sense, but in terms of capability they are very different. Spit V is vulnerable to a Fw 190. Spit IX I think it's the other way around, it's going to make the Fw 190 pilot uneasy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 25, 2021)

Schweik said:


> One thing I'd say, re: the title - is when it comes to Fw 190 vs Spitfire, the version matters a lot. Spit I and Spit V and Spit IX and XIV are all the same plane in one sense, but in terms of capability they are very different. Spit V is vulnerable to a Fw 190. Spit IX I think it's the other way around, it's going to make the Fw 190 pilot uneasy.


Unless of course its a Fw 190D-13 fighting a Mk.IX Spitfire, then its the other, other way around again. 
As with the Spitfire, the Fw 190 represents a long lineage, all sharing the same name


----------



## Schweik (Oct 25, 2021)

True but by then you have other improved Spitfire marks right?

I agree Fw also evolved (and I don't know all the subvariants that well) but I gather the really dramatic improvements like the Dora came rather late right? In terms of the same jump in capability as from the V to the IX. Or am I wrong about that. How much faster was an A8 than an A4


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Oct 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Quick check of Wikipedia shows the following six *CV*s built before June 1943, by my count: Ranger, Saratoga, Enterprise, Essex, Yorktown (Essex class version), Bunker Hill
> 
> I see four *CVL* built before June 1943*: *Independence, Princeton (sunk 1944), Belleau Wood, Cowpens
> 
> And eighteen *CVE*s: Long Island, Charger, Copahee, Nassau, Santee, Sangamon, Altamaha, Chenango, Suwannee, Bogue, Card, Core, Barnes, Princeton (Sunk in 1944), Block Island (Sunk 1944), Prince William, Breton, Croatan



Using the Normal Friedman books, end June 1943, commissioned but not sunk.
6 CV Ranger, Saratoga, Enterprise, Essex, Lexington, Yorktown (Essex class versions), Bunker Hill
5 CVL Independence, Princeton, Belleau Wood, Cowpens, Monterey
17 CVE: Long Island, Charger (meant to be training RN personnel), Copahee, Nassau, Santee, Sangamon, Altamaha, Chenango, Suwannee, Bogue, Card, Core, Barnes, Block Island, Prince William, Breton, Croatan,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 26, 2021)

Thanks, well I was pretty close! So 11 carriers and 17 CVEs. Any ballpark idea how many of those would be operational around the South Pacific? I gather the CVEs were not really used on offensive operations directly but more to protect transports and supply ships etc. right?


----------



## GregP (Oct 26, 2021)

Hi Shortround, Reference Post 1,444.

I am under the distinct impression that the turbulators were needed in Europe due to the British fuel they were using as it tended to separate and thus make some cylinders run lean while other ran rich and some got no additives. Eventually, they resolved the different fuel aromatic issue and it went away. Meanwhile, the early P-38 operating in the Aleutians were using fuel from the U.S.A. and had no such issues.

They DID have cockpit heater issues, no training, etc., but the fuel issue could be looked at on the test stand because they were running US fuel in Alaska and the early Pacific deployments.

Perhaps I am mis-thinking this, but since they had US fuel available, the issues could be looked at rapidly, unlike the issues they saw with early use of British fuel. That took getting some samples of British fuel that could be used in the test stands.

Cheers.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 26, 2021)

Schweik said:


> When did the Mk V Spitfires in Theater lose or replace their Vokes filters?


AFAIK the MkV's retained the Vokes filter until they were withdrawn from service. 85 sqn RAAF was still equipped with the Mk Vc's with Vokes in 1945 and they were based in Perth, Western Australia.







source - unknown

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 26, 2021)

Hey GregP,

The turbulator venturis in the V-1710 air intake manifolds were to help create a more even mix of the fuel/air charge. This reduced the chance of a richer mixture entering some cylinders and weaker mixture entering other cylinders - causing detonation(knock) in the cylinders.

The later Merlin did not use them since the fuel was introduced at the intake end of the supercharger, with the supercharger effectively taking the place of a turbulator venturi.

I do not know why the V-1710 needed turbulator venturis while the Merlin did not, but the "British" fuel did not separate any more than the "US" fuel did.

Please see my post "P-38 or Mosquito?".

edited: changed turbulator to venturi due to info introduced by Reluctant Poster in his post#1,500 below


----------



## wuzak (Oct 27, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> The later Merlin did not use them since the fuel was introduced at the intake end of the supercharger, with the supercharger effectively taking the place of a turbulator.
> 
> I do not know why the V-1710 needed turbulator while the Merlin did not, but the "British" fuel did not separate any more than the "US" fuel did.



Did any Merlin use turbulators?

The Merlins also had a simpler intake manifold design. So maybe it was related to the V-1710 design?


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Oct 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Thanks, well I was pretty close! So 11 carriers and 17 CVEs. Any ballpark idea how many of those would be operational around the South Pacific? I gather the CVEs were not really used on offensive operations directly but more to protect transports and supply ships etc. right?


In the Pacific end June 1943, (using Wiki for the escort carriers)
Saratoga was operational in the South Pacific, along with HMS Victorious. Essex arrived at Pearl Harbor end May 1943. Enterprise was under repair/refit. Independence arrived San Francisco in early July 1943.

CVE Long Island, Copahee, Nassau, Sangamon, Altamaha, Chenango, Suwannee, Barnes, Prince William, Breton. Agreed the escort carriers were mostly on support and supply runs around mid 1943, that changed after the Central Pacific drive began, to provide anti submarine and ground support.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I gather the CVEs were not really used on offensive operations directly but more to protect transports and supply ships etc. right?



Ferrying replacement aircraft to the fleet carriers was an important task as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2021)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> In the Pacific end June 1943, (using Wiki for the escort carriers)
> Saratoga was operational in the South Pacific, along with HMS Victorious. Essex arrived at Pearl Harbor end May 1943. Enterprise was under repair/refit. Independence arrived San Francisco in early July 1943.
> 
> CVE Long Island, Copahee, Nassau, Sangamon, Altamaha, Chenango, Suwannee, Barnes, Prince William, Breton. Agreed the escort carriers were mostly on support and supply runs around mid 1943, that changed after the Central Pacific drive began, to provide anti submarine and ground support.



I double checked these and came up with the following:

Ranger, *Saratoga*, *Enterprise*, *Essex,* Lexington, Yorktown II, Bunker Hill
Atlantic --- SP ------ (SP*) ----May 43- -Aug 43 -July 43- -Oct 43

*Enterprise at naval battle of Guadalcanal through Nov 42, Solomons through Jan 43,
(Wiki notes that her fighters were able to destroy "most of" the Japanese bombers at the (Jan 43) Battle of Rennell Island. Wiki for that battle says 12 bombers out of 43.









Battle of Rennell Island - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Then they went to Espiritu Santo. It looks like Enterprise went into refit in July of 43, and was out until November. So it was there for the key period and key battles.

*HMS Victorious *was in action in the Pacific in May 17 after a partial refit, and then was in action until July.

So it looks like two CVs for most of 1942 (after Midway) and then two more from Spring to Summer 43 (then one of the two- Victorious- went home while the Essex stayed), one more (Yorktown II) in July which is also when CVL Independence shows up. The rest came late in summer / fall 43 (so more concurrent with Hellcats).

The CVLs seem to have also arrived in summer and fall of 43 (3 in each season).

Independence, Princeton, Belleau Wood, Cowpens, Monterey
-July 43--- --- 9 Aug 43 --- July 43 ----- Nov 43 -- Nov 43

I didn't go through all the CVEs but presumably a few of them were in action.

Does anyone know the combat history of 832 Sqn FAA? What were they flying? I couldn't find anything. Avengers? Apparently Victorious had trouble handling Avengers. Were there any FAA fighter units on board?

So two in late 42, then four by Spring 43 to carry Wildcat pilots to the enemy, then five by mid-summer (adding Yorktown II, Independence and Belleau Wood, but losing Enterprise and Victorious), and then two more in August for seven (Lexington and Princeton) and then three more in the fall (Bunker Hill, Cowpens and Montery) for ten.

(Later 1942)---- 2 ----- Saratoga, Enterprise
May 43 ---------4 ----- Saratoga, Enterprise, Essex, HMS Victorious
July 43 --------- 5 ----- Saratoga, Essex, Yorktown II, Belleau Wood (CVL), Independence (CVL)
Aug 43 ---------7 ------Saratoga, Essex, Lexington, Yorktown II, Belleau Wood (CLV), Independence (CVL), Princeton (CVL)
Nov 43 --------10 ----- Saratoga, Essex, Lexington, Yorktown II, Belleau Wood (CLV), Independence (CVL), Princeton (CVL), Bunker Hill (CVL), Cowpens (CVL), Montery (CVL)

So based on that, I'd say there _was_ a deficit in fast aircraft carriers in the South Pacific from late summer 1942 through May of 43, when carrier strength suddenly doubled. From May through August 43 (still Wildcat time) Carrier strength looks pretty good, especially since there were plenty of CVE's available to do the more mundane tasks of escorting logistics and ASW etc. 

However when the Hellcats arrived in Nov of 43 the force strength was again almost double what it was in the early Summer, so that no doubt correlates to a more aggressive Navy!


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2021)

This "Battle of Rennell Island" in January of 43 is pretty interesting. I know we have discussed it before on here (I think in a thread about the Betty) but it's interesting to look at it from the perspective of the air power battle.

In the battle the Japanese made a concerted effort to drive off a US fleet carrying supplies and reinforcements, so that they could evacuate their troops from Guadalcanal. They managed to drive off the US carriers, albeit at some cost, but the transports made it to Guadalcanal and carried out their reinforcement mission anyway. However with the US carriers out of range, the Japanese were able to evacuate 11,000 of their men from Guadalcanal.

The US fleet Task Force 18 consisted of three CAs, three CL, *two CVL*s (Chenango and Suwanee) and eight destroyers. One *CV* Enterprise came behind with some more ships.

According to Wikipedia on *29 January* they were attacked by 31 G4M and G3M bombers (16 each, with one turning back with engine trouble) from the Japanese 705 and 701 Air Groups. During the initial (dusk) attack CAP was not up. The first attack missed but the second hit Chicago with two torpedos and Destroyer Wichita was hit but the warhead didn't detonate.

On *30 January *another wave of attacks came in. Chicago was crippled and was being closely escorted by destroyers. CAP drove some bomber away and specifically drove away an attack on the Enterprise, but arrived too late (in spite of flying into friendly flak) to save Chicago which was hit again. Chicago was hit four more times and sunk, a Destroyer La Vallette was hit and heavily damaged. They claimed 8-10 bombers shot down. The bombers were at long range and appear to have been unescorted.



Shows you how deadly those long range torpedo bombers were, even if they were pretty vulnerable. It was still tricky managing the fighter direction etc. so that enough CAP could intercept them in time. They managed to shoot down a lot of them, apparently (anyone know the actual losses?) but not before they had dropped their lethal torpedoes.

Even if they lost 12 x G4M and / or G3M, that seems like a decent trade for 1 enemy heavy cruiser sunk, a couple of destroyers crippled, and 11,000 friendly troops saved.


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 29, 2021)

Schweik said:


> However when the Hellcats arrived in Nov of 43 the force strength was again almost double what it was in the early Summer, so that no doubt correlates to a more aggressive Navy!



There seems to be a lot of confusion lately as to the earliest date the F6F could be found aboard Pacific Fleet carriers. VF-9 holds the distinction of the very first unit to deploy with a full compliment of 36 Hellcats aboard the Essex in May 1943. By early August the F6F was the sole fighter found aboard the Essex, Lexington, Princeton, Belleau Wood, Yorktown, and Independence. Lastly, the Enterprise, Cowpens, Monterey, and Saratoga were all equipped with Hellcat fighters by the end of September 1943.

Many of these units were active during the early Tarawa-Makin raids and Wake Island campaign, which occurred during mid September and early October 1943, respectively.

Source: _Location of U.S. Naval Aircraft, Department of U.S Navy (1943)_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 29, 2021)

Wow... that is definitely earlier than I was aware of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 29, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Wow... that is definitely earlier than I was aware of.


I can understand that. It's my belief that November 1943 is often thought of because the Tarawa Campaign which occurred during that month was the first large scale use of the F6F against Japanese forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 29, 2021)

Well it seems like yet another case where the 'conventional wisdom' about WW2 aviation (including mine in this case) is off! 

Where would you put the transition then, June, July? August?

Would you agree that April 1943 is the major turning point for Corsair operations in the Pacific?

I'm trying to build a timeline of how long the F4F was doing the brunt of the work for the Navy and Marines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 29, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Well it seems like yet another case where the 'conventional wisdom' about WW2 aviation (including mine in this case) is off!
> 
> Where would you put the transition then, June, July? August?
> 
> ...


I would say August 1943 for the Hellcat because by then a predominant number of carrier fighting squadrons were fully equipped with it. Anytime before that the F4F was seeing much greater use. 

Because of the carrier shortage there were many fighter units that were not assigned ship duty for roughly the first seven months of 1943 and they largely flew F4Fs from land bases stateside and overseas. VF-12 and VF-17 are two units that flew the F4U at various stages as well. 

I'll have to look at the F4U a bit closer, being it saw extensive use by the US Marines, but I feel your estimate of April looks pretty close. Maybe someone who has studied the Corsair in greater detail than I could chime in and confirm this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 30, 2021)

I found the web link to the archive of aircraft locations. They have reports from 1942-45. There's a section for Marine Air Wings included in each report. Maybe this will help you determine your timeline:






Location of U.S. Naval Aircraft, World War II


Click on the day, month and year (e.g., 2 Feb 1942) to view the Location of U.S. Naval Aircraft report for that particular timeframe. NOTE: All of these records are unclassified or have been declassified. Due to the age of the records, type of typewriter font, and capability of current OCR...




www.history.navy.mil

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 30, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I found the web link to the archive of aircraft locations. They have reports from 1942-45. There's a section for Marine Air Wings included in each report. Maybe this will help you determine your timeline:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow that is an amazing resource! Archiving that baby...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 30, 2021)

No problem...you've contributed much that has helped all of us here immensely too!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2021)

So per the other thread where we were discussing this...






Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?


Only place it was really used was in England, every other theatre it was surpassed by the B-24. Italy.



ww2aircraft.net





... *it seems like the Wildcat was on it's own for Navy aircraft from Pearl Harbor (Dec 7 1942) essentially until September 1943 *which is when the Hellcats drew first blood.

Exceptions being some F2A (I think only used by Marines, did the USN ever fly them in combat?) and some units of F4U in the Solomons, also by the Marines. I notice there was a Navy F4U unit (VF-12) on the Enterprise at Pearl Harbor (or based out of) in 6 July 1943 but apparently not in combat and soon removed. One of the early workups that didn't work out I guess?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 31, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So per the other thread where we were discussing this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both VF-12 and VF-17 were heavily involved in Corsair carrier qualifications but when the US Navy finally decided on the Hellcat as their standard shipboard fighter the F4U was relegated to the US Marines. Only VF-17 retained the Corsair and operated from land bases in the Solomons.
As a side note the latter unit 'unofficially' flew combat ops from carriers during strikes on Rabaul, when Corsairs from the unit rearmed and refueled aboard ship in order to quickly rejoin the battle.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2021)

Very interesting. When was that exactly? Nov 43?


----------



## DarrenW (Oct 31, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Very interesting. When was that exactly? Nov 43?


Yes, on November 11th. Hellcats from VF-33 accompanied VF-17 to the Task Group where they flew top cover for Essex, Bunker Hill, and Independence during the strikes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 31, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Did any Merlin use turbulators?
> 
> The Merlins also had a simpler intake manifold design. So maybe it was related to the V-1710 design?


The device added to the intake manifold of the V-1710 was not a turbulator . It was a venturi which, like all venturies, created an area of low pressure . A tube from the venturi was used to suck up the fuel that had dropped out of the airstream and by doing so revaporized it so that it could actually reach the cylinders rather than sloshing around the bottom of the intake manifold. It was in effect a second carburetor. To quote Daniel Whitney's article from the Spring 2002 Torque Meter _"The Allison Time Bomb"_: "...the first was to fit the "Madame Queen " air intake pipe, which incorporated a 'boost venturi " to revaporize any condensed fuel."
The Merlin did not have the problem of fuel collection in the intake manifold because of its much cleaner design. The V-1710 intake manifold it a fluid dynamics nightmare of sharp 90 degree bends, back to back elbows and splits in flow that caused fuel distribution problems. The middle of the manifold divides into 2 streams and immediately does a very sharp 90 degree turn upwards followed by yet another split and another sharp 90. Its a wonder anything get trough at all.
The following image is from the bible of hydraulics, "Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance" by Idel'chik, show the flow through back to back 90s. As you can see there is plenty of turbulence created by the poor design.










Look at all the changes in direction, splits in flow and changes in area . These all contribute to large pressure drop that the Merlin manifold did not have. Note the direct airflow path to the outer cylinders contrasting with the 180 degree bend the air fuel mixture for the center cylinders has to negotiate. The result of this was that the fuel tended to drop out before the reaching the inner cylinders. The outer cylinders ran rich while the inner ones ran lean. Quoting Whitney again: "Lockheed found that piston failures were usually in the #3 or #4 cylinder the cylinders most likely to be running lean under any condition...".

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 31, 2021)

Hey Reluctant Poster,

Thanks for the info.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2021)

Hi ThomasP.

The fuel in the Allison V-1710 is introduced right directly into the supercharger impeller intake. In fact, it sprays right onto the small end of the supercharger impeller. I've helped assemble some 20 of them. The supercharger discharges directly into a large intake manifold that goes straight down the Vee between the cylinder banks. About halfway down, it splits into two tubes going up each cylinder bank. When it reaches the top, each of the two up tubes splits into two 3-cylinder intake manifolds, and the fuel sprays directly into the center of each 3-cylinder manifold. Fours manifolds times three cylinders per manifold is 12 cylinders.

The fuel flow would make the two end cylinders rich and the center cylinder lean. The turbulators or venturis, depending on what terminology you like, kept the air-fuel mixture moving around and kept the mixture even for all cylinders. Reputable builders today don't use the older, non-modified intake manifolds. I've seen them referred to in documents as turbulators, but whether it is called a turbulator or a venturi, it keeps the air-fuel mixture moving around and in more or less homogeneous suspension.

I have much less experience with Merlins, but the Merlin intake tract likely isn't nearly as smooth inside, and maybe that helps.

It also didn't help that early P-38 squadron leaders were having their pilots run the Allisons at low rpm and high MAP on British fuel that was not bad in any way, but WAS different from what the Allisons were jetted for in their carburetors from the factory. That meant lower air-fuel mixture velocity, which might have been the difference between the Allison and Merlin issues (yes, the Merlin had issues in British service, but they were addressed quickly, with the factory right there with test cells and fuel to run in them). I do not claim to know for sure if these U.S. practices were the exact reasons that caused the Allison issues. 

What I DO know, for sure, is use of the modified intake manifolds, proper jetting for the fuel used (the early Allison were jetted wrong for British fuel), and proper engine operation eliminated the issues and made the P-38 run very well, even in the ETO. It all took about 9 months from reported engine problems until they were more or les corrected. The cockpit heater and the dive recovery flaps took longer.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 1, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi ThomasP.
> 
> The fuel in the Allison V-1710 is introduced right directly into the supercharger impeller intake. In fact, it sprays right onto the small end of the supercharger impeller. I've helped assemble some 20 of them. The supercharger discharges directly into a large intake manifold that goes straight down the Vee between the cylinder banks. About halfway down, it splits into two tubes going up each cylinder bank. When it reaches the top, each of the two up tubes splits into two 3-cylinder intake manifolds, and the fuel sprays directly into the center of each 3-cylinder manifold. Fours manifolds times three cylinders per manifold is 12 cylinders.
> 
> ...


According to Allison it was a a venturi





As you can see the there is a main venturi and an auxiliary venturi. The auxiliary venturi has a induction tube reaching down to the bottom of the manifold to suck up any condensed fuel. Some time ago I posted a paper written by the SAE before *WWI *showing that the vaporized fuel, being heavier than air, would not follow the path of the air through the sharp elbow and would hit the wall and condense. Allison should have know better than to design a manifold like this. There are no examples of any other engine having a manifold like this and with good reason.

A turbulator is a completely different device used in heat exchangers to enhance heat transfer, See the following link: 








Turbulators in Heat Exchangers: Types and Purposes | The Super Blog


Learn how turbulators help create turbulent flow, which contributes to improved system efficiency and smaller footprint without compromising performance.




www.superradiatorcoils.com





Venturis actually don't create much turbulence. This is why we use as flow measuring devices since they regain most of their pressure loss down stream. Here's is a CFD analysis showing the flow field through a venturi . The flow is very laminar indeed. Of course if the venturi is operating in conditions it is not suited for the picture can be very different. 






As I stated previously the venturi acted as a second carburetor, in fact the manifold looks very much like a classic weber carburetor.







Weber DCOE Carburetor Reference: Theory, Configuration,Tuning & Reference Documents



Finally, some time ago, I wrote a lengthy essay in this forum debunking the British flue myth. 85% of all avgas used in the UK in WWII was produced in the continental USA. Al avgas produced in the US was to the same specifications regardless of it destination. The problems of the Allison lie within.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Al avgas produced in the US was to the same specifications regardless of it destination.



However the specification/s allowed quite a bit of latitude in the actual fuel composition. 
Late war (like 1943 on) was _allowed up to_ 4.6 cc lead per US gallon for 100/130 fuel. Not all batches needed the full 4.6cc to meet the specification. Not all batches got the same percentages of other additives, like the heavy aromatics. 

The specifications were a _performance specification_. Not a recipe. 
Performance also included BTUs per pound of fuel, vapor pressure, residual gum, and a number of other things that had no bearing on power output but a lot to do with keeping fuel filters and other small fuel passages clear, getting proper vaporization at altitude (cold temperatures) while avoiding vapor lock at high temperatures. 
As long as the fuel met these performance specifications it would be purchased and used almost regardless of actual chemical composition. 

There were practical limits. Too much lead fouled spark plugs. The Heavy aromatics had less BTUs per pound than the fuel specs called for so going past 20% aromatics in the blend made it hard to meet the BTUs per pound requirement. The different aromatics had different vaporization temperatures and other properties. A lot of "blends" depended on what a particular refinery had for base stocks and for additives available at a given time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2021)

Well, there IS a venturi, but the venturi is held in with angled fin and that is only one Allison illustration. The angled fins form a turbulator, so I suppose you can call it whichever you want and be technically correct since it is a combination of both. The effect was to prevent the fuel from separating. It worked. The industry that builds Allisons today calls it a turbulator. I don't really care myself as long as the manifold in the airplane has one inside it. My generic term is a late intake manifold (as opposed to an early manifold). Likewise, there are "early" and "late" wrist pins, rocker arm assemblies, and various other parts. If someone is making a flying engine today, they generally want to use -100 series parts, not early parts.

The older, unmodified intakes are OK for run-stand engines, boat engines or tractor engines that don't ever really get to altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> However the specification/s allowed quite a bit of latitude in the actual fuel composition.
> Late war (like 1943 on) was _allowed up to_ 4.6 cc lead per US gallon for 100/130 fuel. Not all batches needed the full 4.6cc to meet the specification. Not all batches got the same percentages of other additives, like the heavy aromatics.
> 
> The specifications were a _performance specification_. Not a recipe.
> ...


Agreed. The point I am trying to make is that it wasn't some eccentric British specification, it was the varying nature of the avgas production process that *all* engines had to account for. The feedstock made a difference as did the method of octane boosting such as Alkylation vs Houdry catalytic cracking vs Thermofor cat cracking vs Fluid Cat cracking vs adding Cumene, etc. all of which could be added in various combinations


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 3, 2021)

Hi
'Turbulator' is not a term I have found in 1940s 'technical' books on aviation ICEs, the closest I have come is the 'Ricardo Comet Mark III', not an aviation product, which had a 'Turbulence Chamber', page 102, Fig. 21, of 'Internal Combustion Engines Illustrated' Odhams Press 1947 reprint:




'Venturi tubes' are everywhere, in the same publication is the Rolls-Royce Bendix-Stromberg carburettor with large and small Venturi tubes:









A more colourful illustration of this is found on page 111 of 'Rolls-Royce Piston Aero Engines - a designer remembers' by A A Rubbra (Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, Historical Series No. 16):





Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 3, 2021)

Turbolizers were briefly mentioned in an episode of Battlestar Galactica. The original series.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 3, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Turbolizers were briefly mentioned in an episode of Battlestar Galactica. The original series.


For two years I had the dizzying job description of inspection, expediting, shipping coordinator for a Japanese engineering company. I frequently was given purchase orders for stuff I and no one else in the company really knew anything about. Some stick in the memory like a "steam sparger" WTF is that. Another was for some rotary airlock valves (also known as star valves). I had no idea what they were or what makes a good or bad one or even any problems you may encounter, so when I arrived at the factory in a beautiful place by a lake near the Alps in South Germany I just asked" these rotary valves, WTF are they". Then there was a complete fibre glass heated pipeline for Hong Kong, who in the world knows anything about fibre glass pipelines apart from the people who make them? At times it was a hoot, the blind leading the blind, with all sorts of words made up like "turbulator".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 4, 2021)

Although I must confess that I learned what a 'steam sparger' is in engineering classes, the only place I have ever knowingly run across it in use is at the various coffee houses like Starbuck's and Caribou Coffee - where they inject steam into some of the different mixes to heat them and/or create foam (without cooling the mixture down). 🤣


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 4, 2021)

Honest, I thought you guys made up turbulator.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 6, 2021)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2021)

Classic!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree, but they weren't complaining about being too cold either.


Actually some were




Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story

One of the enduring P-38 myths is that Lockheed was suddenly blindsided by heating issues when P-38s started flying escort missions out of the UK. In fact, the P-38 heating system was known to be inadequate long before that. The following test report on the "Tactical Suitability of the P-38F Type Airplane" (from Mike Williams marvelous site) makes this crystal clear:
P-38F Tactical Trials












Note that the tests were completed a year before any long-range escort missions were flown. As I have pointed out previously escorted deep penetrations raids didn't start until Big Week in February 1944. In fact, the tests were completed even before the 8th​ AF had dropped a single bomb on Germany. While the tests were going on the P-38 was just beginning to enter service. At that time bomber escort missions of any sort weren't even being contemplated. 

Note that contrary to the claims that the problems were related to the English winter the tests were done in balmy Florida. Also note the unfavorable comparison to the P-39 which was certainly was not flying great distances at high altitudes. 

The P-39 and the other Allison powered fighters used a different heating system than the P-38. They simply tapped hot air from the radiator discharge. This would have been impractical for the P-38 due to the location of the radiators. The P-38 used the same system Lockheed used on their pre-war radial powered airliners. I am curious as to why the USAAC didn't use the glycol cockpit heater they developed in the early 1930s which would have yielded better results. From Air Corps News February 18, 1932:





The following Test Report delineates the extensive modifications finally undertaken to the heating system to get satisfactory performance:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38J_performance_11march44.pdf

The amount of heat was more than doubled and a plug for a heated flight suit was added. Even in this test it was noted that the cockpit was poorly sealed.




The P-38 flight manual gives the history of the heating system














The right emitter heated the cockpit and the left heated the armament (camera in the PR versions) The heat previously used for the armament was diverted to the cockpit and an electric heater was substituted for the armament.
Also of note was the cockpit sealing was extremely poor. Considering that Lockheed built the high altitude XC-35 research aircraft before WWII this is inexcusable.

Lockheed XC-35 Electra | National Air and Space Museum

The Lockheed XC-35 and the Evolution of the Pressurized Cabin

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Also of note was the cockpit sealing was extremely poor. Considering that Lockheed built the high altitude XC-35 research aircraft before WWII *this is inexcusable.*


I am well aware of all the data you posted and the way twin engine aircraft are heated, either via engine exhaust or by a separate heater unit. Using an engine exhaust heat exchanger on a twin engine aircraft is obviously inadequate because of the distance between the engine nacelle and the cockpit. Many twin engine aircraft, both commercial and military aircraft will use an independent heating unit because of this. As mentioned many times before, the heating system on the P-38 was* ACCEPTED BY THE AAC *early in the program. It wasn't until feedback from the field, where the P-38 was being operated as a high altitude escort *(something that the aircraft was never designed for) *where Lockheed was given the go-ahead* BY THE AAF* to fix the heating system!!!!

*Understand that during WW2 (and in today's world) a manufacturer cannot implement a modification without government (or customer) approval!*

Lockheed gave "the customer" what they asked for with regards to Circular Proposal X-608. If you want to hold someone accountable for the poor heating system, start with Lt. Benjamin S. Kelsey!!!

Oh - in that March 1943 report, you left out one thing:

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2021)

Regarding the "Prestone Heater" found in civil aircraft:
In a combat aircraft, a bullet or shrapnel passing through the line or heat-exchanger will send that all over the cockpit interior.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 6, 2021)

I'm not much into period terminology except when discussing that period, so I'll call it a turbulator like the people who build them today. Your selection of terms is a choice and venturi is likely as good as any. It's at least mostly accurate. If I want a car today with an exhaust-driven compressor, I generally ask for a turbocharged car, not one that is turbo-supercharged. 

But hey, you call it whatever you want. The net result was elimination of the fuel separation issues, which was the entire point of the effort. Whatever it is properly called, it worked and still does. So, it's all good. 

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2021)

GregP said:


> But hey, you call it whatever you want.



A kludge?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 7, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I am well aware of all the data you posted and the way twin engine aircraft are heated, either via engine exhaust or by a separate heater unit. Using an engine exhaust heat exchanger on a twin engine aircraft is obviously inadequate because of the distance between the engine nacelle and the cockpit. Many twin engine aircraft, both commercial and military aircraft will use an independent heating unit because of this. As mentioned many times before, the heating system on the P-38 was* ACCEPTED BY THE AAC *early in the program. It wasn't until feedback from the field, where the P-38 was being operated as a high altitude escort *(something that the aircraft was never designed for) *where Lockheed was given the go-ahead* BY THE AAF* to fix the heating system!!!!
> 
> *Understand that during WW2 (and in today's world) a manufacturer cannot implement a modification without government (or customer) approval!*
> 
> ...


The test in question was concluded on January 26, 1943. That's almost a year before the P-38 starting flying long range escort missions over Germany. In fact the tests were being conducted in the same time frame that the time the P-38 was entering combat in the Pacific and North Africa. Regardless of who decided not to improve the heating there was plenty of time to implement a fix before the P-38J began having issues over Germany.






I would certainly agree that the P-38F was superior to its American contemporaries.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The test in question was concluded on January 26, 1943. That's almost a year before the P-38 starting flying long range escort missions over Germany. In fact the tests were being conducted in the same time frame that the time the P-38 was entering combat in the Pacific and North Africa. *Regardless of who decided not to improve the heating there was plenty of time to implement a fix before the P-38J began having issues over Germany.*
> 
> 
> View attachment 647331
> ...


Yes, there was plenty of time to implement a fix, just as there was plenty of time to fix other issues on the P-38 as well as other aircraft. Again, the contractor (Lockheed) can't and won't implement any major design change (as it's a modification to the contract) unless government approved. My guess is someone at Wright Patterson decided the heating issue wasn't important enough to order an aircraft modification through a contract change or didn't want to halt the production line to implement this modification.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 7, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Actually some were
> View attachment 647247
> 
> Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story
> ...


The effect of being cold increases with time, for a high altitude interceptor inadequate heating is inconvenient and uncomfortable, for long range missions it can be fatal, especially since UK missions in February meant the pilot was probably very cold before he even took off.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 7, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, there was plenty of time to implement a fix, just as there was plenty of time to fix other issues on the P-38 as well as other aircraft. Again, the contractor (Lockheed) can't and won't implement any major design change (as it's a modification to the contract) unless government approved. My guess is someone at Wright Patterson decided the heating issue wasn't important enough to order an aircraft modification through a contract change or didn't want to halt the production line to implement this modification.


Ageed. A point I have made in the past and tend to ignore when applied to me is that the people making the decisions where under tremendous pressure to make the decisions very quickly with an overriding need to get aircraft into combat yesterday if not sooner. When bomber crews are dying at an unsustainable rate the comfort of a fighter pilot becomes pretty much irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 7, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The effect of being cold increases with time, for a high altitude interceptor inadequate heating is inconvenient and uncomfortable, for long range missions it can be fatal, especially since UK missions in February meant the pilot was probably very cold before he even took off.


I grew up in a part of the world that can see temperature as low as minus 40 so I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to function in cold weather and the serious issues that can result from prolonged exposure. 
Having spent time trying to keep warm in a Volkswagen beetle with the same style of exhaust manifold heater as the P-38 I feel empathy for the pilots.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 7, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I grew up in a part of the world that can see temperature as low as minus 40 so I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to function in cold weather and the serious issues that can result from prolonged exposure.
> Having spent time trying to keep warm in a Volkswagen beetle with the same style of exhaust manifold heater as the P-38 I feel empathy for the pilots.


I agree I was just referring to the part in your post, not your words but a linked quote that contained "Although designed as a high altitude interceptor".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Ageed. A point I have made in the past and tend to ignore when applied to me is that the people making the decisions where under tremendous pressure to make the decisions very quickly with an overriding need to get aircraft into combat yesterday if not sooner. *When bomber crews are dying at an unsustainable rate the comfort of a fighter pilot becomes pretty much irrelevant.*





Reluctant Poster said:


> I grew up in a part of the world that can see temperature as low as minus 40 so I am fully aware of how difficult it can be to function in cold weather and the serious issues that can result from prolonged exposure.
> Having spent time trying to keep warm in a Volkswagen beetle with the same style of exhaust manifold heater as the P-38 *I feel empathy for the pilots.*


Agree on both fronts - over the years many people have tried to demonize (for a better choice of words) Lockheed for deficiencies found on the P-38, and there were many on the early production models. As stated many times previously, no one expected more than 75 P-38s to ever be constructed and the aircraft was operated in a variety roles it was never intended, again one of them being a long range escort. Most of the bashing was the result of the memo written by Col Rau, 3 June1944. I bolded and colored key points;

_20th Fighter Group Headquarters APO 637 U.S. Army(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VIII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are not intended in anyway to "low rate" our present equipment.

2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions* it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average', taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.*

3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-fivehours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavyload). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several thingswrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. Thelogical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/Vand tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.

6. What is the answer to these difficulties? *During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.*

7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.

8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are
all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

*9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Hough are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.*

HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps, Commanding._

P-38 detractors have taken bits and pieces of this memo to bash the P-38 and Allison over the years, but if you read into it Rau identifies the root of the problem in the first paragraph. Now IMO, he was overcritical about the cockpit configuration, compare the P-38 cockpit to other twin engine fighters (DH Mosquito, Beaufighter, Me110) of the period and I don't think you'll see much difference. The P-38 had to fulfill roles that wasn't identified when it was being developed and although difficulties were encountered, got the job done.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 7, 2021)

Great post. Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 7, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Great post. Thanks!



Right, _muy informativo_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2021)

The Army didn't want to take the performance hit a gasoline fueled cockpit heater would cause. 

American Stewart-Warner South Wind car heater from the 1930s.









After the British got out of their contract for Aircobras by specifying such a heater the Army didn't want to see the P-38s performance ruined by such a device.

(Sarcasm)
BTW Old VW Beetles and Corvairs could be equipped with such heaters as options.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 7, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The Army didn't want to take the performance hit a gasoline fueled cockpit heater would cause.
> 
> American Stewart-Warner South Wind car heater from the 1930s.
> View attachment 647356
> ...


The infamous Webasto auxiliary heater that Canadian spec Beetles often came with didn’t truely solve the problem.


----------



## special ed (Nov 7, 2021)

The coldest I have ever been was in the back seat of a Morris Minor riding through Amarillo Texas in December. There wasn't enough water in the little four cylinder for the coffee can size heater up front to notice.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2021)

I had a '66 VW bug back in the 80's - me and my (then) girlfriend could really heat it up, though that was not practical (nor recommended) for driving...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Honest, I thought you guys made up turbulator.


You guys are all confused, it's really a:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 8, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree on both fronts - over the years many people have tried to demonize (for a better choice of words) Lockheed for deficiencies found on the P-38, and there were many on the early production models. As stated many times previously, no one expected more than 75 P-38s to ever be constructed and the aircraft was operated in a variety roles it was never intended, again one of them being a long range escort. Most of the bashing was the result of the memo written by Col Rau, 3 June1944. I bolded and colored key points;
> 
> _20th Fighter Group Headquarters APO 637 U.S. Army(E-2)
> 3 June 1944
> ...


A couple of questions to show my ignorance.

1). What is a "Combat Switch"?

2). Did the P-38 ever get the "marvelous mechanism" known as a "unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator etc."?

3). Were the valve selector handles changed for easier use?

Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> A couple of questions to show my ignorance.
> 
> 1). What is a "Combat Switch"?


That's been asked several times and I really don't have an answer, it's not found in the basic flight manual in any cockpit nomenclature (at least in the copy I have). I believe it might have something to do with arming the guns or turning on the gunsight.


Peter Gunn said:


> 2). Did the P-38 ever get the "marvelous mechanism" known as a "unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator etc."?


As far as I know, "no."


Peter Gunn said:


> 3). Were the valve selector handles changed for easier use?


They were - I believe the original selector had a raised portion that was twisted into position, the later selector had a handle. 


Peter Gunn said:


> Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 9, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's been asked several times and I really don't have an answer, it's not found in the basic flight manual in any cockpit nomenclature (at least in the copy I have). I believe it might have something to do with arming the guns or turning on the gunsight.
> 
> As far as I know, "no."
> 
> They were - I believe the original selector had a raised portion that was twisted into position, the later selector had a handle.


Thanks FB, too bad about number 2, sounds like it would have been quite the boon in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Nov 13, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> No, the Zero was designed to be exactly what it was, a long-range naval air superiority fighter - but that term was not in use. Fighters of World War One didn't fly 500-600 miles into enemy territory and dominate the air over enemy bases. Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.


Yes, because the airplane is a born Dogfighter. Same scenario WWI aircraft found themselves in.
The Zero, while having excellent climbing ability, wasn't such a good diver, as the plane was built too lightly (to put it in a very general sense), thus it wasn't a good plane for "Boom and Zoom" tactics, which is a WWII scenario.
That's what I meant when I posted that statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 15, 2021)

Elvis said:


> Yes, because the airplane is a born Dogfighter. Same scenario WWI aircraft found themselves in.
> The Zero, while having excellent climbing ability, wasn't such a good diver, as the plane was built too lightly (to put it in a very general sense), thus it wasn't a good plane for "Boom and Zoom" tactics, which is a WWII scenario.
> That's what I meant when I posted that statement.


Every plane design involves the art of intelligent compromise. Japan needed a plane with a 600 mile combat radius, one that could operate from aircraft carriers, including small ones. The plane had to be able to take on the best planes operated by potential adversaries, and it had to make due with a 950-1050 horsepower engine and be affordable to the Japanese government and be producable by Japanese industry. The Zero fulfilled these requirements, but more to the point, in the 5 months from December 1941 through May 1942, the Zero drove all opposition from the sky, enabling the country to accomplish most of its territorial goals by May 1942. During this period, and even through the battles of Coral Sea and Midway, losses of the A6M in the air were manageable even though the plane did not have armor or protected fuel tanks. To that end, those features were not essential to the aircraft accomplishing its mission. In the Guadalcanal campaign, despite the Zero generally flying 600 miles from Rabaul, the Zero fought the F4F to a statistical draw (according to Lundstrum), and the Wildcat was a much more expensive aircraft than the A6M. The problem with the Zero was that it wasn't replaced in 1943 when the Allies replaced their 1941 fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Nov 28, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> The problem with the Zero was that it wasn't replaced in 1943 when the Allies replaced their 1941 fighters.


Yes, interesting comment.
I have to wonder if the Japanese Military felt that the Zero needed to be replaced?
I think we replaced our "early war" fighters with more advanced models because we felt they needed to be replaced.
See what I'm getting at?


----------



## GregP (Nov 28, 2021)

I always thought the "combat switch" was the gun switch that turns on the ability to fire the guns with the stick trigger. With this off, formation flying is far safer!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2021)

Even in peacetime, aircraft were evolving.
Wartime just accelerates that process.

The A6M was in the process of replacing the A5M and the KI-43 was in the process of replacing the KI-27, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

At this same point in time, the USN's F4F was replacing the F2A and the USAAC's P-40 as replacing the P-36.

Once war broke out (in the pacific), the US accelerated it's development of other types that were already in the works: P-38, P-39, etc.

The Japanese seemed to be a bit slower in this respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2021)

Elvis said:


> I have to wonder if the Japanese Military felt that the Zero needed to be replaced?



It appears a viable question, but, yes, the IJN had definitely intended on replacing the A6M, with the A7M Reppu, which should have had a similar timeline as the F6F, but for many seemingly inexplicable reasons it didn't. It's first flight in 1944 was not until after the F6F had already entered service aboard US carriers, _two years _after the project to replace the A6M was reinitiated in mid 1942 - it had its origins in a requirement laid down in 1940 around the same time as the A6M first entered service, and why was this not progressed with in the mean time to be reinitiated two years later?

I have not read any definitive answer to exactly why the resources were placed into improving the A6M instead of concentrating on getting its replacement into service. From the reading of English texts, which might suffer owing to lack of credible information, the tactical situation the IJN found itself dealing with following the defeat at Midway and the loss of a significant portion of its carrier fleet saw a rise in urgency for land based interceptors and effort went into those, Mitsubishi concentrating on the J2M, whose development began before Japan went to war, and Kawanishi the N1K land based fighters, while the A6M was left to soldier on on carrier decks.

Development of the A7M was protracted, with bombing and a natural disaster contributing to its failure to see production before the end of the war, but these things did not begin to affect the programme until 1944/1945, so what happened beforehand? Was it as simple as a lack of carriers meant that Japan's focus changed to land based interceptors keeping the enemy away from its newly captured territory? It seems a stretch to believe such a simplistic view of a reaction to the strategic situation Japan found itself in, but Mitsubishi's resources did focus on the J2M and improving the A6M, rather than concentrating on pushing the A7M toward service status. One author hints at the fact that Mitsubishi was overworked and under resourced but that doesn't explain the effort stream channeled toward improving the A6M instead of developing the A7M...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It seems a stretch to believe such a simplistic view of a reaction to the strategic situation Japan found itself in, but Mitsubishi's resources did focus on the J2M and improving the A6M, rather than concentrating on pushing the A7M toward service status. One author hints at the fact that Mitsubishi was overworked and under resourced but that doesn't explain the effort stream channeled toward improving the A6M instead of developing the A7M...



Why the IJN was not going with Raiden to be designed as, 1st, carrier-borne fighter, is/was a big mistake.
As for the improving the A6M, that was going on on a very sedate tempo.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 29, 2021)

There is a joke that the IJN’s main enemy was the IJA but perhaps the effects of the fight between Mitsubishi and Nakajima is underestimated. Mitsubishi always wanted to fit a Mitsubishi engine to the A6M, initially the Zuisei in the A6M1 but from 1942 or earlier the Kinsei, which they finally fitted to the A6M8. Mitsubishi wanted to develop its A20 engine project, which used 18 Kinsei sized cylinders, but had difficulty getting funding after the Navy decided in September 1942 that it would standardize on the Nakajima Homare (Nakajima Chikuhei had been an officer in the Navy). The Army also preferred the A18 using 18 Kasei cylinders which would power the Ki-67. The initial design of the A7M used the A20 (to become the M9K) but had to be changed to use the Homare. However, the Homare 11 did not give the predicted power at altitude and the A7M1 was abandoned. By 1944, the slow development of the A20 had given a reliable engine for the A7M2 but that was much too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2021)

cherry blossom said:


> By 1944, the slow development of the A20 had given a reliable engine for the A7M2 but that was much too late.



Any good source that confirms that A20 was a reliable engine by 1944?


----------



## cherry blossom (Nov 29, 2021)

There were probably vibration problems as I have read that rubber mounting buffers had to be installed in the Ki-83. Goodwin and Starkings “Japanese Aero-Engines” has “… and by late 1944 the few hand-built examples completed by then were running reliably and smoothly.” on page 116.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2021)

cherry blossom said:


> There were probably vibration problems as I have read that rubber mounting buffers had to be installed in the Ki-83. Goodwin and Starkings “Japanese Aero-Engines” has “… and by late 1944 the few hand-built examples completed by then were running reliably and smoothly.” on page 116.



Thank you for the feedback. 
Qualifier _'by late 1944 a few hand-built examples completed by then were running reliably and smoothly'_ sounds much more like '_by 1945 engine was reliable_', rather than '_by 1944 engine was reliable_', at least from Japanese military point of view?


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2021)

Engine issues certainly sound like a logical reason behind delay in the project toward 1944/45, but again, why did Mitsubishi bring the project to a halt in 1940, then re-instate it in 1942? Did the government/military halt development? That seems the most logical reason, I'm sure Horikoshi and Co would have been following orders. Another example of the lack of strategic foresight the Japanese military regime displayed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Engine issues certainly sound like a logical reason behind delay in the project toward 1944/45, but again, why did Mitsubishi bring the project to a halt in 1940, then re-instate it in 1942? Did the government/military halt development? That seems the most logical reason, I'm sure Horikoshi and Co would have been following orders. Another example of the lack of strategic foresight the Japanese military regime displayed.



IJN was calling the shots, and they made mistake (doh). Especially it is a glaring one, when we know that J2M was in the works with 1400 HP engine by 1941. By what time Japanese fully knew that Germans were making a fighter around 1600 HP engine, that in return meant the British and Americans are at least there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 30, 2021)

The J2M was an IJN aircraft, but was NOT a carrier aircraft. Not saying anything, just trying to be clear that the J2M was land-based.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 30, 2021)

GregP said:


> The J2M was an IJN aircraft, but was NOT a carrier aircraft. Not saying anything, just trying to be clear that the J2M was land-based.



That was made pretty clear earlier when I stated that the IJN concentrated development of land based interceptors, such as the J2M and N1K series.


----------



## GregP (Nov 30, 2021)

Sorry, nuuumannn, didn't read the earlier post. Just looked at using Raiden as a carrier aircraft. 

Mea culpa. Cheers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2021)

Just an idea but the the Japanese engine development was a bit behind the times. 
The aircraft development times were also behind the curve/s. 
As by the A6M the first prototype flew in April 1939 but the first satisfactory combat examples weren't built until May of 1941.

In 1939 (or earlier) to 1941/42 some other aircraft chose the route of small wing and high wind loading to get the max performance from smaller engines. 

For the Japanese the "idea" of a interceptor may have also made sense because they had no (or little) radar coverage.

Once starting it on that path it is hard to stop.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Just an idea but the the Japanese engine development was a bit behind the times.
> The aircraft development times were also behind the curve/s.



We can note that Mitsubishi designed the Zero around _the least_ powerful of their engines. I'll agree that Japanese engines were not the greatest in a time period we are taking a look, there was still an opportunity to choose a more powerful engine as a starting point, with Mitsubishi already having two of those in the pipeline at the time.



Shortround6 said:


> In 1939 (or earlier) to 1941/42 some other aircraft chose the route of small wing and high wind loading to get the max performance from smaller engines.
> 
> For the Japanese the "idea" of a interceptor may have also made sense because they had no (or little) radar coverage.
> 
> Once starting it on that path it is hard to stop.



Capable carrier-borne interceptors were even more needed, since their fail means that the CV is likely badly damaged by an air attack, or even lost, with all aircraft that depend on it. An air base that gets bombed is in function another day. Air base can be established in mater or days need be, aircraft carrier less so.
A CV-borne interceptor can be quickly transformed into a land-based interceptor. Opposite is not true.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 2, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> an opportunity to choose a more powerful engine as a starting point, with Mitsubishi already having two of those in the pipeline at the time.


That has always baffled me, why Mitsubishi chose a rival firm's engine instead of their own Kinsei. Perhaps the latter wasn't immediately available for use in the prototypes?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 2, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That has always baffled me, why Mitsubishi chose a rival firm's engine instead of their own Kinsei. Perhaps the latter wasn't immediately available for use in the prototypes?



IIRC it was IJN that wanted something better than Zuisei of the time (840 HP vs. 950 HP for the Sakae); Navy considered the Kinsei as not as fuel-efficient as the smaller Sakae?

Zuisei was quickly (talk 1941) improved to the power-vs-altitude levels of contemporary Sakae (no wonder, the two were as close in construction, displacement and fuel used as possible) and kept as such until 1944?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 2, 2021)

GregP said:


> Mea culpa. Cheers.



No problem, Greg. 



Clayton Magnet said:


> That has always baffled me, why Mitsubishi chose a rival firm's engine instead of their own Kinsei. Perhaps the latter wasn't immediately available for use in the prototypes?





tomo pauk said:


> We can note that Mitsubishi designed the Zero around _the least_ powerful of their engines. I'll agree that Japanese engines were not the greatest in a time period we are taking a look, there was still an opportunity to choose a more powerful engine as a starting point, with Mitsubishi already having two of those in the pipeline at the time.



I don't think it was Mitsubishi's choice to accept either the Sakai or the Zuisei. Horikoshi/Mitsubishi didn't favour the Sakai because it was made by Nakajima, Horikoshi wanted to use the Kinsei, which was more powerful than both engines, but the navy insisted on the Zuisei, which worried Horikoshi because of comparable aircraft being built overseas were powered by engines with greater power output, and so the Zuisei was installed on the first two prototypes only. Following them, the Sakai was installed in the third prototype, most likely because of the Zuisei's low power output; the Sakai established the production layout and was most likely also a navy decision, given Horikoshi's desire not to fit a rival firm's engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 2, 2021)

You'll notice that Horikoshi's NEXT aircraft, the J2M Raiden, had a more powerful engine, more on par with Allied rivals. It also had self-sealing tanks and pilot armor.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 5, 2021)

I have been looking at Akira Yoshimura’s Zero Fighter to try to understand how the Zero was designed. There is a problem that Yoshimura was a novelist rather than a historian and doesn’t believe in footnotes but he probably spoke to people who may have remembered a few details and he may have recorded them correctly. Page 30 has:

Under these circumstances, Horikoshi had a choice of two types of air-cooled radial engines, the Zuisei (Star of Fortune) or Kinsei (Venus). Mitsubishi made both. Ideally, Horikoshi wanted something between these two. The Kinsei delivered 1,100 horsepower at 4,200 metres, the Zuisei 875 horsepower at 3,600 metres. However, he chose the smaller Zuisei to reduce weight. Even so, it was estimated that the Zuisei would make the new fighter 50 percent heavier than the Type 96 fighter. However, installing the Kinsei would have produced a much greater increase, 70 to 80 percent. Horikoshi felt this would be unacceptable to pilots.

The “pilots” above may refer to Lieutenant-Commander Genda who was present in a meeting on 7th January 1938 and argued fiercely for manoeuvrability with Lieutenant-Commander Shibata Takeo who insisted on speed. However, perhaps we should note that Japan had a number of small aircraft carriers such as Ryūjō and was building others such as Zuiho and Shoho whilst planning to convert several liners. The USN kept Wildcat versions in production until 1945 and planned to replace them with the Bearcat on CVEs whilst using the F6F and F4U from larger carriers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 6, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The test in question was concluded on January 26, 1943. That's almost a year before the P-38 starting flying long range escort missions over Germany. In fact the tests were being conducted in the same time frame that the time the P-38 was entering combat in the Pacific and North Africa. Regardless of who decided not to improve the heating there was plenty of time to implement a fix before the P-38J began having issues over Germany.
> 
> 
> View attachment 647331
> ...


Read on down to item 4.B. RECOMMENDATIONS: "Suitable means of maintaining cockpit heat at altitude be installed. (Cockpit heater on P-39N is best seen to date)." 

They always test the newer models against the P-39D-1 which is the heaviest and lowest powered model produced in 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> They always test the newer models against the P-39D-1 which is the heaviest and lowest powered model produced in 1942.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 6, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> They always test the newer models against the P-39D-1 which is the heaviest and lowest powered model produced in 1942.


This is in the present tense, are they still trying to squeeze the last few MPH out of the P-39?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 6, 2021)

pbehn said:


> This is in the present tense, are they still trying to squeeze the last few MPH out of the P-39?



20 more kts IAS and it'll put an F-35 on its back begging for mercy, by god.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 7, 2021)

cherry blossom said:


> However, he chose the smaller Zuisei to reduce weight. Even so, it was estimated that the Zuisei would make the new fighter 50 percent heavier than the Type 96 fighter. However, installing the Kinsei would have produced a much greater increase, 70 to 80 percent. Horikoshi felt this would be unacceptable to pilots.



My understanding is contrary to this; Horikoshi favoured the Kinsei, but it was the navy's insistence that power loading not exceed 5.5lb per hp so the Zuisei was fitted. Horikoshi's fears were surrounding the low power output of the Zuisei. It was the navy's insistence on fitting the Sakai.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 7, 2021)

GregP said:


> You'll notice that Horikoshi's NEXT aircraft, the J2M Raiden, had a more powerful engine, more on par with Allied rivals. It also had self-sealing tanks and pilot armor.



Yes, but the J2M was built to an entirely different specification, in that it was designed to augment the A6M as the navy's land based interceptor. The A6M was designed to fulfil an extremely demanding specification, which even Mitsubishi's rivals decided they could not do, so the philosophy behind the A6M was stringent and in fulfilling the spec, Horikoshi managed to create a brilliant design that exceeded even the navy's expectations. The other consideration behind the A6M was that its development was relatively trouble free, apart from vibration in the first two prototypes, which was cured by installing a three-bladed propeller and then in the third prototype a different engine. 

Uniquely, armour and self sealing tanks was retrofitted to models of the A6M, then removed again (!). In the Model 52b, armoured glass and a CO2 fire extinguishing system was installed and in the 52c armour plating behind the pilot and hardened glass in the fairing behind his head, as well as water meth injection for the Sakai, although the designers wanted a more powerful engine but were refused by the navy. In the Model 53c, the self sealing tanks were removed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 7, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> My understanding is contrary to this; Horikoshi favoured the Kinsei, but it was the navy's insistence that power loading not exceed 5.5lb per hp so the Zuisei was fitted. Horikoshi's fears were surrounding the low power output of the Zuisei. It was the navy's insistence on fitting the Sakai.


Its not really my statement. I was quoting Akira Yoshimura's Zero Fighter and I don't know where he found it. Has anyone read Horikoshi Jiro's "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter", which was translated into English in 1992? I would guess that might be the best source for Horikoshi's thinking in early 1938. It seems plausible that Horikoshi in 1938 was not planning an aircraft with the A6M8's fuselage, still less the slimmer Ki-100 design. Thus a 1938 Kinsei proposal would have been heavier than a late 1942 proposal after the Kinsei 60 series became available and designs such as the Fw 190 had been reported.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 7, 2021)

cherry blossom said:


> Its not really my statement. I was quoting Akira Yoshimura's Zero Fighter and I don't know where he found it. Has anyone read Horikoshi Jiro's "Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter", which was translated into English in 1992? I would guess that might be the best source for Horikoshi's thinking in early 1938. It seems plausible that Horikoshi in 1938 was not planning an aircraft with the A6M8's fuselage, still less the slimmer Ki-100 design. Thus a 1938 Kinsei proposal would have been heavier than a late 1942 proposal after the Kinsei 60 series became available and designs such as the Fw 190 had been reported.



Now, you could be right of course because as I mentioned, the information I have is what I've read and have a couiple of sources saying the same, but digging a little deeper I have found a few sources stating what you have read. Sourcing Horikoshi himself is probably the best, as you state. One book I have read states that the navy selected the Sakai because neither Mitsubishi engine were sufficiently reliable at the time.

As for the aircraft's design and predicting what will eventuate, obviously the navy issued the type's replacement spec in 1941 as 16-Shi, which was not progressed with, but 17-Shi, which Horikoshi produced the A7M was issued in 1942, which all demonstrates that the A6M was not to have remained in service for as long as it did.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 8, 2021)

Just to add to this, I found yet another reference, albeit a not entirely reliable one, the Squadron/Signal for the A6M that states that Horikoshi originally wanted to choose the Kinsei, but it was too heavy and settled for the Zuisei because it was lighter... Needless to say its academic anyway since the IJN determined that the Sakai should power in-service aircraft...


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 8, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Now, you could be right of course because as I mentioned, the information I have is what I've read and have a couiple of sources saying the same, but digging a little deeper I have found a few sources stating what you have read. Sourcing Horikoshi himself is probably the best, as you state. One book I have read states that the navy selected the Sakai because neither Mitsubishi engine were sufficiently reliable at the time.
> 
> As for the aircraft's design and predicting what will eventuate, obviously the navy issued the type's replacement spec in 1941 as 16-Shi, which was not progressed with, but 17-Shi, which Horikoshi produced the A7M was issued in 1942, which all demonstrates that the A6M was not to have remained in service for as long as it did.


Hi
'Eagles of Mitsubishi, The Story of the Zero Fighter' by Jiro Horikoshi (translated by Shojiro Shido and Harold N Wantiez), Orbis 1982, has the following:













However, the book does make a few claims that are improbable, for example on page 131 he claims that the Zero downed 17 Spitfires over Colombo in 1942, where there were no Spitfires at the time!

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> However, the book does make a few claims that are improbable, for example on page 131 he claims that the Zero downed 17 Spitfires over Colombo in 1942,


Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?


Hi
Probably not as they claimed even more Hurricanes. FAA Fulmars were there so they may have confused that type with the Fulmar, even if it looked nothing like it. He is probably just repeating stories he heard at the time. There were about 50 Hurricanes plus 2 sqns of FAA Fulmars available I believe. The text is below:




Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 8, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 'Eagles of Mitsubishi, The Story of the Zero Fighter' by Jiro Horikoshi (translated by Shojiro Shido and Harold N Wantiez), Orbis 1982, has the following:



Excellent Mike, just what we needed. It certainly confirms both of our statements, that he favoured the bigger Kinsei but ultimately chose the Zuisei because of its lightness, as per the Squadron Signal A6M.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?


Certainly as many USAAF pilots claimed to shoot down Me109s in the first months of the Pacific war when all the Japanese were operating were radial engined fighters


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 8, 2021)

It seems clear that Horikoshi Jiro’s choice of the Zuisei was driven by weight. However, there is still a small puzzle as the A6M8 prototypes were derived from two A6M5c airframes and seem to weigh almost exactly the same as the A6M5c as Joe Baugher at Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Jim Broshot at Zero Facts and Figures both have the A6M5c with 4,751lb empty and 6,945lb loaded while the A6M8 model 64 has 4,740lb (empty) and 6,945lb (loaded). Thus the loss of a 13.2 mm machine gun seems to balance the heavier engine.

The problem may perhaps be the range as the A6M5c is quoted as having a maximum range 1314 miles at a cruising speed of 230 mph (is that with the 330 litres drop tank?) whilst the A6M8’s range is not given but it carried exactly the same 610 litres of internal fuel. According to Wikipedia, the Ki-100 carried 595 litres and its range was 1,400 km (870 mi, 760 nmi) on internal fuel only which must be close to the range of the slightly slower A6M8. It may be worth pointing out that the Ki-100 had self sealing tanks but they were omitted from the A6M5c and the A6M8 prototypes. The A6M6c had self sealing tanks and its range is given as only 956miles at 230mph.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2021)

At any rate, the installation of Kinsei on Zero was over-due by about three years, if not four.


----------



## PAT303 (Dec 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Is it possible that they mistook Hurricanes for Spitfires?


So a 38 to 1 success ratio in one engagement?, find that hard to believe.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 10, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> So a 38 to 1 success ratio in one engagement?, find that hard to believe.


38 to 1 ratio?

What in the hell are you talking about?


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> 38 to 1 ratio?
> 
> What in the hell are you talking about?



The text in post #1570.

The text is nonsense because there weren't any Spitfires in Colombo at that time, as has been pointed out up-thread. The IJNAF pilots were also significantly over-claiming.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Probably not as they claimed even more Hurricanes. FAA Fulmars were there so they may have confused that type with the Fulmar, even if it looked nothing like it. He is probably just repeating stories he heard at the time. There were about 50 Hurricanes plus 2 sqns of FAA Fulmars available I believe. The text is below:
> View attachment 650868
> 
> Mike


Been doing a little research on this and agree this 21 to 1 is BS. No doubt it was a one-sided battle.



LankaLibrary.com : WW II Japanese air raid on Colombo


----------



## slaterat (Dec 11, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Been doing a little research on this and agree this 21 to 1 is BS. No doubt it was a one-sided battle.


I have been looking for that article for years. It is the only article I have ever read that mentions the Zeros getting lost and failing to rtb. Printed a copy this time.

Here's another good account of the battle.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wawny (Jan 7, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> Attached is the full file that your document was extracted from and you will note two differences. Whoever copied the pages you posted did a far better job than the National Archives of Australia when they copied the file, and there is no note on the bottom of the first page.
> 
> Incidentally Sydney Cotton also designed the famous WW1 Sidcot flying suit and had a lot to do with developing aerial photography


Thank you for that document. I missed the notification that would have come with this, so my apologies for the late response. I've read some of it and will thoroughly digest it shortly.
I have included, for your interest, a personal note to whom I am not sure, with my deciphering. I must correct my initial quote of 9 degree bend in the tail - it was 15. Lucky it was still attached!!
Thank you again


----------

