# March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2022)

In the recent P-40 thread, the discussion about the merits of Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, P-40 etc. was initiated. So I'd start the thread dedicated to this small yet very important time frame, about the best fighters in it. 2-engined fighters also qualify, so do the fighters from the whole world.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 20, 2022)

Top ranking must go to the Bf 109F-1, which was just entering service in October 1940.
I would rank the P-40 ahead of the Hurricane, assuming any Tomahawks were combat serviceable (pilot armor, self sealing tanks) by then, but I don't think they entered service until early 1941


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2022)

Hurricane II with Merlin XX engine was just going into squadron service in Sept?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2022)

A6M2 mod 11 Zeros were the standard in October 1940. 
19 built out 53 for the year from Jan through Oct. 7 more built in Nov as production changed to the A6M2 mod 21.

No folding wing tips so carrier use is restricted. The Japanese were investigating an inflight structural failure from March 1940 but not until a pair of accidents in April of 1941 did they get more evidence as to possible problems. 

No Ki-43s were squadron service in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 20, 2022)

In the summer of 1940 the Spitfire and 109 are tied for first, the Hurricane is second. Most other fighters aren't really combat worthy or not available in significant numbers or lacking in performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 21, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A6M2 mod 11 Zeros were the standard in October 1940.
> 19 built out 53 for the year from Jan through Oct. 7 more built in Nov as production changed to the A6M2 mod 21.


The A6M2 was significantly slower than a Bf109E or a Spitfire_I or_II. The Zero would be vulnerable to hit and run tactics. Given that the Bf109E was the least manoeuvrable aircraft in Europe in 1940, I don't see the Germans hanging around to dogfight. The Spitfires probably would have to learn.


----------



## Tkdog (Jan 21, 2022)

Zero vs 109 is the perfect example for the question best fighter at what? The 109 would have been useless in the Zero’s role and the opposite is also true. The planes were built to a purpose. Their success or failure is based on how close that aligned with the situations they actually faced.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 21, 2022)

P-36 - the French Hawk 75 accounted for more downed Luftwaffe aircraft during the Battle of France than any other type.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A6M2 mod 11 Zeros were the standard in October 1940.


Not a chance, A6M2's flying into English or German controlled airspace in 1940 would be butchered, Spitfires and Me109's are not only significantly faster but armored with good pilot protection, one thing also forgotten is they have working radio's.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2022)

slaterat said:


> In the summer of 1940 the Spitfire and 109 are tied for first


I'd give it to the Spit only because the guns and ammunition worked, other than that they are tied.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 21, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Top ranking must go to the Bf 109F-1, which was just entering service in October 1940.


It had less firepower than the E-4's it replaced.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

Did the F-1 have the Mg 151 yet? or was it still packing the Mg FF Motorcannon? I think the F-2 was the first to use the Mg 151/15 as standard, but I may be mistaken.
Perhaps it was a reduction in firepower, but it was still sufficient to destroy anything flying at the time. 8x Brownings was probably the better armament, until the Mg 151/20 became standard in the F-4.

The Bf 109F-1 was better than the Mk.II Spitfire, and would have had a large speed advantage over the A6M at the time. Combined with the fact that Luftwaffe pilots generally avoided slow turning fights, they could have engaged and disengaged at will if faced with Zero's.

P-36/Hawk 75 would have a similar disadvantage, whereas it could turn fight effectively with anything except the Zero, it lacked the speed to be able to disengage, and had rather meager armament. Both the Spitfire Mk.II and Bf 109F-1 would be able to dominate it, assuming they were flown to their strengths.

D.520 would probably rank well, but behind the Spitfire and Bf 109.

F4F might have been available, but maybe not with armour or functional guns, but would be ranked somewhere around the Hawk 75 and Hurricane, although the Hurricane Mk.II was probably better than the other 2.

My ranking would be;
Bf 109F-1
Spitfire Mk.II/Bf 109E-3
D.520
A6M/Hurricane Mk.II
P-36/F4F


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 21, 2022)

I'm going with Tkdog on this. The Me 109 and Spitfire would be as effective in striking island outposts in the middle of nowhere as the A6M and F4F would be in the Battle of Britain. Since the timeframe is before the great carrier battles, perhaps carrier planes shouldn't be considered. As no-one mentioned Fulmars, Me 109Ts and Rocs, this shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

The F4F available during this timeframe would have been ex-french G-36A/Martlet Mk.I's, with single stage superchargers and R-1820's. Not sure if the FAA had installed armour or self self sealing tanks yet, or if that was only standard on Martlet Mk.II's. The Martlet Mk.I was not the same aircraft as the famous F4F-3's fighting in the pacific 2 years later, and would have been at a distinct disadvantage against everything else previously listed. I am not sure if they even broke 300mph in level flight
Better as a pure fighter than the Fulmar though

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm going with Tkdog on this. The Me 109 and Spitfire would be as effective in striking island outposts in the middle of nowhere as the A6M and F4F would be in the Battle of Britain. Since the timeframe is before the great carrier battles, perhaps carrier planes shouldn't be considered. As no-one mentioned Fulmars, Me 109Ts and Rocs, this shouldn't be a problem.


The A6M2s in 1940 had problems with wing strength until the Spring (April/May of 1941).
Also they didn't fit (at least not easily) which is why they were fitting the folding wings in Oct/Nov 1940.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Also they didn't fit (at least not easily)


Wildcats also didn't get folding wings until sometime in 1941. Not much use on a British carrier if they didn't fit onboard

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2022)

The Hurricane's ease of production and repair meant that Goering had to kill RAF pilots to win, simply destroying machines wasnt enough.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

pbehn said:


> The Hurricane's ease of production and repair meant that Goering had to kill RAF pilots to win, simply destroying machines wasnt enough


The same could be said about the Bf 109, which was very inexpensive and quick to manufacture


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm going with Tkdog on this. The Me 109 and Spitfire would be as effective in striking island outposts in the middle of nowhere as the A6M and F4F would be in the Battle of Britain. Since the timeframe is before the great carrier battles, perhaps carrier planes shouldn't be considered. As no-one mentioned Fulmars, Me 109Ts and Rocs, this shouldn't be a problem.


The great thing if you consider the Roc as a naval fighter or as a land fighter, it's terrible in either scenario.

So it never is an issue.

The P-26 on the other hand is very agile.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 21, 2022)

I'm going with a draw between the Spit and the -109 for the time in question.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

The Basket said:


> The P-26 on the other hand is very agile.


So was a Sopwith Camel, and it was only slightly more outdated than the P-26 in 1940


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 21, 2022)

The P-26 had WAY cooler paint jobs.

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


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2022)

P-26 was still operational in 1941. So must have been good in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 21, 2022)

Was it ever proved/disproved that a P-26 scored a Zero?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

The Basket said:


> P-26 was still operational in 1941. So must have been good in 1940.


It was still in service because the Philippine Army Air Corps had nothing else, not because it was in any way competitive. They fought valiantly, but were hopelessly outclassed against even second tier Japanese fighters like the A5M. 
The Gloster Gamecock was technically still in service in 1940, even though it was obsolete a decade earlier

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Jan 21, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> It was still in service because the Philippine Army Air Corps had nothing else, not because it was in any way competitive. They fought valiantly, but were hopelessly outclassed against even second tier Japanese fighters like the A5M.
> The Gloster Gamecock was technically still in service in 1940, even though it was obsolete a decade earlier


Hi
The Gloster Gamecock was declared obsolete by the RAF in March 1933, how was it 'technically' still in service in 1940?

Mike

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Was it ever proved/disproved that a P-26 scored a Zero?


On Family Feud the P-26 scored Zero.

Name a ww2 fighter?
P-26.
Our survey said....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 21, 2022)

The Basket said:


> On Family Feud the P-26 scored Zero.
> 
> Name a ww2 fighter?
> P-26.
> Our survey said....


Alex, "What is a Peashooter?" for 200...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 21, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> The Gloster Gamecock was declared obsolete by the RAF in March 1933, how was it 'technically' still in service in 1940?
> 
> Mike


The Finns used the Gamecock during the Winter War in 1940, albeit in very limited numbers

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jan 21, 2022)

The Brewster Buffalo should be at least mentioned as the Finnish order would be delivered by this time. I am not sure when the first F2A-2 was delivered. The early Buffalos, without armour or self-sealing tanks, might have been able to turn with a Zero but were obviously much slower than Spitfires or 109s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The same could be said about the Bf 109, which was very inexpensive and quick to manufacture


It could be said, but not in the time frame of the OP question. Part of the BoB was tactical and about quality of machines. A bigger part was about production, intel (what you think or know about your opponent) and psychology. During the BoB the British were massively out producing Germany in fighters at a rate of around 500 to 250 per month, the British were also returning damaged aircraft to service much more quickly because the LW hadnt set up anything to do it in France. At the crux of the Battle in September Goering and his staff believed the RAF were down to the last 50 fighters while in fact the British numerically were as strong as ever and the Duxford wing itself contained 50 Hurricanes. Much has been lost in the sands of time but the appearance of the Duxford wing over London, despite not achieving what they claimed in aerial "victories" had a massive effect on the bomber crews, talk of being down to "the last 50" was fantasy, they are as strong as ever.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 21, 2022)

The P-26 is far better than any Spitfire or 109 when it came to having trousered undercarriage.

That to me is the most important thing in a fighter. 

Trousered undercarriage. 

Best fighter to serve in the Philippines made by Boeing and the paint job was off the charts. I do like yellow on an object and some of them P-26 the yellow is just lavished on.

Sweet lordy lordy.

Of course the Spitfire is the greatest of all. Just ask me. But the P-26 has far superior paint job. And that could be more important.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jan 21, 2022)

The P-26 was still operational at Pearl Harbor. Some can be seen in the wreckage.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 21, 2022)

The Basket said:


> The P-26 is far better than any Spitfire or 109 when it came to having trousered undercarriage.
> 
> That to me is the most important thing in a fighter.
> 
> Trousered undercarriage.




Spitfire. Trousered undercarriage.

Spitfires are the best!

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> View attachment 655361​Spitfire. Trousered undercarriage.
> 
> Spitfires are the best!


Spitfire was a 14th century term for "fat legs"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 21, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Was it ever proved/disproved that a P-26 scored a Zero?


The Philippine's 6th Pursuit Sqd. did down IJN aircraft on 10 December (1 G3M, 3 A6M) and saw a great deal of action ober the next few days.
By 14 December, a sole P-26 remained servicable and it, piloted by Lt. Gozar, went up to challenge an IJN attacking force. He managed to damage several before his plane was severely damaged in a fight with three A6Ms, one of which was claimed to have been shot down.
Lt. Gozar managed to safely land his P-26, but it was not salvageable.
And with that last action, the P-26s ceased to exist in the Pacific.

For the record, the IJN aircraft claimed to have been downed by the 6th PS were witnessed by people on the ground. It was through their accounts that Capt. Villamore and Lt. Gozar were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross by MacArther and Lt. Juliano (Gozar's wingman) received the Gold Cross.

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


----------



## Tkdog (Jan 22, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The Finns used the Gamecock during the Winter War in 1940, albeit in very limited numbers




I believe I’ve heard it said that the Finns also used the Wright Flier and a couple of Chanute gliders during the Winter War. I mean, they used everything else they could find

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2022)

Which US aircraft were actually available in quantity in the period of March to October 1940?

P-40 - just started deliveries
Martlet I - but not yet F4F-3, those would be delivered from December.
P-36
P-35
P-26

Anything else as modern as those?

The first YP-39 flew for the first time mid September 1940.
The first YP-38 flew for the first time mid September 1940.
There were 13 YP-37s undergoing service testing around that time.
The first YP-43 was delivered to the USAAF in September 1940.


For the RAF the Spitfire I/II and Hurricane I were the only two that could really be considered in this time frame.

And for the Luftwaffe it was the Bf 109E, maybe the Bf 109F sneaks in at the end. The Fw 190 would not appear until nearly a year later.

I am not certain about how an A6M that appeared at that time compares with the ones that would attack Pearl Harbor a year later.

So, my list:

1. Spitfire I/II
1. Bf 109 E
3. Hurricane I
4. A6M
5. P-40

Wow, I found enough planes to make a list of 5 without resorting to the XP-39B!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 22, 2022)

Here is my idea.

Let's not play top trumps as it is simply top speed of summat. War is not like that.

The true question is which fighter in a particular time frame achieved its war goals.

So Hurricane achieved its war goals in 1940 better than a Spitfire.

And the P-26 achieved its war goals better than a P-51 cos the P-51 ain't there!

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Which US aircraft were actually available in quantity in the period of March to October 1940?
> 
> P-40 - just started deliveries
> Martlet I - but not yet F4F-3, those would be delivered from December.
> ...


P-40 started in deliveries in May. 
310 P-40/Tomahawks (ex french) were completed by the _end_ of Sept. First Deliveries of the ex French aircraft started Sept 18. Sept production was 114 planes.
The US got 200 P-40s before production was stopped to handle the French/British orders. The US army would get the rest of the planes later but improved models

However, the Early Allisons needed to be reworked and were remanufactured (n 1941). They were de-rated in US service (but not British) to 950hp at 8000ft. 
This involved two main problems.
One was that the US Army wanted to rate the engine at 1090hp at 13,200ft(?) instead of 1040hp at 14,200ft.
Two, this change affected the engine life and the engine would no longer meet hours of operation goal the army wanted. 
The engines were remanufactured, but the British didn't get any. 

The Allison engine had passed two type sets, on at each power rating but the 1090hp rating took a while and it failed the first attempt/s. 
However the Merin was rated at a 100 hour test and some foreign engines couldn't make 100 hours it may not be that important. 

In any case the P-40s being delivered in the summer and early fall of 1940 to the US (and to Britain) did NOT have armor, BP glass or SS tanks. 




wuzak said:


> I am not certain about how an A6M that appeared at that time compares with the ones that would attack Pearl Harbor a year later.


The ones that attacked Pearl Harbor were ALL manufactured after April 1941. There were a lot of small differences in the wings to solve a structural issue.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Philippine's 6th Pursuit Sqd. did down IJN aircraft on 10 December (1 G3M, 3 A6M) and saw a great deal of action ober the next few days.
> By 14 December, a sole P-26 remained servicable and it, piloted by Lt. Gozar, went up to challenge an IJN attacking force. He managed to damage several before his plane was severely damaged in a fight with three A6Ms, one of which was claimed to have been shot down.
> Lt. Gozar managed to safely land his P-26, but it was not salvageable.
> And with that last action, the P-26s ceased to exist in the Pacific.
> ...


AFAIK the P-26 don't shoot down A6M, also if they claimed, i know there is a debate on this, the A6M loss is credited to P-35 (USAAF)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jan 22, 2022)

If only the P-26 had an Allison engine.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2022)

109 (DB engined) and Spit for the top 2
Zero
Hurricane
P-36

here a note from J-aircraft.com for the Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 11 (Model 21 with folding wingtips)
*Number Built*: 2 prototypes by Mitsubishi, 15 pre-production by Mitsubishi, 47 Model 11 by Mitsubishi, 127 Model 21 by Mitsubishi, 1,425 Model 21 by Mitsubishi (740) and Nakajima (685) 
*Notes*: wing spar reinforced beginning with 22nd aircraft, wing tips manuually folding beginning with 65th aircraft, Aileron tab balance fitted beginning with 192nd aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Jan 22, 2022)

Air force:

1. Messerschmidt Bf.109
1. Supermarine Spitfire II
3. Morane-Saulnier MS.406 (can we include MS.410 - it just reached squadrons as France fell)
4. Curtis P-40
5. Messerschmidt Bf.110
5. Hawker Hurricane

Honourable mentions:
1. Westland Whirlwind
2. Bristol Beaufighter
3. Brewster Buffalo
4. Fiat G.50 Freccia
5. Deswoitine D.520
6. Grumman Marlet
7. Macchi C.200 Saetta

I can't bring myself to include Fiat Cr.42 Falco/Boulton Paul Defiant.

Naval Fighters
1. Mitsubishi Zero = Probably only one which holds own against Air Force fighters.
2. Fairey Fulmar
Intentional gap
3. Blackburn Skua
4. Mitsubishi Claude
5. Grumman F3F

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2022)

Until the wing issues were fixed the A6M2 was limited to 250kts IAS air speed and to 5 Gs when pulling out. 
This limit was put into place in the spring of 1941 so the planes in 1940 weren't operating under that restriction.
The aileron trim tabs were partially responsible for over stressing the wing. However the trim tabs were fitted to improve the roll response and if the planes with the trim tabs are considered to have poor roll response one wonders how bad the planes without the trim tabs were?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 22, 2022)

special ed said:


> If only the P-26 had an Allison engine.


And roundels?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2022)

Dimlee said:


> And roundels?



Nah. Stick the iron crosses on it and it goes 300 mph at least.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 22, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Nah. Stick the iron crosses on it and it goes 300 mph at least.



Or simply add some nose armor.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 22, 2022)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 22, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


>



Yeah, I'm _that_ guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 22, 2022)

P-26 was relatively modern and obsolete so a mixed bag.

The A5M came out a few years later and looked very similar.

The Peashooter deserves a bit more credit than given.

It no jet fighter but ain't no stone age club either.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2022)

A little dose of reality.
P-26





600hp at 7500ft. Max speed 234mph

A5M




785hp at 9,840ft. 270-273mph

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 22, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A little dose of reality.
> P-26
> View attachment 655438
> 
> ...


The interesting thing here, is the P-26 was a 1932 vintage, the A5M was 4 years newer.

The predecessor to the KI-27 (the A5M's contemporary) was the KI-10, introduced in 1935 and it was a biplane.

The IJN's equivalent of the P-26, would have been the A2N1, introduced in 1932 and it too, was a biplane.

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


----------



## msxyz (Jan 23, 2022)

don4331 said:


> Honourable mentions:
> 1. Westland Whirlwind
> 2. Bristol Beaufighter
> 3. Brewster Buffalo
> ...


The Reggiane Re.2000 should be in the list as it was superior, in most respects, to the G.50 and C.200 (Max speed 530Km/h, climb to 6000m 6'10", combat range over 700Km). Shortly before the war, in 1939, a British mission sent to Italy sought to procure 300 of them. The deal evaporated once war broke out but still it was sold in small number to Sweden (60) and Hungary (70+ ~200 produced locally). Italy, on the other side, never adopted it because it was too complex to manufacture and its unprotected, integral wing fuel tanks were considered a liability. Only the Italian Navy used some of them catapulted from ships. The Re.2000 was however the basis for the Re.2001 (same fuselage, different wings, inline DB601 engine) and the Re.2002 (same fuselage, same wings of the 2001, more powerful radial engine, 3 hardpoints)


----------



## The Basket (Jan 23, 2022)

Of course the P-26 looks like a dumpster fire and a hot mess.

I mean, against the F-104 Starfighter, I mean what the hell! What the hell!

But my point is by the standard of the day, when it was designed and the prototype first flew it was up there. It was the hot ticket so I make no bones about saying that. It's weakness is that aviation tech was changing by the second and it was quickly left behind.

Oddly it was designed to be obsolete because the Air Corp were a bunch of old grannies who believed in certain old school values like open cockpits and fixed undercarriage. So Boeing built what they could sell rather than a new jet fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jan 23, 2022)

don4331 said:


> 5. Messerschmidt Bf.110


I think this is the only mention in this thread, arguably making it overlooked.

Yes I know, it couldn't dog fight, in the opinion of many making it a dog. But used offensively it often did well up to the battle of Britain, and not too badly when booming and zooming. If its devastating armament didn't decide the issue in the first pass, it should be speedy enough to escape everything but a spitfire, and even then it would not be easy to catch if enjoying the initial speed advantage. Tie it to close escort and all its advantages are negated.

That does not mean I'd rate it third behind the spitfire and the 109, I always have trouble deciding; what do we want a fighter to do? It is a very good bomber destroyer and enjoyed some succes in tip and run attacks. For _Europe_ at the time the range was good, and the second crew member can do useful things.

I'm certainly not claiming it could have won bob if only it was properly used, but I think it belongs well above the bottom of the lists. Possibly some others of the twins too, but I'm far from certain which ones are actually qualifying by october.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The interesting thing here, is the P-26 was a 1932 vintage, the A5M was 4 years newer.
> 
> The predecessor to the KI-27 (the A5M's contemporary) was the KI-10, introduced in 1935 and it was a biplane.
> 
> The IJN's equivalent of the P-26, would have been the A2N1, introduced in 1932 and it too, was a biplane.


 You are quite right. The A5M was much newer.
However just because a plane has an open cockpit and fixed landing gear doesn't mean that they were similar in construction as one forum member seems to be saying. 
The A5M, being newer, did have several advancements. 
Like a cantilever wing, not braced by wires
Like Wing Flaps (added in later P-26s because of the accident rate)
Like cooling flaps (from the A5M2b on) on the NACA cowling.
Later A5Ms got adjustable pitch propellers (they many have gotten constant speed?) 

The difference in speed was not just because of the extra engine power.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jan 23, 2022)

Clearly Spitfire. No question 
The best fighter of the entire war. It was only matched by the germans for a few months in 1941. For all the other time frames of the war ,easily, the best all around air superiority fighter


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Oddly it was designed to be obsolete because the Air Corp were a bunch of old grannies who believed in certain old school values like open cockpits and fixed undercarriage. So Boeing built what they could sell rather than a new jet fighter.



OK,
What prototypes and/or fighter designs were being shown around in 1931-32 to the Air Corp that the newer features? 

The Boeing YP-29 that the retractable landing gear and the closed cockpit didn't fly until almost 2 years after the XP-26. 
And using the same engine it was slower. 

The P-24/25/P30 series had the more modern features but the Great Depression caused a bankruptcy that delayed things. 
the old grannies were working on turbo charged engines at the time. 
But advanced designs that needed development work didn't help replace biplanes right away.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 23, 2022)

My view is that the P-26 was not as radical as it could have been deliberately. Because it would have been a harder sell. 

The P-26 design features were certainly in later fighters.

If you look at the Gauntlet and Gladiator which came later then it is no stretch to say the P-26 was a more forward design.

I compared the A5M in design which certainly matched the P-26. Of course being newer and a front line fighter for longer it had the more modern design features. Had the P-26 being modernised then it also would have had various upgrade.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

This was all during the Depression. Note the two planes with turbo chargers. 

Getting the right balance between strength, weight and drag was not easy. 
Getting enclosed cockpits with good vision wasn't always easy. Getting panels without distortion or that were strong enough or weren't too heavy (or didn't break when very cold) wasn't as easy as it seems from 80-90 years in future.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2022)

First time I’ve ever seen some of those planes.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 23, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> In the recent P-40 thread, the discussion about the merits of Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, P-40 etc. was initiated. So I'd start the thread dedicated to this small yet very important time frame, about the best fighters in it. 2-engined fighters also qualify, so do the fighters from the whole world.


I’ve always liked the look of the Arsenal VG-33. 347 mph with a 20mm cannon and four mgs, with a good canopy for situational awareness. What’s not to like? Too bad only a few dozen were produced by the time France fell in May 1940. By October 1940 I imagine an improved version would be in service, including a Merlin variant, but I’ll put forward the VG-33 as it was for this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jan 23, 2022)

Just Schmidt said:


> I think this is the only mention in this thread, arguably making it overlooked.
> 
> Yes I know, it couldn't dog fight, in the opinion of many making it a dog. But used offensively it often did well up to the battle of Britain, and not too badly when booming and zooming. If its devastating armament didn't decide the issue in the first pass, it should be speedy enough to escape everything but a spitfire, and even then it would not be easy to catch if enjoying the initial speed advantage. Tie it to close escort and all its advantages are negated.
> 
> ...


This may be of (surprising) interest, given that overclaiming on both sides was pretty even...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 23, 2022)

dedalos said:


> Clearly Spitfire. No question
> The best fighter of the entire war.



That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

The Basket said:


> The P-26 design features were certainly in later fighters.


The idea of a monoplane fighter wasn't revolutionary in 1932, and certainly didn't start with the P-26, as the Fokker E.III and D.VIII were around long before.
The P-26 is a classic design, and certainly an attractive one, but by the time frame of this thread, it had been surpassed a few times over. 
Revolutionary in the early 30's would be retractable gear, cantilever monoplane with an enclosed cockpit. like an I-16

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.


Nobody was escorting bombers over Berlin in 1940, and Bomber Command was in the process of learning the hard way that daylight raids over Germany were disastrous.
The A6M *may* have had the range at that point, but it would have met Bf 109E-4 and F-1's neatly arranged at altitude above them, with expert Luftwaffe pilots not willing to dogfight. It would have been a mess for the Zero.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 23, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.


RAF Bomber Command had no need for that. Though one could argue they didn’t need an escort fighter because their bombers flew at night because they didn’t have an escort fighter to allow their bombers to fly during the daylight. So, chicken and egg. 

But for the purposes of this thread, no one except the Japanese had a single engined fighter in October 1940 capable of flying from Britain to Berlin and back. As for later in the war, a long range Spitfire was possible, long range Spitfire | Forums

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 23, 2022)

You don't have to be the fastest when chased by the tiger. Just not the slowest.

I would argue the A5M was too late as its main western rivals the Hurricane and 109 had similar time frames.

One aspect of the P-26 was it's metal construction and monoplane design and as far as I can tell it was the fastest fighter in American service when it entered service.

So again....the P-26 was a decent modem fighter for its day when it first entered service. So it's design can be considered successful. It held a reasonable performance when considered against its contemporaries.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Nobody was escorting bombers over Berlin in 1940, and Bomber Command was in the process of learning the hard way that daylight raids over Germany were disastrous.
> The A6M *may* have had the range at that point, but it would have met Bf 109E-4 and F-1's neatly arranged at altitude above them, with expert Luftwaffe pilots not willing to dogfight. It would have been a mess for the Zero.



The poster upthread wrote that the Spitfire was the best plane of the entire war, so asking about escorting raids over Berlin certainly falls in the purview of this sidebar. But to humor your point: were people launching fighters from carriers in 1940? Was the Spitfire best for that use?

And -- those Zeros would _certainly_ have the range title. Asserting that the Germans would have fought them in any particular way is a claim that really needs support lest it be discarded as a bald assertion.



Admiral Beez said:


> RAF Bomber Command had no need for that. Though one could argue they didn’t need an escort fighter because their bombers flew at night because they didn’t have an escort fighter to allow their bombers to fly during the daylight. So, chicken and egg.
> 
> But for the purposes of this thread, no one except the Japanese had a single engined fighter in October 1940 capable of flying from Britain to Berlin and back. As for later in the war, a long range Spitfire was possible, long range Spitfire | Forums



None of that obviates my point that "best" relies upon what you're trying to do with the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jan 23, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That really depends on what you're asking it to do and where. Escorting bombers over Berlin? Not so much.


 
I was sure p51 fans would react ... 
By the time the P51b appeared then outcome of the war had been decided.
The luftwaffe had been already defeated.
And yes , if it was nessecary , the spitfire could be modified for the long range role


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 23, 2022)

dedalos said:


> I was sure p51 fans would react ...
> By the time the P51b appeared then outcome of the war had been decided.
> The luftwaffe had been already defeated.
> And yes , if it was nessecary , the spitfire could be modified for the long range role



Uh, where did you get the idea that I'm a P-51 fan? I take as objective a view of things as I can, but if I'm a fan of any American fighter, it's the P-47. Feel better now?

Making baseless assumptions about someone you don't know is generally regarded as rude; as is leading one's reply with an _ad homeneim_ rather than just addressing the point being raised.

And you don't know what any long-range mods might do to the Spitfire's efficacy as a fighter. Generally speaking, adding weight such as fuel and fuel tanks tends to impair performance, others things being equal.

Nothing in your reply answers my point that what you're asking the plane to do has everything to do with rating its capabilities. 

I do confess amusement at someone making your claim (about the Spit being the best of the entire war) also calling anyone else a "fan". Physician, heal thyself.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 23, 2022)

Let's say USA goes to war 1933 34 35 with whoever....RAF IJN IJA Frenches, Italy, Germany, Soviets, Salvation Army....whoever.

Against the rank and file fighters or the main bulk of fighters then the P-26 is in ok shape.

Is the P-26 in bad shape against say the He 51…not really. Bristol Bulldog? Some low cards in that deck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 23, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The poster upthread wrote that the Spitfire was the best plane of the entire war, so asking about escorting raids over Berlin certainly falls in the purview of this sidebar. But to humor your point: were people launching fighters from carriers in 1940? Was the Spitfire best for that use?
> 
> And -- those Zeros would _certainly_ have the range title. Asserting that the Germans would have fought them in any particular way is a claim that really needs support lest it be discarded as a bald assertion.
> 
> ...



@AdmiralBeez, what is your intention when you label a post "creative"? That's a very vague adjective.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2022)

dedalos said:


> I was sure p51 fans would react ...
> By the time the P51b appeared then outcome of the war had been decided.
> The luftwaffe had been already defeated.
> And yes , if it was nessecary , the spitfire could be modified for the long range role


Well I'm not a P-51 fanboy, really don't have a dog in this fight, but I think it's really ridiculous to say "the war was decided" in early 1944 and the Luftwaffe was defeated. Look at where they stood at this period of time and Germany as a whole, although losing was far from being defeated!!!!

And tell us, how is the Spitfire going to be modified to a long range role. Don't you think if that was possible or worth doing it would have been done and then no need for the Mustang at all?!?!?

A Spitfire PR Mk XIX with an external auxiliary tank had a top range of about 1400 miles and it didn't go into service until mid 1944, probably had the longest range for any Spitfire marks (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and it was a reconnaissance aircraft. The P-51 was operational 6 month earlier.

SMH

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 23, 2022)

The Basket said:


> I would argue the A5M was too late as its main western rivals the Hurricane and 109 had similar time frames.


It’s noteworthy the generational leap from the open cockpit, fixed undercarriage A5M to the A6M. Not as big as Hawker Hart/Nimrod to Hurricane, but impressive, akin to Supermarine Type 224 to Spitfire.


----------



## MikeMeech (Jan 23, 2022)

The Basket said:


> My view is that the P-26 was not as radical as it could have been deliberately. Because it would have been a harder sell.
> 
> The P-26 design features were certainly in later fighters.
> 
> ...


Hi
The P-26 (began to enter service in June 1934) has interesting aspects but it did not have much of a performance advantage over aircraft like the Gauntlet (began to enter service in May 1935) , the former had a maximum speed 5 mph above the latter (235 to 230 mph), it also had a slightly greater rate of climb than the Gauntlet 2,360 ft/min to 2,300 ft/min. The P-26 had a service ceiling of 27,400 ft compared with the Gauntlet's 33,500 ft ( the earlier Bulldog had a service ceiling of 29,300 ft, 'high' ceilings being a RAF requirement). The Gladiator (began to enter service February 1937) of course had a max speed of 253 mph. The Hurricane entered service from December 1937, replacing Gauntlets in No. 111 Sqn and in March 1938 Gladiators in No. 3 Sqn.

Mike


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Asserting that the Germans would have fought them in any particular way is a claim that really needs support lest it be discarded as a bald assertion.


It was something of an assertion, but not one without historical evidence. The Luftwaffe had forged their fighter tactics over Spain, and perfected them over France and the low countries. Against I-15's in Spain, P-11's in Poland and MS-406's in France, the Bf 109 had a top speed and climb advantage, and their tactics exploited it. By October 1940, the jagdwaffe was the finest fighter force in the world, with the most experienced pilots and a qualitative advantage in equipment. 
It isn't a stretch to assume that in some alternate universe, if faced with long range A6M's in German airspace, that the 109's would engage them the same way they had every other opponent, with hit and run attacks from higher altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 23, 2022)

Which is best Spitfire v 109?

Depends.

So the question is the depend bit.

Ferrari v Kia Picanto. The Kia is better for parking and weekly grocery shopping. Cheaper too.

The Kia Picanto is also better than a Spitfire for going to the shops. So what am I talking about again? 

Which fighter would be best for Kamikaze missions? The P-47 would be very good for that.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

Well, the title of the thread is

March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

If we are just to count the aircraft in service (one or more squadrons in operational service?) we can get rid of the P-51 from the discussion.

You also have about 7 A6M2s built (issued where?) that were intended for carrier service. Basing carrier service as a criteria for the better planes in service during the time period seems stretching it. 

If we want to include a list of fighters that were still in service in 1940 after being in service for 6-8 years the list would be very long and would not change the the top 10-20 places out of the list. 

Some of the French stuff is not well documented.
Some of the planes may have given up too much in some areas of the design in order to get high numbers in other areas. 

The D.520 is about the best the French can offer without taking an awful lot on faith.

The US is dealing with the P-40 at this time which is not credited as being a serviceable fighter plane after the first few months of the time periods in question and since it didn't exsit in those few months it has to be taken out of the list.


Actual planes that exist, in no particular order. include the

Spitfire I (2 pitch prop)
Spitfire I (CS prop)
Spitfire II
Hurricane I ( 2 pitch)
Hurricane I (CS)
Hurricane II
Bf 109E-3
Bf 109E-4 (601N )
Bf 110C
Bf 110C-4 (?)
Curtiss P-36
Hawk 75A1-4
D. 520
Macchi C.200


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A Spitfire PR Mk XIX with an external auxiliary tank had a top range of about 1400 miles and it didn't go into service until mid 1944, probably had the longest range for any Spitfire marks (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and it was a reconnaissance aircraft


I think the Spitfire PR Mk.XI might have been the longest range version, but was also a recce aircraft. 84 gallons in the main tanks, 132 gallons in the wing tanks, and the option for a 170 gallon slipper tank. They may have had an additional tank under the pilot seat, but I am not sure.
The Spitfire _*COULD *_have been modified for long range escort, but it never would have been as good as the P-51. The Mustang simply had the room for a LOT more gas, and was a lot more slippery in the air. Of course, the RAF also didn't have a pressing need for an escort fighter, as Bomber Command had already abandoned daylight bombing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> It was something of an assertion, but not one without historical evidence. The Luftwaffe had forged their fighter tactics over Spain, and perfected them over France and the low countries. Against I-15's in Spain, P-11's in Poland and MS-406's in France, the Bf 109 had a top speed and climb advantage, and their tactics exploited it. By October 1940, the jagdwaffe was the finest fighter force in the world, with the most experienced pilots and a qualitative advantage in equipment.
> It isn't a stretch to assume that in some alternate universe, if faced with long range A6M's in German airspace, that the 109's would engage them the same way they had every other opponent, with hit and run attacks from higher altitude.


I mentioned this on another thread but in the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker (mercenary pilot) he mentioned that the I-16 was faster and more maneuverable and could out climb the BF109 and it was obvious this would be against the early models. I think Tinker was also the first American to shoot down a -109. The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were actually tipped?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were tipped?


I assume the 109D with the carbureted DB600, and on. The Jumo powered 109's in Spain were underpowered, but I think the Luftwaffe just wanted to work the bugs out

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think the Spitfire PR Mk.XI might have been the longest range version, but was also a recce aircraft. 84 gallons in the main tanks, 132 gallons in the wing tanks, and the option for a 170 gallon slipper tank. They may have had an additional tank under the pilot seat, but I am not sure.
> The Spitfire _*COULD *_have been modified for long range escort, but it never would have been as good as the P-51. The Mustang simply had the room for a LOT more gas, and was a lot more slippery in the air. Of course, the RAF also didn't have a pressing need for an escort fighter, as Bomber Command had already abandoned daylight bombing.


When you say long range Spitfire, could you give me a frame of reference? Would it be equivalent to a P-47 with drop tanks?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I mentioned this on another thread but in the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker (mercenary pilot) he mentioned that the I-16 was faster and more maneuverable and could out climb the BF109 and it was obvious this would be against the early models. I think Tinker was also the first American to shoot down a -109. The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were actually tipped?





Clayton Magnet said:


> I assume the 109D with the carbureted DB600, and on. The Jumo powered 109's in Spain were underpowered, but I think the Luftwaffe just wanted to work the bugs out



Emil was the one that 'moved' the 109s from 480-500 km/h into the 550 km/h zone.
The Bf 109D was still with Jumo 210 in the nose. The DB 600 was powering the He 111s, plus a few prototypes.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I mentioned this on another thread but in the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker (mercenary pilot) he mentioned that the I-16 was faster and more maneuverable and could out climb the BF109 and it was obvious this would be against the early models. The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were tipped?


Well, the 109 changed from a 700hp engine to a 1100hp engine. Sort of like having a Mustang I go from a 1150hp engine to an 1800hp engine.
I-16s were all over the place from the 450hp prototype to the 1000hp
The I-16 type 5 and 6 used in Spain had a 700-730hp engine (?).
Armament varied on the 109s from 2 to 4 7.9mm machine guns.
The I-16s used either two ShKAS guns (one in each wing) or sometimes a 3rd added to the fuselage.
The ShKAS fired at over 1 1/2 times the rate of the MG 17 gun so the difference in fire power wasn't that great even with the 4 gun 109s.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I assume the 109D with the carbureted DB600, and on.


The 109D with DB600 engine is one of the most persistent mistakes that William Green may be responsible for.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The 109D with DB600 engine is one of the most persistent mistakes that William Green may be responsible for.


Was he a "Caiden" type?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> When you say long range Spitfire, could you give me a frame of reference? Would it be equivalent to a P-47 with drop tanks?


Apparently a modified Mk.IX made 1600 miles during a test with drop tanks. Still not close to Mustang type range, but not bad.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 23, 2022)

That does sound impressive.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Apparently a modified Mk.IX made 1600 miles during a test with drop tanks. Still not close to Mustang type range, but not bad.



FWIW, the table kindly provided by fellow member glider:

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was he a "Caiden" type?


He was actually one of the most popular authors in 1950s and 60s and most of his books were technical histories.





two volumes printed as one. 
Most of us in our 60s and 70s grew up with these books

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 23, 2022)

Just got mine from an estate sale. Now I can claim omniscience.

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> He was actually one of the most popular authors in 1950s and 60s and most of his books were technical histories.
> 
> View attachment 655563
> 
> ...


My hometown library didn't even have that one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2022)

I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, the title of the thread is
> 
> March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking
> 
> ...


Also with all British types the use of 100 Octane fuel changed their performance radically, even though it was the same plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, the 109 changed from a 700hp engine to a 1100hp engine. Sort of like having a Mustang I go from a 1150hp engine to an 1800hp engine.
> I-16s were all over the place from the 450hp prototype to the 1000hp
> The I-16 type 5 and 6 used in Spain had a 700-730hp engine (?).
> Armament varied on the 109s from 2 to 4 7.9mm machine guns.
> ...


The I-16 type 5 and 10 had 4 machine guns, two in the upper cowling and two in the wings. I think the last variants had 2 20MMs in the wings.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> It was something of an assertion, but not one without historical evidence. The Luftwaffe had forged their fighter tactics over Spain, and perfected them over France and the low countries. Against I-15's in Spain, P-11's in Poland and MS-406's in France, the Bf 109 had a top speed and climb advantage, and their tactics exploited it. By October 1940, the jagdwaffe was the finest fighter force in the world, with the most experienced pilots and a qualitative advantage in equipment.
> It isn't a stretch to assume that in some alternate universe, if faced with long range A6M's in German airspace, that the 109's would engage them the same way they had every other opponent, with hit and run attacks from higher altitude.



A fair point, once the Germans get over the surprise of fighters headed five hundred miles inside their airspace.

Don't forget as well that the IJN pilots flying those zeros were also pretty damned good, and blooded as well.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 23, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Which is best Spitfire v 109?


I think at this point it comes down to the pilot, and quality of the fuel and the mechanic that put him there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!


I think Green was trying to do a good job. Or at least trying not do a bad one.
I would say that well over 90% of his stuff is correct and he rarely included the really weird tales. 
A few tales in a 5-8 page chapter of a few sentences each was usually the speed.

The bigger flubs seem to be the 109D and DB 600 thing and the Bf 109K with MG 151 cannon in the cowl (and MK 103 cannon?) that really gets the 109K fanboys wound up

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 23, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was he a "Caiden" type?



No, definitely not. He brought together technical information and historical knowledge as it was at the time without embellishment. He laid the foundations of what we have come to know about these aircraft. These books were highly regarded as benchmarks at the time. Obviously they don't hold up today and have been responsible for perpetuating myths, but by accident owing to lack of more informative research that wasn't possible at the time they were written.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2022)

He did often repeat the enemy "nickname" stuff but you can find the "fork tailed devil" stuff in a USAAC training manual for the P-38 in 1944. 

There wasn't much else out there that gave decent performance data, changes from one model/version to another, sometimes production numbers of different versions (not to say that modern research may not tweak the numbers a little bit.) 
A lot of the US modifications after they left the factory tended to get over looked. 

No longer a gold standard but one may find a good overview of many aircraft. 
Even in the late 50s he was including Italian, Japanese and Russian aircraft in with the American, British and German stuff.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:

2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Even in the late 50s he was including Italian, Japanese and Russian aircraft in with the American, British and German stuff.



That's right, no one else was doing that. He laid the foundation for our understanding of these aircraft; even if the texts carried fallacies and mistakes, his assertions generally rang true. This is the first line from his entry on the P-51 in his 1957 work Famous Fighters of the Second World War:

"Unquestionably the finest of all American wartime fighters and ranking in merit with the best of any other combatant, the North American P-51 Mustang was an inspired design evolved almost by accident."

Then there is the data that he put on print that had never been seen before; from the same volume under the P-47:

"The Thunderbolt dropped 132,000 tons of bombs, expended over 135 million rounds of ammunition, 60,000 rockets and several thousand gallons of napalm. The official figures also credit the Thunderbolt with the destruction of 4.6 enemy aircraft for each Thunderbolt lost in aerial combat. This effort required 1,934,000 flying hours and 204,504,000 gallons of fuel."

Then, of course, as stated above, the section on the P-38's opening sentence:

"Der Gabelschwanz Teufel" - The Fork-tailed Devil - was a sobriquet not lightly applied by the Luftwaffe to the Lockheed P-38 Lightning which gave considerable cause to be known to Japanese and German alike."


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 24, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> And -- those Zeros would _certainly_ have the range title


At the expense of plane and pilot survivability not too mention the range given for the A6M was done at very slow speeds over empty ocean or jungles, no A6M is going to escort anything over Europe at 10,000ft and 200mph.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 24, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think the Spitfire PR Mk.XI might have been the longest range version, but was also a recce aircraft. 84 gallons in the main tanks, 132 gallons in the wing tanks, and the option for a 170 gallon slipper tank.


Spitfires could have had 96G main tank, 25+25G leading edge tanks, 33+33G rear auxiliary and a 100G torpedo DT which would have got it well into Germany and back, trouble is wasn't until the 2 stage 2 speed Merlin appeared that there's was enough power to get it off the ground.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 24, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> This may be of (surprising) interest, given that overclaiming on both sides was pretty even...
> View attachment 655486



The claims of the Lw and FC during the BoB are least twice as high as the above in other sources; how does Bergström arrive at his claim totals?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 24, 2022)

I tried to find a Soviet contender, but to my eye all their fighters in service to October 1940 were at best not competitive and at worse, total rubbish.

The Yak-1 can be considered the best of the worst of the Soviet contribution. The LaGG-1 and MiG-1 were terrible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I tried to find a Soviet contender, but to my eye all their fighters in service to October 1940 were at best not competitive and at worse, total rubbish.
> 
> The Yak-1 can be considered the best of the worst of the Soviet contribution. The LaGG-1 and MiG-1 were terrible.


depending on who's history you read the Yak was in limited production in October 1940 but under going service trials.

they flew 5 of them during the "October" revolution celebration of Nov 1940 but that doesn't mean much. 

One history says that 64 of them were completed by the end of 1940 but most of them were being used to sort out the many flaws/problems. 
The planes didn't officially pass it's acceptance tests until June of 1941. Not exactly unusual in the Soviet Union to order a plane (or other weapon) into production ahead of the compellation of tests.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 24, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> depending on who's history you read the Yak was in limited production in October 1940 but under going service trials.


I saw that too, and thought it might be a stretch. The only one truly in service by October 1940 is the LaGG-1, which was apparently terrible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I saw that too, and thought it might be a stretch. The only one truly in service by October 1940 is the LaGG-1, which was apparently terrible.


Debatable too. Not the "apparently terrible" part 

Russian histories, especially the older ones, have major discrepancies from each other. 

One book, by Gordon and Khazanov, says the 1st production Lagg-3 (there was no Lagg-1 built) was completed in Dec 1940

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 24, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Debatable too. Not the "apparently terrible" part


It's quite remarkable how the Soviets went from rubbish fighters to the very competitive La-5, La-7 and Yak-3 in such short order. I suppose desperation breeds quick action.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 24, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> It's quite remarkable how the Soviet went from rubbish fighters to the very competitive La-5


The problem with the LaGG-3 was that it was underpowered. The terrible LaGG became the excellent La-5 basically by improving the powerplant with the fitment of the Shvetsov M-82, a relatively straight forward conversion.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 24, 2022)

The La-5 was developed quickly, because Uncle Joe was not happy with Lavochkin.

He redeemed himself (along with Gorbunov's help) by mating the nose of a Su-2 (along with the Su-2's ASh-82 engine) to a LaGG-3.

So yes, there was desperation involved...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2022)

Having a suitable engine helps a lot, too. Desperation or not.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 24, 2022)

Soviet LaGG-3, mainly late lighter variant, and Yak-1 were not bad fighter; with that engine you can not have too much


----------



## unkated (Jan 24, 2022)

Tkdog said:


> Zero vs 109 is the perfect example for the question best fighter at what? The 109 would have been useless in the Zero’s role and the opposite is also true. The planes were built to a purpose. Their success or failure is based on how close that aligned with the situations they actually faced.


A Zero certainly could have hung around over Britain and fought all day where the Bf109 could only linger a few minutes before needing to RTB.

Uncle Ted


----------



## John Vasco (Jan 24, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> The claims of the Lw and FC during the BoB are least twice as high as the above in other sources; how does Bergström arrive at his claim totals?


I don't know. I have never asked him. However, I think he would have probably sourced the same information that can now be found in the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series by Simon Parry, published by Red Kite. This series lays no claim to the accuracy of the respective claims; instead it just sets them out for the reader. I would recommend this series of books highly to anyone with an interest in the Battle of Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 24, 2022)

unkated said:


> A Zero certainly could have hung around over Britain and fought all day where the Bf109 could only linger a few minutes before needing to RTB.


Indeed, but the poor chap's only got a few seconds of ammunition before he becomes purely a recon bird.

It would have made for an interesting radar report though. _"Sir, this single engine fighter took off from Calais, flew over London, Coventry, Belfast and Edinburgh before flying onto Norway. He must have been wearing a diaper." _

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 24, 2022)

He's got the same amount of cannon ammo as the 109, and almost as much 7.7mm as the 109 has 7.92mm

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 24, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> He's got the same amount of cannon ammo as the 109, and almost as much 7.7mm as the 109 has 7.92mm


Thanks. I thought the earlier A6M variant available by October 1940 carried a smaller amount of cannon and mg ammo. Now I know better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2022)

The Zeros carried the same armament until the A6M3. 
The early A6M3 carried 100 rounds per gun but used the short barreled cannon.
The later A6M3 got the long barreled cannon.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 24, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Zeros carried the same armament until the A6M3


Which would be Type 99-1 cannons, with 60 round drums, correct?


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 24, 2022)

Regarding the Soviets, I-200 (MiG-1) can be considered among the top 5 in the period suggested.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> At the expense of plane and pilot survivability not too mention the range given for the A6M was done at very slow speeds over empty ocean or jungles, no A6M is going to escort anything over Europe at 10,000ft and 200mph.



Yeah, I wasn't saying they'd rule the skies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Which would be Type 99-1 cannons, with 60 round drums, correct?


Yes. 
If the A6M1 had guns (I don't know one way or the other)they would be the same as the A6M2 model 11 and the A6M2 model 21.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 25, 2022)

A6M1 were the prototypes has not importance if they have the guns

the production of the A6M2 Model 11 was, by japanese wiki,:
May: 5
June: 3
July: 9
August: 8
September: 9
October: 19
November: 7

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jan 25, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> The claims of the Lw and FC during the BoB are least twice as high as the above in other sources; how does Bergström arrive at his claim totals?


I do not have the slightest idea. But when some years ago I came across references to his work, the point seem to have been that the claims to loss ratio of the Bf 110, compared to the Bf 109, was slightly in the favour of the first. Thus, unless 110's were more prone to overclaiming than 109's, the latter seem to, on average, not to have done better. Supposing the tendency to overclaim was comparable, and that he calibrated them in the same manner, they do question the 'fact' that the 110 was simply terrible in the bob, or at least not more terrible than the 109.

In what I read comparizon of claims to loss rate of British fighters were not considered. To me it seems this would present for more methodological problems.


----------



## ClayO (Jan 25, 2022)

What, no votes for the P-39? (Ducks for cover.)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 25, 2022)

ClayO said:


> What, no votes for the P-39?


Not available in the time specified. 
Also, it had too much nose armour, and _*EXCESSIVE*_ firepower with the wing mounted guns

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 25, 2022)

ClayO said:


> What, no votes for the P-39? (Ducks for cover.)


None were operational until '41, so it (fortunately) misses the March - October '40 timeline.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jan 25, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> None were operational until '41, so it (fortunately) misses the March - October '40 timeline.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 26, 2022)

Just Schmidt said:


> I do not have the slightest idea. But when some years ago I came across references to his work, the point seem to have been that the claims to loss ratio of the Bf 110, compared to the Bf 109, was slightly in the favour of the first. Thus, unless 110's were more prone to overclaiming than 109's, the latter seem to, on average, not to have done better. Supposing the tendency to overclaim was comparable, and that he calibrated them in the same manner, they do question the 'fact' that the 110 was simply terrible in the bob, or at least not more terrible than the 109.
> 
> In what I read comparizon of claims to loss rate of British fighters were not considered. To me it seems this would present for more methodological problems.



This post Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB on TOCH has similar numbers from Bergström's book published in 2006 in Swedish.



> When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the *estimated true losses* by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the *authentic victories versus actual air battle losses *where:
> 
> Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
> Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
> ...



However, here is implied that these are the actual victories rather than claims, as in the attachment from the later English language book provided by John Vasco.


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Jan 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The I-16 type 5 and 10 had 4 machine guns, two in the upper cowling and two in the wings. I think the last variants had 2 20MMs in the wings.


The type 5 had two MG (one each wing) and type 10 four (two in the no se and one each wing). IIRC, type 17 change the wing MG for 20mm cannons.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!



Two words: Stephen King.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The I-16 type 5 and 10 had 4 machine guns, two in the upper cowling and two in the wings. I think the last variants had 2 20MMs in the wings.


The I-16 went through a bunch of armament changes.
Several versions had 20mm cannon setting up a struggle between heavy armament and degraded performance. 
Combine that with not enough production capacity to go around there were several cannon armed versions interspersed with machine gun armed versions. 
As they increased the engine power they tried to bring the 20mm gun versions back. 

For some reason they never tried to put a 12.7mm gun in each wing although a few versions had a single 12.7mm machine gun in the lower fuselage while either two 7.62mm guns were in the upper cowl and/or two 7.62mm guns in the wings (one in each) .

They might have even tried a 20mm un each wing, a 12.7mm in the lower cowl and two in 7.62mm guns in the upper cowl 

But that with such a load was not good, even with an 1,100hp engine.

Older books (pre-1990s?) may have different details than 1990-2000 books ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> For some reason they never tried to put a 12.7mm gun in each wing although a few versions had a single 12.7mm machine gun in the lower fuselage while either two 7.62mm guns were in the upper cowl and/or two 7.62mm guns in the wings (one in each) .
> 
> They might have even tried a 20mm un each wing, a 12.7mm in the lower cowl and two in 7.62mm guns in the upper cowl



Thing with Soviet 12.7mm gun and I-16 was that the gun was too late for the I-16, unlike the Shvak cannon.

From here (Berezina = 'Berezinov's', or 'by Berezin'):
_From January, 7 till February, 22, 1941 the machine gun Berezina successfully passed service trials.
The universal Berezin machine gun has been introduced into the inventory by air force on 22 April 1941._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The I-16 went through a bunch of armament changes.
> Several versions had 20mm cannon setting up a struggle between heavy armament and degraded performance.
> Combine that with not enough production capacity to go around there were several cannon armed versions interspersed with machine gun armed versions.
> As they increased the engine power they tried to bring the 20mm gun versions back.
> ...


From what I got in recent publications (mainly about the Spanish Civil War) the Type 5 and 6 were the first sent to Spain. The Type 5 and 6 had two 7.62 mm machine guns in the wings, the type 6 added a third under the fuselage according to some sources. The Type 10 had 4 machine guns, again 7.62, 2 in the wings, two in the nose firing through the propeller, this mentioned in the book by Frank Tinker "Some Still Live." I have in my library L'Aviation Republicaine Espagnole by Patrick Laureau, an excellent source of information on the Spanish Republican Air Force (if you can read French) and there many photos showing the Type 5, 6 and 10, all seemed to be armed with the 7.62 machine gun, but from what I could see, there was nothing heavier used during the SCW.

Powerplants ranged from 700 - 750HP (Shvetsov M-25, A&B) for the Types 5, 6 and 10, the Type 18 had an 800 HP M-62

Wiki mentions the Type 12 being armed with cannons.

I count 35 different model variants including low production test models

Lastly, it seems this aircraft was not only difficult to fly, it had some structural issues (earlier models) and seemed to be maintenance intensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Indeed, but the poor chap's only got a few seconds of ammunition before he becomes purely a recon bird.



Sometimes that's all that was needed...



Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, I wasn't saying they'd rule the skies.



There's no reason, apart from a time machine and a Japanese carrier sailing across the world to join the Axis powers, that this couldn't happen. Pat308 doesn't believe so, but let's remember that the A6M2 was superior to the frontline US fighters between 1940 and 1942 between 15,000 and up to and over 25,000 feet. Testing of the Aleutian Zero proved this in evaluation against the P-40 and P-39.

I also wouldn't get too hung up about the wing issues and dive limitations either, after all under those conditions the Zero was still excellent at low speed manoeuvrability and could out-manoeuvre almost every fighter it came across right until the very end of the war. It's worth noting that an aircraft doesn't earn a myth of invincibility by being slightly average suffering from structural restrictions. Let's remember that the A6M was the best aircraft carrier based fighter between 1940 and 1942 at least.

The Zero's armament is worth considering too, two cannon and two machine guns, this was the standard armament of the Bf 109 Emil and as pointed out to me in another thread, the first Emils were often armed with just four machine guns and no cannon, yet they notched up a high tally of British fighters.

As for the lack of armour, Zeroes shot down plenty of aircraft with armour plating and plenty of Japanese pilots survived combat despite _not _having armour plating. The argument that because it didn't have armour plating and self-sealing tanks it wouldn't last in Europe is a fallacy without foundation and doesn't give the Japanese pilots their due - they were highly aggressive and innovative in their approach and equipped with a powerful and long ranged fighter they achieved mastery in the skies over South East Asia swiftly.



Thumpalumpacus said:


> Two words: Stephen King.



At least he stipulates that his work is _fiction._ Or is it...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> There's no reason, apart from a time machine and a Japanese carrier sailing across the world to join the Axis powers, that this couldn't happen. Pat308 doesn't believe so, but let's remember that the A6M2 was superior to the frontline US fighters between 1940 and 1942 between 15,000 and up to and over 25,000 feet. Testing of the Aleutian Zero proved this in evaluation against the P-40 and P-39.



I think 
P
 PAT303
's point about range being a result of the Zero's flight regime is fair. Flying relatively low and slow is very different between PTO and ETO.


nuuumannn said:


> I also wouldn't get too hung up about the wing issues and dive limitations either, after all under those conditions the Zero was still excellent at low speed manoeuvrability and could out-manoeuvre almost every fighter it came across right until the very end of the war. It's worth noting that an aircraft doesn't earn a myth of invincibility by being slightly average suffering from structural restrictions. Let's remember that the A6M was the best aircraft carrier based fighter between 1940 and 1942 at least.



No argument here.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Flying relatively low and slow is very different between PTO and ETO.



Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.

Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft at medium to low altitudes, the exact playground where the Zero excelled. Remember, the US Navy bested the Zero with superior tactics in using pairs, rather than relying on the F4F's qualities - the A6M2 was superior in almost every respect to the F4F, so they had to because the F4F couldn't survive otherwise.

Again, without a time machine, it's impossible to judge exactly how effective the A6M would have been in Europe, but to assume it was not going to survive because it had no armour plating poor armament and only functioned in the PTO low speed regime leaves out a whole lot of facts and evidence to the contrary.

I guess I'll have to warm up my Japanese time machine - just my luck it'll look like a Nissan Leaf and not like a Mitsubishi Zero...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.
> 
> Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft, the exact playground where the Zero excelled. Remember, the US Navy bested the Zero with superior tactics in using pairs, rather than relying on the F4F's qualities - the A6M2 was superior in almost every respect to the F4F, so they had to.
> 
> ...



I was speaking specifically to range regarding Pat's point. To get range out of the Zero you had to fly a profile that didn't conduce to lengthy survival in the ETO, but was well-suited to long overwater flights, few radars, little interceptor risk, and very little flak.

It's a fair point he makes and should be acknowledged, so I did.

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.
> 
> Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft at medium to low altitudes, the exact playground where the Zero excelled. Remember, the US Navy bested the Zero with superior tactics in using pairs, rather than relying on the F4F's qualities - the A6M2 was superior in almost every respect to the F4F, so they had to because the F4F couldn't survive otherwise.
> 
> ...


I might pick and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo... You bring up good points, to me, the biggest being how a plane is used is as important, if not more so, than it's capabilities alone. Also, you would need to put some good Lucas Electronics Radios in a Zero to use it with Brit GCI / tactics.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> To get range out of the Zero you had to fly a profile that didn't conduce to lengthy survival in the ETO, but was well-suited to long overwater flights, few radars, little interceptor risk, and very little flak.



Again that's debatable and doesn't give the Japanese their due. Does Pat 308 believe that the Japanese do not have the ability to evolve under differing combat conditions? I can't see why not. The Zero had good altitude performance and over water and over land, what's the difference, really? What is Pat 308 expecting this Zero would do? Fly _against_ or _for_ the Germans over Europe? There's no reason at all that the A6M2 could not have supplanted the Bf 109 in the bomber escort role during the Battle of Britain, which is the most likely of imaginary scenarios the Zero would have to take on, time machine in hand.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I might pick and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo...



Nice! Leaning toward the classic Nissan _Gojira_, myself...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2022)

Why would the A6M have to conserve fuel in the European theater?

The A6M2 Type 11 had a combat radius of over 500 miles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 26, 2022)

The A6M would need a functioning radio.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Nice! Leaning toward the classic Nissan _Gojira_, myself...


Had to look that one up. It's called the Skyline (non-export models) and now known as the GTR or Godzilla. I prefer the looks of the R33 / 34 versions myself!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Why would the A6M have to conserve fuel in the European theater?



Exactly. Again, what are asking our Zero to do and whom would it be doing it against?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Again that's debatable and doesn't give the Japanese their due. Does Pat 308 believe that the Japanese do not have the ability to evolve under differing combat conditions? I can't see why not. The Zero had good altitude performance and over water and over land, what's the difference, really? What is Pat 308 expecting this Zero would do? Fly _against_ or _for_ the Germans over Europe? There's no reason at all that the A6M2 could not have supplanted the Bf 109 in the bomber escort role during the Battle of Britain, which is the most likely of imaginary scenarios the Zero would have to take on, time machine in hand.



I think in either role the Zero would have to fly higher and faster, which would seem to reduce its range compared to PTO ops. I wouldn't want to be slogging at 220mph over Axis _or_ Allied territory, myself. Higher alt + higher speed = less range, no?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> t's called the Skyline (non-export models) and now known as the GTR or Godzilla. I prefer the looks of the R33 / 34 versions myself!



Yup, the Skyline _Gojira_ (Godzilla is the English bastardisation of Gojira) is a beast. Good quality Skylines fetch a tidy price on the second hand market and are hard to find because kids butcher them, not to mention they get nicked a lot. The Nissan GTR is its successor and has an equally fearsome reputation.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I might pick and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo... You bring up good points, to me, the biggest being how a plane is used is as important, if not more so, than it's capabilities alone. Also, you would need to put some good Lucas Electronics Radios in a Zero to use it with Brit GCI / tactics.



Any plane is only as good as how it fits the doctrine it's designed for and the pilots tasked to execute the mission.

As for the radios, where the hell was Sony when you needed it?! 
































Yes, I know. Ir's a joke.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I wouldn't want to be slogging at 220mph over Axis _or_ Allied territory, myself. Higher alt + higher speed = less range, no?



When you have the range of the Zero, over the distances that German fighters were flying to reach the enemy, the Zero is certainly capable of achieving it (again, what are you envisaging the Zero doing and for whom?). There was no other fighter in the world, let alone the ETO with the range of the Zero between 1940 and 1942. The Fairey Fulmar had a range of 800 miles on internal fuel, so that took the cake, but the Zero had a superior combat radius.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

I think we're talking past each other, 

 nuuumannn
.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think we're talking past each other



We might be. The thing is, I'm not sure what it is that you are envisaging by saying that the Zero wouldn't be able to operate in an ETO environment, well, I have to picture which ETO environment we are discussing, because there wasn't just one.

I still fail to see how an effective fighter like the A6M could not operate in one theater or another. The concept is a bit ill-considered, really, especially when you have aircraft like the lesser performing Hawker Hurricane active in almost _every_ theatre during the war and as we know, the A6M could out perform the Hurricane with ease.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> We might be. The thing is, I'm not sure what it is that you are envisaging by saying that the Zero wouldn't be able to operate in an ETO environment, well, I have to picture which ETO environment we are discussing, because there wasn't just one.
> 
> I still fail to see how an effective fighter like the A6M could not operate in one theater or another. The concept is a bit ill-considered, really, especially when you have aircraft like the lesser performing Hawker Hurricane active in almost _every_ theatre during the war and as we know, the A6M could out perform the Hurricane with ease.



I wasn't saying it couldn't operate in Europe. I was acknowledging that Pat had a point in saying that the Zero's range was largely a function of its operational conditions.

I did not and have not said that the Zero couldn't operate in Europe. I have only said that Pat's right, that the Zero's range comes from a flight profile that isn't very useful in ETO.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I was acknowledging that Pat had a point in saying that the Zero's range was largely a function of its operational conditions.



That's the point I don't agree with, because it wasn't. As mentioned, _no_ fighter had the range of the Zero, none (in that 1940-42 time period). Why would it not when the Bf 109, so infamously short legged reigned supreme over Western and into Eastern Europe between 1940 and 1943.

The hypothesis just doesn't stack up.

As previously mentioned, if used instead of Bf 109s during the BoB the bingo fuel light would not be flicking on 20 minutes into combat sorties over Britain. The aircraft had the range to fly from Germany to Malta - it's about a 1,000 miles, so over the Med its range would have been enormously useful.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> That's the point I don't agree with, because it wasn't. As mentioned, _no_ fighter had the range of the Zero, none. Why would it not when the Bf 109, so infamously short legged reigned supreme over Western and into Eastern Europe between 1940 and 1943.
> 
> The hypothesis just doesn't stack up.



Because flying at 200 mph at ten thousand feet won't get you far in Europe. Over the Pacific, the radar, flak, and fighters weren't present, and so such a vulnerable flight profile was fine.

Now try that over Calais or the Ruhr.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Because flying at 200 mph at ten thousand feet won't get you far in Europe.



Who says it has to fly that profile? Bf 109s rgularly approached Britain at altitudes in excess of 30,000 feet. Are you telling me the Zero couldn't do this, even though it has far superior range than the Bf 109? And why would Zeroes be entering combat over the Ruhr? They are on the Axis side! Is the 8th swapping its P-51s for Zeroes now??

I think we are venturing into "Hating on the Zero" time right now. It beggars belief that you might think this scenario proves anything.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2022)

Part of it was pilots.

But without the time machine the 1940 Zero did have few liabilities. 

The Zero had it's dive limits raised several times but at least once between the A6M2 model 11 and the A6M2 model 21 used at Pearl Harbor. 
Any later comparisons (A6M3 ?) but defiantly the A6M5 had tweaks done to the dive speed. It wasn't enough because the F6F, F4U and the Army planes were so much better to begin with. 
The Japanese did quite a bit of work to the wing over the spring of 1941 but about 12 of the early Zeros saw combat and they didn't break any of them so it is hard to say what would have happened in a tougher combat theater. 

According to one source (could be in error?) the A6M2 suffered an almost 50% increase in fuel consumption going from 180Kt to 190kts. 
But the Zero could probably still out range the Do 17 and Ju 88 so it may not matter much, just forget the super long ranges.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Who says it has to fly that profile? Bf 109s rgularly approached Britain at altitudes in excess of 30,000 feet. Are you telling me the Zero couldn't do this, even though it has far superior range than the Bf 109? And why would Zeroes be entering combat over the Ruhr? They are on the Axis side! Is the 8th swapping its P-51s for Zeroes now??
> 
> I think we are venturing into "Hating on the Zero" time right now. It beggars belief that you might think this scenario proves anything.



I don't think and haven't said that I've "proven" anything. In fact, the only thing I've said about this, and I'll repeat it now, is that I think we're talking past each other. 

If you want to argue any more about this you'll have to find someone else. I'm uninterested at this point.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Japanese did quite a bit of work to the wing over the spring of 1941 but about 12 of the early Zeros saw combat and they didn't break any of them so it is hard to say what would have happened in a tougher combat theater.



This was before the war in the Pacific against a formidable foe in the US armed forces, the issues are sorted. It's like the Bf 109F-1's hori stab falling off, weakness that had to be cured, and once it was, the Friedrich was an excellent combat fighter.



Shortround6 said:


> But the Zero could probably still out range the Do 17 and Ju 88 so it may not matter much, just forget the super long ranges.



Why? And what would you need the super long range for? The Bf 109 managed quite well against the French the British, The Poles, Russians, the smaller Allied nations, why wouldn't the Zero in the same situation, with its diminishing rage under the conditions is still far superior to every other European fighter in theatre. The Zero could fly a lot farther than a Bf 109 - this myth of not being able to operate in Europe is simply hogwash with no substantiating evidence. You don't _need _to fly from Germany to Malta when you can fly from Italy.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> If you want to argue any more about this you'll have to find someone else. I'm uninterested at this point.



Sorry man, I'm not arguing per se, I'm disagreeing with the whole premise. Don't take it personally, it's not an attack against you or Pat308 for that matter, I just don't believe there is validity in what's being put forward.

It's okay to disagree with each other. There's no hostility intended and certainly none expected, so we're good.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Sorry man, I'm not arguing per se, I'm disagreeing with the whole premise. Don't take it personally, it's not an attack against you or Pat308 for that matter, I just don't believe there is validity in what's being put forward.
> 
> It's okay to disagree with each other. There's no hostility intended and certainly none expected, so we're good.



We're good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> We're good.



Awesome, I'm pleased about that. 

Here's a cool song from artists across the Tasman...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2022)

The A6M2 had a max. range of 1,500+ miles. It's combat radius is 79 miles shy of the distance from Berlin to London.

If the IJN (or Luftwaffe or whoever) were flying missions from France into Great Britain, they would not need to use economic cruise for max. combat radius. 

The major shortcoming of the Bf109E, was it's limited range: 186 mile combat radius, which was later extended with a 76 gallon drop tank - but not by much.

There is absolutely no reason why the A6M2 could not have been successful in the BoB.

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


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 26, 2022)

If I was a pilot and it was my life on the line, I'd probably opt for the 109F-1/-2. Massively fast for the period (touching 615 kph/380 mph), excellent altitude performance and reportedly the best handling of any of the 109s. Anything I can't turn fight, I can energy fight. If I can't do that, I can pretty much run or climb away from anything else in the sky.

If I was commanding an air war in 1940, probably the A6M2 Model 11. The combination of reliability, range, performance, armament and ability to be land or carrier based make it really hard to pass on as an actual weapon of war. Good against fighters of the period (particularly so given the tactics taught/employed by most air forces) and excellent against bombers. It's major flaws (high speed maneuverability and altitude performance) aren't exposed nearly as much against the opposition of 1940 as they are against the opposition of 1942 & 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> If I was a pilot and it was my life on the line, I'd probably opt for the 109F-1/-2. Massively fast for the period (touching 615 kph/380 mph), excellent altitude performance and reportedly the best handling of any of the 109s. Anything I can't turn fight, I can energy fight. If I can't do that, I can pretty much run or climb away from anything else in the sky.
> 
> If I was commanding an air war in 1940, probably the A6M2 Model 11. The combination of reliability, range, performance, armament and ability to be land or carrier based make it really hard to pass on as an actual weapon of war. Good against fighters of the period (particularly so given the tactics taught/employed by most air forces) and excellent against bombers. It's major flaws (high speed maneuverability and altitude performance) aren't exposed nearly as much against the opposition of 1940 as they are against the opposition of 1942 & 1943.


Exactly.

In the period during the Battle of France/Battle of Britain, the A6M2 would have been a dangerous adversary.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> There is absolutely no reason why the A6M2 could not have been successful in the BoB.



There weren't any (many?) actually in service at that time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2022)

wuzak said:


> There weren't any (many?) actually in service at that time.


Granted they entered service in limited numbers in China, early summer of 1940, but the consensus seems to be that it was not up European standards in the early years of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

I'm having a tough time phrasing this. 
Could the A6M1 be operated effectively as an ETO fighter, not using what worked over the empty Pacific? Climb to 20-25k and cruise up there to the objective and still have adequate fuel for escort/loiter/combat/return over the same distances as the Spits and 'Schmidts did?


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Jan 27, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I got in recent publications (mainly about the Spanish Civil War) the Type 5 and 6 were the first sent to Spain. The Type 5 and 6 had two 7.62 mm machine guns in the wings, the type 6 added a third under the fuselage according to some sources. The Type 10 had 4 machine guns, again 7.62, 2 in the wings, two in the nose firing through the propeller, this mentioned in the book by Frank Tinker "Some Still Live." I have in my library L'Aviation Republicaine Espagnole by Patrick Laureau, an excellent source of information on the Spanish Republican Air Force (if you can read French) and there many photos showing the Type 5, 6 and 10, all seemed to be armed with the 7.62 machine gun, but from what I could see, there was nothing heavier used during the SCW.
> 
> Powerplants ranged from 700 - 750HP (Shvetsov M-25, A&B) for the Types 5, 6 and 10, the Type 18 had an 800 HP M-62
> 
> ...


The I-16 types are a mess. Many changes in armament and engine and not a good record keeping in the factories make it hard to be sure of the type equiment, with some refitted to latter types standars

Type 12 was a versión with ShKAS mgs and ShVAK 20mm cannons in the wings. Small production serie. Yefim Gordon says that a batch was prepared for shippement to the Spanish Republic but didn't confirm that arrived. They could be not sent or sent but the MV they were in got sunk or stopped by non intervention forces. I had never heard that cannon armed I-16 were used in Spain, only type 5, 6 and 10 (including a high altitude versión)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm having a tough time phrasing this.
> Could the A6M1 be operated effectively as an ETO fighter, not using what worked over the empty Pacific? Climb to 20-25k and cruise up there to the objective and still have adequate fuel for escort/loiter/combat/return over the same distances as the Spits and 'Schmidts did?


And then some.

The A6M's combat radius (take off, fly to objective, fight, then return to base) was longer than the Bf109's one-way max. range (without drop tank).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 27, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The Zero's armament is worth considering too, two cannon and two machine guns, this was the standard armament of the Bf 109 Emil and as pointed out to me in another thread, the first Emils were often armed with just four machine guns and no cannon, yet they notched up a high tally of British fighters.
> 
> As for the lack of armour, Zeroes shot down plenty of aircraft with armour plating and plenty of Japanese pilots survived combat despite _not _having armour plating. The argument that because it didn't have armour plating and self-sealing tanks it wouldn't last in Europe is a fallacy without foundation and doesn't give the Japanese pilots their due


Lots of aircraft were shot down by lesser aircraft, even the Malta Gladiators shot down their share but there is a difference between holding on and taking control and dominating the air, the A6M could and did dominate but only until the Allied pilots learnt how to fight it, the Zero only had one area that it ruled and that was low and slow in a turning fight, once pilots realised that and stayed above 200mph the Zero lost the only advantage it had.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 27, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> And then some.
> 
> The A6M's combat radius (take off, fly to objective, fight, then return to base) was longer than the Bf109's one-way max. range (without drop tank).


As I have said before, both the 109 and especially the Spit could not only have the range of the A6M but be faster, higher climbing with more firepower but pilot protection and survivability was deemed to be more important.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 27, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting,





nuuumannn said:


> Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft at medium to low altitudes,





nuuumannn said:


> Again, without a time machine, it's impossible to judge exactly how effective the A6M would have been in Europe, but to assume it was not going to survive because it had no armour plating poor armament and only functioned in the PTO low speed regime leaves out a whole lot of facts and evidence to the contrary.


RAF pilots more often than not found themselves under the 109's so a turning dogfight was the only real option they had.
The BoB was fought at high attitude up to and over 30,000ft, is wasn't until after the BoB that heights came down which caught the Spitfire out because most fighting occurred at around 20,000ft from 1941 which is one of the reasons the MkV was outclassed, even when the 60 series was introduced in the MkIX the FW190 had the advantage at around 20,000ft because that was the point the low speed gear was maxing out and the high speed was just starting so the Merlin 66 was developed which was nothing more than the 61 with modified gears giving more power at that altitude. 
The last point is easy to dispel, after the battle of France all new aircraft on both the British and German side were fitted with armor and the aircraft already in service were retrofitted with field kits, many many pilots were killed and injured by MG bullet hits over France and as per JG26 records the pilots demanded armor before the outbreak of the BoB.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 27, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Again that's debatable and doesn't give the Japanese their due. Does Pat 308 believe that the Japanese do not have the ability to evolve under differing combat conditions? I can't see why not. The Zero had good altitude performance and over water and over land, what's the difference, really? What is Pat 308 expecting this Zero would do? Fly _against_ or _for_ the Germans over Europe? There's no reason at all that the A6M2 could not have supplanted the Bf 109 in the bomber escort role during the Battle of Britain, which is the most likely of imaginary scenarios the Zero would have to take on, time machine in hand.


Again proof is in the pudding, no allied aircraft followed the A6M's design philosophy, none, the A6M finished the war the same way it started because it was a design dead end, as for escort duties the A6M could fly deeper into the UK or deeper into Europe going the other way which does nothing more than bring it into range of more fighter groups as well as giving the defenders more time to intercept it, flying into the chain home network against brand new Spits in 1940 or radar directed FW190's over France in '41 is very different to flying over Darwin against inexperienced pilots in clapped out MkV's or Wildcats in the Pacific.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The A6M would need a functioning radio.


How many pilots today would fly an aircraft anywhere without communications equipment?, or into combat without a parachute?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 27, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> I think we are venturing into "Hating on the Zero" time right now.


Not at all, aircraft are like any other fighting machine, there is a balance between performance firepower and protection, the Zero doesn't have that balance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> so the Merlin 66 was developed which was nothing more than the 61 with modified gears giving more power at that altitude.



The Merlin 66 was a lot stronger than the 61 and had a larger supercharger impeller - 12"/10.1" vs 11.5"/10.1" for the 61 and 63.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 27, 2022)

Geez guys, do I have to point out the obvious? All these dead electrons over second rate clunkers, you might as well compare them to coal burning freight trains.

Best fighter March to October 1940?

Simple.

P-51 - First flight October 1940, I mean yeesh, how can you forget the plane that sank four carriers at Midway, dominated the Slot, knocked Hitler for six and dropped two atomic bombs.

Man, sometimes I worry about you guys and your grasp of aviation history.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to mention first to break the sound barrier as well, my bad.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm having a tough time phrasing this.
> Could the A6M1 be operated effectively as an ETO fighter, not using what worked over the empty Pacific? Climb to 20-25k and cruise up there to the objective and still have adequate fuel for escort/loiter/combat/return over the same distances as the Spits and 'Schmidts did?



The A6M1 was the prototype, with 800 HP Zuisei engine and 518 L of fuel, no drop tank. That is 118L more than Bf 109E, for a less thirsty engine. So the A6M1 will certainly have much better range than the BoB best mounts. Top speed abut 310 mph.
Spitfire had 382L on disposal, Hurricane a bit more.

By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.

tl;dr: the A6M1 will be longer-ranged than either of the BoB fighters, bar the Bf 110 or a drop-tank outfitted Bf 109E. The A6M2 will be much longer ranged than any BoB fighter, bar the Bf 110 with the belly tank.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> And then some.
> 
> The A6M's combat radius (take off, fly to objective, fight, then return to base) was longer than the Bf109's one-way max. range (without drop tank).


That's what I thought.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The A6M1 was the prototype, with 800 HP Zuisei engine and 518 L of fuel, no drop tank. That is 118L more than Bf 109E, for a less thirsty engine. So the A6M1 will certainly have much better range than the BoB best mounts. Top speed abut 310 mph.
> Spitfire had 382L on disposal, Hurricane a bit more.
> 
> By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.
> ...


I figured the -1, not the -2 would've been "available" for BoB.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 27, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Geez guys, do I have to point out the obvious? All these dead electrons over second rate clunkers, you might as well compare them to coal burning freight trains.
> 
> Best fighter March to October 1940?
> 
> ...


You forgot _sent first man into space. FACT!_

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> You forgot _sent first man into space. FACT!_


Wasn't that Apache named "Ironman I"?


----------



## special ed (Jan 27, 2022)

Ralph Cramden sent the first woman into space.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 27, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The A6M1 was the prototype, with 800 HP Zuisei engine and 518 L of fuel, no drop tank. That is 118L more than Bf 109E, for a less thirsty engine. So the A6M1 will certainly have much better range than the BoB best mounts. Top speed abut 310 mph.
> Spitfire had 382L on disposal, Hurricane a bit more.
> 
> By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.
> ...



Hard to imagine any fighter pilot being thrilled by the thought of stooging around over NW Europe at 13k alt at 200 mph.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Hard to imagine any fighter pilot being thrilled by the thought of stooging around over NW Europe at 13k alt at 200 mph.



I was expecting 'thank you for the data', or 'what is the source', or 'any information on fast cruise endurance', or perhaps an 'Informative' rating for the post. 
Alas.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 27, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> I was expecting 'thank you for the data', or 'what is the source', or 'any information on fast cruise endurance', or perhaps an 'Informative' rating for the post.
> Alas.



I do appreciate the info, don't get me wrong. But if that's the flight regime, hypothetical ETO results from the Zero would likely be different than historical PTO results due to different operational environments.

I hope you didn't take my reply as criticism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I do appreciate the info, don't get me wrong. But if that's the flight regime, hypothetical ETO results from the Zero would likely be different than historical PTO results due to different operational environments.
> 
> I hope you didn't take my reply as criticism.


No problems.

That flight regime is the one I have a source for the data. The hypothetical Zero of the BoB will cruise faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 27, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> No problems.
> 
> That flight regime is the one I have a source for the data. The hypothetical Zero of the BoB will cruise faster.



That makes sense, given the shorter ranges involved. I suppose I was thinking more of penetrating German airspace where the ranges from UK to German targets tend to be longer and requiring more-economical cruising.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> or into combat without a parachute


Japanese pilots wore parachutes...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

In October 1940, I think an A6M2 entering German airspace could be relatively competitive, about with Hurricane performance, but better horizontal maneuverability and range. Do the defending Germans get lured into a low speed turning fight? Probably not, based on the preceding year of evidence.
However, by 1941-42, the Germans would be responding with Bf 109 F's, Bf 109G's and Fw 190A's. The A6M2 didn't really improve during that time. Obviously the thread is in respect to 1940, but the A6M2 also wasn't really available for that time frame

On paper anyway. But the Japanese also tended to ignore preconceived expectations as to their capabilities

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 27, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Again proof is in the pudding, no allied aircraft followed the A6M's design philosophy, none, the A6M finished the war the same way it started because it was a design dead end, as for escort duties the A6M could fly deeper into the UK or deeper into Europe going the other way which does nothing more than bring it into range of more fighter groups as well as giving the defenders more time to intercept it, flying into the chain home network against brand new Spits in 1940 or radar directed FW190's over France in '41 is very different to flying over Darwin against inexperienced pilots in clapped out MkV's or Wildcats in the Pacific.


The problem with the Mitsubishi A6M5 in 1943 was that it had a 28litre engine putting out 1100HP. The new US Navy aircraft had 46litres, putting out over 2000HP. The Americans some of their horsepower pushing armour around. If you armour the Zero, you get performance even more inferior to what you got without amour.

The A6M5 did 300mph 350mph with an 1100HP radial engine. That was a phenomenal accomplishment, but look up the speeds of the Hellcats, Corsairs, and P-38 Lightnings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 27, 2022)

Zero had range because it was a naval fighter.
Oscar had far less range. About par for everything else.

So had the Japanese built the Zero as a IJA fighter it wouldn't have been a Zero.

Speed and performance was the key. Not range. Naval fighters need to be longer ranged due to water/airframe interface being a disadvantage.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

Land based Zero's looked exactly like Zero's. It's interesting that the Japanese Army's main fighter was slower than the Naval Zero

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2022)

The KI-43-II was comparable to the A6M2 Model 21: in speed, range, rate of climb and service ceiling.

The only area where the Zero was beter than the Hayabusa, was armament.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2022)

All land based Zero was still naval Zero.

All Japanese fighters were called Zero and all Japanese rifles called Arisaka.

It's a name so might as well use it on everything.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 28, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.


Have fun flying either way across the channel doing 200mph at 13,000ft with 850 litres in unprotected tanks in 1940-41.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The A6M5 did 300mph with an 1100HP radial engine. That was a phenomenal accomplishment, but look up the speeds of the Hellcats, Corsairs, and P-38 Lightnings.



A6M5 did 350-360 mph.



GrauGeist said:


> The KI-43-II was comparable to the A6M2 Model 21: in speed, range, rate of climb and service ceiling.
> 
> The only area where the Zero was beter than the Hayabusa, was armament.



Ki-43-II have had a better engine than the A6M2. A6M3 (same power as the engine on the Ki-43-II) was good for 545 km/h, vs. 515 km/h for the Ki-43-II. 
Or, the Ki-43-I, that have had the same power available as the A6M2, was doing 495 km/h vs. 530+ km/h for the A6M2.
Hayabusa finally caught up with Zero's speed with the -III version.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Have fun flying either way across the channel doing 200mph at 13,000ft with 850 litres in unprotected tanks in 1940-41.



Is it such a big problem to see the option of cruising at 20000 ft at 250 mph, with reduction in range? Or someone needs to spoon-fed you too on this? 
Unprotected drop tanks were a thing (or not, if you were USAAC, RAF, VVS, LW or AMI in the time frame discussed) . So were the unprotected fuel tanks on Hurricane and Spitfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 28, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Is it such a big problem to see the option of cruising at 20000 ft at 250 mph, with reduction in range? Or someone needs to spoon-fed you too on this?


The controls are almost immoveable at that speed and locked tight at 300 so what are your tactics against the Spit or 109 when you meet them, dive while keeping under your do not exceed speed to 10K and under 200mph and lure them into a turning fight?.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 28, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> You forgot _sent first man into space. FACT!_


OCH!!!!

How could I forget? I go to penalty box two minutes... feel shame.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2022)

1. This is the part I don’t understand. From reading the posts here, Why would the “BoB Zero” even bother with economical cruise given the ranges. 
2. Flying over the Channel, Zeros would be running into far greater numbers of the planes they took on “easily“ over the western Pacific reaches. The pitiful Hurricane and sub-par Spitfire Mark Early would have the world’s best GCI system along with maintenance and non dysentery afflicted pilots. 
3. The Me-109, from my very limited research, was the Spitfire’s match. Better at this, not so much at that. 
4. Someone pm Gunn and tell him his 2 minutes are up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> 1. This is the part I don’t understand. From reading the posts here, Why would the “BoB Zero” even bother with economical cruise given the ranges.
> 2. Flying over the Channel, Zeros would be running into far greater numbers of the planes they took on “easily“ over the western Pacific reaches. The pitiful Hurricane and sub-par Spitfire Mark Early would have the world’s best GCI system along with maintenance and non dysentery afflicted pilots.
> 3. The Me-109, from my very limited research, was the Spitfire’s match. Better at this, not so much at that.
> 4. Someone pm Gunn and tell him his 2 minutes are up.



1. Indeed it would not bother with economical cruise for the needs of the BoB.
2. Zero can't win the BoB alone for the Germans.
3. That RLM/Luftwaffe didn't flew Bf 109s with drop tanks from the 1st day of the BoB is on the RLM/Luftwaffe.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 28, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> A6M5 did 350-360 mph.


Oops, typo. Post corrected. Thanks.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 28, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> By July 1940, the A6M2 was formally adopted by IJN. It was powered by 950 HP Sakae, could do 330 mph, and had the drop tank. It was supposed to have endurance of just a tad less than 7 hours at 4 km altitude at 180 kt (~200 mph). Total fuel was 850+ liters.


Let's assume that the Germans adopt the A6M2 in place of the Bf-109E. The Zero's range provides quite a bit of free chase time of London. Assume that the Germans are tactically more flexible than the Japanese were.

I have been reading through aircraft comparisons on WWII Aircraft Performance. The British tested a captive Bf-109E against Hurricanes and Spitfires in dogfights at 120 to 150mph, and they satisfied themselves that the Messerschmitt was inferior. The problem is, that is not how the Luftwaffe fought their battles. They employed tactics that emphasised things the Bf-109 did well. They employed their high speed and their high climbing and diving speeds. Hit and run (boom and zoom?) tactics were used extensively throughout WWII because they worked.

Up against Zeros, if the RAF focuses on dogfights at 120 to 150mph, they are getting their asses handed to them. On the other hand, the RAF are tying to intercept bombers. They are climbing to altitude and zooming down on their victims at high speed. These combat conditions favour Bf-109Es, not A6M2s. 

If the British choose to hit Zeros at high speed, and then run, the Spitfires definitely win. The Spitfires are faster, and the Zero will not withstand eight .303s. The Hurricanes could develop and use tactics similar to those of the US Navy Wildcats. There was a message thread here on Hurricane Mk IIC vs. A6M2 Zero.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Let's assume that the Germans adopt the A6M2 in place of the Bf-109E. The Zero's range provides quite a bit of free chase time of London. Assume that the Germans are tactically more flexible than the Japanese were.



Let's assume that Germans adopt the A6M2 in place of Bf 1*10*, two Zeros per each 110.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 28, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Let's assume that Germans adopt the A6M2 in place of Bf 1*10*, two Zeros per each 110.


Where will the gunner sit?

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Where will the gunner sit?


Somewhere cozy, like in a cafe.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 28, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Somewhere cozy, like in a cafe.


Wouldn't that increase the weight of the Zero? What does a cafe weigh?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Wouldn't that increase the weight of the Zero? What does a cafe weigh?



Jury is still out on that one.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 28, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Zero's range provides quite a bit of free chase time of London.


What will that achieve?, the Zero only has 10 seconds of cannon ammunition then it's down to two .30 cal mg's against fighters with 8. Midway was lost in part due to the fact the decks of the IJN carriers had to be kept clear so the CAP A6M's could rearm as soon as the 20mm ammunition was expended, having to tailor your tactic's around the deficiencies of your equipment is not a good winning formula.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 28, 2022)

A6M2 had basically the exact same armament as the Bf 109E. Are you also suggesting that long range 109's would have been useless in the BoB because they would have run out of cannon ammunition? 10 seconds of trigger time is more than enough to destroy multiple aircraft

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 28, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> What will that achieve?, the Zero only has 10 seconds of cannon ammunition then it's down to two .30 cal mg's...


Cannon armed Spitfires had either six or twelve seconds of cannon fire. Generally, they flew home rather than continue fighting with their .303" machine guns. Bf-109Es also had around six seconds as well. Did they turn for home because they were out of ammunition, or fuel?

It takes a lot of rifle calibre ammunition to bring down an aircraft. How many 20mm cannon hits can an early WWII fighter take? 

A major mistake people make when they build plastic model aircraft is that they paint on huge gunpowder streaks. Look at the photos. Fighter planes doing interception, escort and air superiority do not do a whole lot of shooting. Competent opponents are difficult to shoot at. Most pilots do not shoot at all on a given mission.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 28, 2022)

Maybe they were strafing?
While two rifle caliber mgs is a bit light, Japanese aircraft so armed racked up an impressive number of kills during the first few months of the Pacific War, before being supplanted by more heavily armed models/types. Ki-27s were the predominant Army type during the initial offensive, being only slowly replaced by Ki-43s, and even these were only armed with a 7.7mm and a 12.7mm. Yet they were able to bring down every type of Allied plane arrayed against them. Even F1Ms were successful against unescorted bombers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 28, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Midway was lost in part due to the fact the decks of the IJN carriers had to be kept clear so the CAP A6M's could rearm as soon as the 20mm ammunition was expended


That's not even close to true.

IJN doctrine was to service their aircraft belowdecks. They didn't service an attack force on the flight deck.

The CAP fighters that were landing and taking off again, were refueling, as many had been up for several hours.

So again, the decks were clear because the strike force intended for Midway Atoll was being rearmed for a ship-strike mission belowdecks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 28, 2022)

1. Spitfire Mk. II
2. Bf 109E-7
3. A6M1
4. Bf 110-C4
5. Hurricane Mk. IIA 
6. D-520
7. F4F-3
8. P-36A / H-75A-3
9. I-16 Type 24
10+. All the other aircraft that were operational at this time.

I only considered the most advanced types in operational squadron service, so Bf 109F, Whirlwind and others don't make the cut.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jan 29, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> 1. Spitfire Mk. II
> 2. Bf 109E-7
> 3. A6M1
> 4. Bf 110-C4
> ...


Good list but you should replace the A6M1 with the A6M2 as quoting from Wikipedia “On 13 September 1940, the Zeros scored their first air-to-air victories when 13 A6M2s led by Lieutenant Saburo Shindo, escorting 27 G3M "Nell's medium-heavy bombers on a raid of Chunking, attacked 34 Soviet-built Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, claimed "all 27" of the Chinese fighters shot down without loss to themselves, however Major Louie Yim-qun had in fact nursed his I-15 riddled with 48 bullet holes back to base, and Lieutenant Gao Youxin claimed to have shot down one of Lt. Shindo's Zeroes, but at most 4 Zeroes sustained some damage in the 1/2 hour-long dogfight over Chunking.”

You might also add the Brewster Buffalo as it was available in Finland, just not fighting because Finland was not at war. Brewster F2A Buffalo - Operational History - Finland has “The Finns were overjoyed, and they began flying their new fighter. Of the six Buffalo B-239 fighters delivered to Finland before the end of the Winter War of 1939–1940, five of them became combat-ready, but they did not enter combat before this war ended.”

Added as edit: It seems inconsistent to exclude the Bf 109F and include the F4F3. Wikipedia again has “Mölders flew one of the first operational Bf 109 F-1s over England from early October 1940; he may well have been credited with shooting down eight Hurricanes and four Spitfires while flying W.No 5628, Stammkennzeichen SG+GW between 11 and 29 October 1940.” whilst the F4F3 first shot down a German aircraft on Christmas Day 1940.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 29, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> 1. Indeed it would not bother with economical cruise for the needs of the BoB.
> 2. Zero can't win the BoB alone for the Germans.
> 3. That RLM/Luftwaffe didn't flew Bf 109s with drop tanks from the 1st day of the BoB is on the RLM/Luftwaffe.


Excellent info as always tomo, except...

I can't help but notice you DIDN'T answer 

 SaparotRob
number 4 issue...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Excellent info as always tomo, except...
> 
> I can't help but notice you DIDN'T answer
> 
> ...



Recall that Putin's joke about the Israeli soldier?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 29, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Recall that Putin's joke about the Israeli soldier?


No. Please don’t leave me hanging!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> No. Please don’t leave me hanging!


Putin:
Israel's general asks the soldier: Say, Syrians attack you with infantry, what you do? Soldier: shoot them with my machine gun. 
General: okay, say the Syrians attack you with a tank? Soldier: I fire at the tank with my AT launcher. 
General: okay, Syrian aircraft is about to attack you, what do you do? Soldier: I fire with my Stinger. 
General: okay, what do you do if Syrains attack with infantry, and tanks, and aircraft in the same time? Soldier: General, sir, am I the only soldier in our Army?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jan 29, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.


303 Squadron were certainly the highest CLAIMERS. However modern research comparing actuals to claims places 603 Squadron as top scorers, with 303 in 4th place.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 29, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> 303 Squadron were certainly the highest CLAIMERS. However modern research comparing actuals to claims places 603 Squadron as top scorers, with 303 in 4th place.


Good book on 603 Squadron by David Ross for the period in question here: _The Greatest Squadron of Them All, The Definitive History of 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron, RAauxAF, Volume 1, Formation to the end of 1940_, Grub Street, 2003


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 29, 2022)

cherry blossom said:


> Good list but you should replace the A6M1 with the A6M2 as quoting from Wikipedia “On 13 September 1940, the Zeros scored their first air-to-air victories when 13 A6M2s led by Lieutenant Saburo Shindo, escorting 27 G3M "Nell's medium-heavy bombers on a raid of Chunking, attacked 34 Soviet-built Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, claimed "all 27" of the Chinese fighters shot down without loss to themselves, however Major Louie Yim-qun had in fact nursed his I-15 riddled with 48 bullet holes back to base, and Lieutenant Gao Youxin claimed to have shot down one of Lt. Shindo's Zeroes, but at most 4 Zeroes sustained some damage in the 1/2 hour-long dogfight over Chunking.”
> 
> You might also add the Brewster Buffalo as it was available in Finland, just not fighting because Finland was not at war. Brewster F2A Buffalo - Operational History - Finland has “The Finns were overjoyed, and they began flying their new fighter. Of the six Buffalo B-239 fighters delivered to Finland before the end of the Winter War of 1939–1940, five of them became combat-ready, but they did not enter combat before this war ended.”
> 
> Added as edit: It seems inconsistent to exclude the Bf 109F and include the F4F3. Wikipedia again has “Mölders flew one of the first operational Bf 109 F-1s over England from early October 1940; he may well have been credited with shooting down eight Hurricanes and four Spitfires while flying W.No 5628, Stammkennzeichen SG+GW between 11 and 29 October 1940.” whilst the F4F3 first shot down a German aircraft on Christmas Day 1940.


Good points. I rate the F4F-3 higher than the F2A. I couldn't find any references to the Bf 109F actually in combat that early in my admittedly small collection of references.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 29, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Recall that Putin's joke about the Israeli soldier?


Well played sir, well played.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 29, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> A6M2 had basically the exact same armament as the Bf 109E. Are you also suggesting that long range 109's would have been useless in the BoB because they would have run out of cannon ammunition? 10 seconds of trigger time is more than enough to destroy multiple aircraft


This is the problem with cannon armed fighters in 1940, the 109 only had 55 rounds of 20mm ammunition, it's not enough for a long range fighter.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 29, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> That's not even close to true.


It's discussed in shattered sword.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 29, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> This is the problem with cannon armed fighters in 1940, the 109 only had 55 rounds of 20mm ammunition, it's not enough for a long range fighter.


Why not?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 29, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> It's discussed in shattered sword.


And?

Understanding IJN doctrine, plus reading the action report submitted by IJN command offers a very clear picture of what happened that day.

The actual, translated IJN action report can be read here:





Japanese Story of the Battle of Midway


On the fifth anniversary of the Battle of Midway, the Office of Naval Intelligence publishes the official Japanese action report of this engagement, recently translated under the supervision of the Naval Analysis Division, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, and here available in English for...




www.history.navy.mil





And this analysis from the Naval War College (this is a 14 page .PDF document):


https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2464&context=nwc-review

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.


Not to undermine what you said about the Hurricane or Polish pilots or any RAF pilot but the highest scoring ace in terms of claims for 303 Squadron was Josef František, who was a Czech pilot flying as a "guest" of 303 squadron. He took off when everyone else did and did his own thing. His 17 claims are attributed to 303 squadron but they could have been attributed to any serving squadron at the time, in my opinion they are best attributed to Josef František, an extraordinary man wherever he came from and regardless of which squadron he served in. Josef František - Wikipedia

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 29, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Understanding IJN doctrine, plus reading the action report submitted by IJN command offers a very clear picture of what happened that day.


It doesn't change the fact their doctrine was dictated by the Zero's rearming requirements, it's clearly written in Shattered Sword that the pilots wanted to replenish their 20mm ammunition as soon as it was expended, that can only lead me to believe they had little faith in the two 7.7's effectiveness.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 29, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Why not?


It's going to be difficult to dominate the sky with only 9 seconds worth of primary ammunition.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 29, 2022)

And yet, that's exactly what the Bf 109, Bf 110 and Spitfire Mk. IIB carried, as well as the A6M2

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 29, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> And yet, that's exactly what the Bf 109, Bf 110 and Spitfire Mk. IIB carried, as well as the A6M2


The Bf-109 had six seconds of 20mm time. Spitfires with the B wing had six seconds, although they were not a factor in the Battle of Britain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 29, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> It doesn't change the fact their doctrine was dictated by the Zero's rearming requirements, it's clearly written in Shattered Sword that the pilots wanted to replenish their 20mm ammunition as soon as it was expended, that can only lead me to believe they had little faith in the two 7.7's effectiveness.


If one reads the actual information (provided), one would see that the CAP didn't arbitrarily land if they needed ammunition - this was not doctrine.

They landed at intervals for fuel. If they needed to be rearmed, the aircraft was taken belowdecks.

And just to touch on the ammunition loadout. The number of rounds may seem limited, but rarely (emphasis on the keyword: *rarely)* would they hold the trigger for extended periods, instead using bursts that averaged perhaps one or two seconds.

The demise of the attacking US aircraft from Midway is proof that the A6M's armament was more than capable of refusing attacks to the fleet.
The A6M2's Type 99 cannon may have had 60 rounds per gun (120 rounds total), but the Type 99 had a rate of fire of 520 RPM, meaning a two second burst will lob about 6-8 rounds at the target (per cannon), which is more than enough to deliver catastrophic damage.

The Type 97 7.7mm MGs had 500 rounds per gun (1,000 total) with a RoF of 6 to 7 hundred RPM (as they were synchronized), the 7.7mm was more than capable of damaging critical components in an aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Bf-109 had six seconds of 20mm time. Spitfires with the B wing had six seconds, although they were not a factor in the Battle of Britain.


Yes, I was just about to correct my post. Everybody was using 60 rd drums. So, except for the Bf 110, in which the Bordfunker could reload the cannon, nobody had nine seconds of cannon ammo in 1940.


----------



## GregP (Jan 30, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The controls are almost immoveable at that speed and locked tight at 300 so what are your tactics against the Spit or 109 when you meet them, dive while keeping under your do not exceed speed to 10K and under 200mph and lure them into a turning fight?.



Strongly disagree with this. At 180 - 280 mph, the Zero is VERY maneuverable. The controls start to heavy up at just over 300 mph, and difficult to use at 320 mph and above. But at 250 mph, the Zero will quite handily out-turn a Spitfire of ANY variant. They did exactly that in the PTO, if you recall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> And yet, that's exactly what the Bf 109, Bf 110 and Spitfire Mk. IIB carried, as well as the A6M2


That's right and the shortcomings led to belt feed, in 1940 drum fed cannons didn't have the ammunition capacity to loiter over targets or fight deep into enemy territory


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The A6M2's Type 99 cannon may have had 60 rounds per gun (120 rounds total), but the Type 99 had a rate of fire of 520 RPM, meaning a two second burst will lob about 6-8 rounds at the target (per cannon), which is more than enough to deliver catastrophic damage.


We are talking 1940, the chances of your average pilot hitting an enemy plane with a 6-8 round burst is zero, the average hit rate for both sides during the BoB was less than 2%, of the planes hit over 80% where hit from no more than a few degree's off axis, the facts are there, the British stayed with 8 MG's with the Dowding spread simply because the gunnery of that era was very poor at best to usually hitting nothing.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> Strongly disagree with this. At 180 - 280 mph, the Zero is VERY maneuverable. The controls start to heavy up at just over 300 mph, and difficult to use at 320 mph and above. But at 250 mph, the Zero will quite handily out-turn a Spitfire of ANY variant. They did exactly that in the PTO, if you recall.


I got the information from this site from tests done on the Atukan A6M flown in 1942, above 200 Knots 230mph the controls were solid.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Yes, I was just about to correct my post. Everybody was using 60 rd drums. So, except for the Bf 110, in which the Bordfunker could reload the cannon, nobody had nine seconds of cannon ammo in 1940.


The 109 used 55 rounds in the drums, if they loaded 60 they jammed.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> That's right and the shortcomings led to belt feed, in 1940 drum fed cannons didn't have the ammunition capacity to loiter over targets or fight deep into enemy territory


But we are comparing 1940 era aircraft. Put away the retrospectroscope.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> We are talking 1940, the chances of your average pilot hitting an enemy plane with a 6-8 round burst is zero, the average hit rate for both sides during the BoB was less than 2%, of the planes hit over 80% where hit from no more than a few degree's off axis, the facts are there, the British stayed with 8 MG's with the Dowding spread simply because the gunnery of that era was very poor at best to usually hitting nothing.


First of all, the Japanese had been at war since the early 30's (part of that co-prosparity thing) and their pilots had just a little bit of experience at the start of the Allied involvement.

Secondly, it doesn't take many cannon rounds to cripple a target. A rookie might get what the Germans called "jadgfieber" which is fixating on the target with the finger glued to the trigger, but that is not the norm.

So if we "assume" the pilots early in the war were idiots dumping their entire loadout at one target, how on earth did they even accomplish to fight an entire battle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

My understanding of those early cannon armed aircraft is that they fired their mgs as ranging shots, using the cannon only after they had secured a good PK. And the Bf 109, with 1000 rpg for the mgs was clearly expected to fight with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 30, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Not a chance, A6M2's flying into English or German controlled airspace in 1940 would be butchered, Spitfires and Me109's are not only significantly faster but armored with good pilot protection, one thing also forgotten is they have working radio's.


How did Spits do against Zeros (or army fighters) when flying in Australia early in the war? As the other poster said though, each was the better tool in their respective locations. Spit was pretty useless in SWPA due to range limitations, Zeros didn't have the speed and high altitude capability for Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2022)

If I am wanting an air defence fighter then why do I want range?

It go up and it go down and it go fast.

Just go 350mph and what more do you want? Aircraft size of a barge? 

Big engine and little airframe. That's the ticket. If I want to carry petrol I would build a tanker.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> Strongly disagree with this. At 180 - 280 mph, the Zero is VERY maneuverable. The controls start to heavy up at just over 300 mph, and difficult to use at 320 mph and above. But at 250 mph, the Zero will quite handily out-turn a Spitfire of ANY variant. They did exactly that in the PTO, if you recall.


Read David Brown's book on Seafires. At lower altitudes, the Seafire LIIC was able to out-climb the Zero, and it was able to out-turn it at 250mph. In a dogfight, the Seafire would execute a series of yoyo turns, placing it on the Zero's tail. The Zero was very nasty below 180mph. Its manoeuvrability declined at higher speeds. 

Brown also noted that experienced pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs could out-turn the Seafires.

WWII Seafires were based on Mark_V Spitfires. I doubt that any Spitfire_Vs with souped up low altitude engines reached the Pacific.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 30, 2022)

IdahoRenegade said:


> How did Spits do against Zeros (or army fighters) when flying in Australia early in the war? As the other poster said though, each was the better tool in their respective locations. Spit was pretty useless in SWPA due to range limitations, Zeros didn't have the speed and high altitude capability for Europe.


What sort of tactics were employed by the RAAF? The tests of Seafires that I quote above, were done by the US Navy, in 1943, I think. Hopefully, this was at the request of the Royal Navy.

In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle. If the British had faced Zeros over London and they had dogmatically assumed their superior manoeuvrability, they would have got beaten.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

I don't know if January 1943 counts as early war. That's when the first Spitfires (Mk. VC Tropicalized) in Australia became operational at Darwin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> What sort of tactics were employed by the RAAF? The tests of Seafires that I quote above, were done by the US Navy, in 1943, I think. Hopefully, this was at the request of the Royal Navy.
> 
> In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle. If the British had faced Zeros over London and they had dogmatically assumed their superior manoeuvrability, they would have got beaten.


I think it was discussed on this board, but not positive where I read it. A major issue was Spit pilots tried to fight Zeros like they did '109s, in tight, maneuvering dogfights. Not a good thing to do against a Zero, especially once you bled speed. Fighting the way your enemy performs best doesn't end well. I'm sure they learned quickly and adopted more of a "boom and zoom" tactic like others did.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> I don't know if January 1943 counts as early war. That's when the first Spitfires (Mk. VC Tropicalized) in Australia became operational at Darwin.


Interesting and thanks for the correction-I thought I read of Spits flying out of Australia earlier. Given the level of knowledge on this board, I really have to learn to check and research before posting.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> What sort of tactics were employed by the RAAF? The tests of Seafires that I quote above, were done by the US Navy, in 1943, I think. Hopefully, this was at the request of the Royal Navy.
> 
> In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle. If the British had faced Zeros over London and they had dogmatically assumed their superior manoeuvrability, they would have got beaten.


Oooh. A plot twist! I like.


----------



## GregP (Jan 30, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I got the information from this site from tests done on the Atukan A6M flown in 1942, above 200 Knots 230mph the controls were solid.



That's not what the guys who FLY them say.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> That's not what the guys who FLY them say.


Yeah, like you know anyone who flies Zeros.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 30, 2022)

He does, he does!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Read David Brown's book on Seafires. At lower altitudes, the Seafire LIIC was able to out-climb the Zero, and it was able to out-turn it at 250mph. In a dogfight, the Seafire would execute a series of yoyo turns, placing it on the Zero's tail. The Zero was very nasty below 180mph. Its manoeuvrability declined at higher speeds.
> 
> Brown also noted that experienced pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs could out-turn the Seafires.
> 
> WWII Seafires were based on Mark_V Spitfires. I doubt that any Spitfire_Vs with souped up low altitude engines reached the Pacific.



Somebody's book doesn't trump the pilots who flew and continue to fly them or the combat reports. There are very many accounts of the A6M which state categorically that the A6M will get on the tail of any other monoplane fighter at 180 - 280 mph quite easily, especially in a looping maneuver. They didn't find out about the fact that the Zero had a hard time doing a rapid right run until mid-war. The Koga Zero wasn't found until July 1942 and it didn't fly until around 1943. Up until then, the Zero was considered a lethal opponent.

The link below is a link to an evaluation of the A6M5 Model 52. It notes the controls are very good up to over 300 mph.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke_52_Pilots_Comments.pdf

I very much doubt that a Hellcat could out-turn an A6M since there is no population of reports of same. The F6F could definitely out-climb an A6M and wasn't too far behind in turning circle, but a better turner? No way.

I'm sure the Seafire could outclimb the Zero, but that didn't matter much when they met in combat. Outclimbing another aircraft by a small margin doesn't get you out of range of the armament in time to do much good.

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


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle.



The three plane vics were commonplace during the Battle of Britain but not universal. George Barclay of 249 Squadron noted in his diary for 15 Oct. 40 that "In the evening we had a conference with 257 and 46 and decided to work in sections of four and break away in pairs if attacked by 109s."

Barclay also noted using another formation variation in September "One squadron in section vics line astern - the other squadron in two sections of six weaving with the last of each six also weaving".

74 Squadron comes to mind as another unit that employed pairs early on.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Yeah, like you know anyone who flies Zeros.


Isn't Greg the guy with the planes or something?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> He does, he does!


Any chance I get to plug the Planes Of Fame Museum in Chino, California (a great place to bring the kids to experience the wonder of flight) and the only A6M with the correct power plant, I take.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Isn't Greg the guy with the planes or something?


I dunno.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I dunno.


Sure he has posts with planes on them.

Or I may be thinking of Howard Hughes. I have no idea what I am doing.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

Welcome to my world.


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Wouldn't that increase the weight of the Zero? What does a cafe weigh?


But it's a Japanese one. Made of rice paper and bamboo, no armour, no tank protection. 5 pounds, I guess?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

Light roast or heavy cream?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2022)

When I was young I went to a Japanese restaurant. 

I had no idea what wasabi was.

A few seconds later, I knew exactly what Wasabi was.

Learning the hard way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> 1. Spitfire Mk. II
> 2. Bf 109E-7
> 3. A6M1
> 4. Bf 110-C4
> ...


I'd suggest I-16 type 29 instead of type 24. Slightly better armament, drop tanks and radio by default,

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 30, 2022)

The Basket said:


> When I was young I went to a Japanese restaurant.
> 
> I had no idea what wasabi was.
> 
> ...


I have been told that wasabi peas are a great way to stay awake while driving tired. 

If you have passengers, they are possible source of amusement.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jan 30, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Bf-109 had six seconds of 20mm time. Spitfires with the B wing had six seconds, although they were not a factor in the Battle of Britain.


I'm not sure how long the cannon-armed Hurricanes had in the BoB, but they kept jamming, like in the Spitfires.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 30, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> If one reads the actual information (provided), one would see that the CAP didn't arbitrarily land if they needed ammunition - this was not doctrine.
> 
> They landed at intervals for fuel. If they needed to be rearmed, the aircraft was taken belowdecks.




Hiya GG, according to Parshall and Tully in SS, cycling the CAP was *an* impediment to spotting the bombers for the strike against USN ships, but just as big if not bigger a factor was the continual air attacks combined with the the carriers maneuvering to avoid same. It's obviously dangerous to arm and spot a/c on a deck that's rolling through maneuvering. Japanese arming carts were man-powered, they'd sure hate to have an 800kg torpedo get away from a crew.

There _was_ a 50-minute window between 9 and 10 AM between CAP ops on _Akagi_. I'm not sure that would be enough to get a large strike spotted and the engines warmed up (warm-up couldn't be done in the enclosed hangars), nor am I sure of the timelines for the other three decks. I'll browse my copy of the book in a little bit and see what i can find to that end if you're interested.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 30, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> I'm not sure how long the cannon-armed Hurricanes had in the BoB, but they kept jamming, like in the Spitfires.



Hiya John, long time no read. How's the blues circuit treating you?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> Somebody's book doesn't trump the pilots who flew and continue to fly them or the combat reports. There are very many accounts of the A6M which state categorically that the A6M will get on the tail of any other monoplane fighter at 180 - 280 mph quite easily, especially in a looping maneuver. They didn't find out about the fact that the Zero had a hard time doing a rapid right run until mid-war. The Koga Zero wasn't found until July 1942 and it didn't fly until around 1943. Up until then, the Zero was considered a lethal opponent.
> 
> The link below is a link to an evaluation of the A6M5 Model 52. It notes the controls are very good up to over 300 mph.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. It amazes me just how light the Zero is. Did the weight of an American radio and other gear compensate for the lower weight from the lack of ammo?


----------



## John Vasco (Jan 30, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Hiya John, long time no read. How's the blues circuit treating you?


Hi Thump. Things gradually getting back to normal, but with such a long lay-off, it was like starting all over again going to old venues and picking up work again.

(Apologies to Admins - Thump and I go back a long way re internet forums)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 30, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> Hi Thump. Things gradually getting back to normal, but with such a long lay-off, it was like starting all over again going to old venues and picking up work again.
> 
> (Apologies to Admins - Thump and I go back a long way re internet forums)



Glad to hear it's coming back to norm. If you do still post at MLP tell the usual suspects I said "hi" if you would please?

/derail


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> But we are comparing 1940 era aircraft. Put away the retrospectroscope.


But this is my point, one of the advantages of the Zero in our hypothetical BoB is that it can reach all over Britain or loiter over London, it doesn't have the ammunition capacity to do that.


----------



## John Vasco (Jan 30, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Glad to hear it's coming back to norm. If you do still post at MLP tell the usual suspects I said "hi" if you would please?
> 
> /derail



I do still post in there, Thump. Post a load of crap, tongue-in-cheek, and some STILL take it seriously! The old hands, however, know it all inside out with me!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Hiya GG, according to Parshall and Tully in SS, cycling the CAP was *an* impediment to spotting the bombers for the strike against USN ships, but just as big if not bigger a factor was the continual air attacks combined with the the carriers maneuvering to avoid same. It's obviously dangerous to arm and spot a/c on a deck that's rolling through maneuvering. Japanese arming carts were man-powered, they'd sure hate to have an 800kg torpedo get away from a crew.
> 
> There _was_ a 50-minute window between 9 and 10 AM between CAP ops on _Akagi_. I'm not sure that would be enough to get a large strike spotted and the engines warmed up (warm-up couldn't be done in the enclosed hangars), nor am I sure of the timelines for the other three decks. I'll browse my copy of the book in a little bit and see what i can find to that end if you're interested.


The carriers were in the process of arming for the next strike on Midway when they became aware of the Yorktown.
The decision to quickly change from a land strike mission to a ship strike mission saw the removed ordnance left strewn about the (hangar) deck.
That decision also stopped the process of bringing up the attack force for spotting and launching - if the Yorktown hadn't been spotted and/or the USN launched their strikes a bit earlier, the attack force intended for Midway would have been assembling topside, which might have mitigated the damage to the IJN's carriers, since the extra ordnance would have remained stowed.

But in the end, the point is that IJN doctrine dictated that the flight decks were to remain clear until a force was to be launched or recovered.

That doctrine predated the battle of Midway by years and had nothing to do with "Zeros landing to rearm" as stated earlier.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> But this is my point, one of the advantages of the Zero in our hypothetical BoB is that it can reach all over Britain or loiter over London, it doesn't have the ammunition capacity to do that.


I disagree. It doesn't have to fight it's way across England. But it can reach areas that 109s can't, and then fight.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

Had Zeroes been available, they could have escorted Luftflotte 5 from Norway, greatly increasing the challenges to Fighter Command. Dachelbauch 110s were not up to the task.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

IdahoRenegade said:


> I think it was discussed on this board, but not positive where I read it. A major issue was Spit pilots tried to fight Zeros like they did '109s, in tight, maneuvering dogfights. Not a good thing to do against a Zero, especially once you bled speed. Fighting the way your enemy performs best doesn't end well. I'm sure they learned quickly and adopted more of a "boom and zoom" tactic like others did.


The Spitfires where ordered to ignore the Zero's and attack the bombers, out of the 26 Spitfires lost, 19 were shot down while they were attacking a bomber, 5 in one day when two squadrons attacked at the same time right under the escorting A6M's and were bounced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> That's not what the guys who FLY them say.


Okay then, the fighter pilots who actually fought in WW2 must be wrong.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> The link below is a link to an evaluation of the A6M5 Model 52. It notes the controls are very good up to over 300 mph.


It says the controls are seriously effected at 250mph and is only maneuverable at medium speeds.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 30, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The carriers were in the process of arming for the next strike on Midway when they became aware of the Yorktown.
> The decision to quickly change from a land strike mission to a ship strike mission saw the removed ordnance left strewn about the (hangar) deck.
> That decision also stopped the process of bringing up the attack force for spotting and launching - if the Yorktown hadn't been spotted and/or the USN launched their strikes a bit earlier, the attack force intended for Midway would have been assembling topside, which might have mitigated the damage to the IJN's carriers, since the extra ordnance would have remained stowed.



My understanding from reading SS was that the continual attacks not only forced cycling of the CAP, but also that the doctrine of avoiding attacks with maneuver hampered the ability of Japanese decks crews to spot and arm on the flight deck.

And yes, Nagumo's order-counterorder-disorder phase was another factor in them being caught pants-down.

American strikes could likely not have been launched much earlier than they were historically.



GrauGeist said:


> But in the end, the point is that IJN doctrine dictated that the flight decks were to remain clear until a force was to be launched or recovered.
> 
> That doctrine predated the battle of Midway by years and had nothing to do with "Zeros landing to rearm" as stated earlier.



Right, they definitely preferred rearming in the hangars; but at Midway I think that would have been disregarded had the Japanese not 1) had to recover the Midway strike 2) not rearm the second wave to fight ship 3) not had to deal with continual air attack and 4) not had to cycle CAP. ( 3) and 4) are interrelated).

So I stand by my point that CAP cycling was *a* factor, but not the only factor.


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> I disagree. It doesn't have to fight it's way across England. But it can reach areas that 109s can't, and then fight.


The RAF are not going to let A6M's fly unmolested anywhere they want to go and only fight them when it suits them, Park called his plan ''peeling away the enemy'' which was to bring escorting fighters into battle the further they flew into England, I think the RAF pilots will look at the A6M like the Luftwaffe looked at the B24, that is it's an easy target to destroy than the tougher B17 and Me109 and will attack them at any opportunity.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Had Zeroes been available, they could have escorted Luftflotte 5 from Norway, greatly increasing the challenges to Fighter Command. Dachelbauch 110s were not up to the task.


They could also have escorted bombers from Netherlands to the north east coast of England, but the notion of doing such a thing didnt exist at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

The operations of an air force are dictated by its equipment. That the Germans did not escort bombers to NE England was because they did not have a fighter capable. On the other hand, an aircraft has to be present in sufficient numbers, with sufficiently trained aircrew, to be effective. Bf 109F-0 and -1 were in production during the time frame, but were not available in sufficient numbers to make an impact on the outcome of the battle. Bf 109Es would continue as the Luftwaffe's main SE fighter type for another year.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> The operations of an air force are dictated by its equipment. That the Germans did not escort bombers to NE England was because they did not have a fighter capable. On the other hand, an aircraft has to be present in sufficient numbers, with sufficiently trained aircrew, to be effective. Bf 109F-0 and -1 were in production during the time frame, but were not available in sufficient numbers to make an impact on the outcome of the battle. Bf 109Es would continue as the Luftwaffe's main SE fighter type for another year.


I was just discussing distance. It is 392 miles from Stavanger in Norway to Newcastle in North East England. It is 325 miles from Schipol in Netherlands to Newcastle. I live in Teesside which was a major steel making and chemical refinery centre in WW2, approx 50 miles closer to Schipol and further away than Stavanger.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2022)

Are we using time machine Zeros or 1940s Zeros?

We also have the famous (or infamous) Zeros vs Australian Spitfires comparison. 

A Spitfire I or II was 5-600lbs lighter than that the Australian Spitfires (or more) if they had plane with two 20mm guns . 


The Australian Spitfires used the Merlin 46 engine which 
a. A limited the boost to 9lbs.
b. Used the Hooker intake which did boost power
c. Used a higher supercharger gear and a larger impeller which is going to hurt lower altitude power.

Spitfire I & II could use 12 lbs of boost at lower altitudes.

from the later A6M3 version the Zero got trim tabs on the ailerons which did improve the aileron response over the earlier Zeros without the trim tabs. 

The point about radios is a bit of nit picking. Germans can either fit German radios or come up with another way to solve the Japanese radio problem 
HOWEVER, most of the radios in the 109s were single channel radios and didn't have great range. 
This is one of the reasons for the using the Bf 110, which used the same radios as the He 111 and the other bombers. 

Doesn't matter if you have 109s with drop tanks or Zeros (or He 100 or single seat Fw 187) for long range missions. At the longer ranges the radios in the single seat fighters won't reach base. You also have the problem of coordinating the fighters with the bombers if they can't talk to each other or, if using single channel radios they are talking over each other.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 30, 2022)

Hypothetical Zeroes. Teleported to Western Europe to take part in the Battle of Britain. They were clearly a match for the few obsolete aircraft flown by the Chinese, and seemed to handle themselves well against the Soviet aircraft sent to China. No other combatants were active during spring - summer 1940, so the question is whether they were up to taking on the RAF or Luftwaffe. Two things apart from their being on the opposite side of the world against them. Lack of sufficient numbers and lack of protection. Performancewise, I believe that they would be competitive, as they remained so even in the face of more developed aircraft later in the war.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2022)

From German point of view, the main problem with the Zero (A6M2 from 1940) was that they didn't have them. Low ammo count, not being sturdy as the 1942 era fighters, a meh radio - things that just point out that there was no such thing as a perfect fighter in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 31, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> From German point of view, the main problem with the Zero (A6M2 from 1940) was that they didn't have them


I suspect that if the Germans, (or British) actually had 1940 era Zeros available in time for the BoB, both sides would have rejected them for service, until they could be fitted with standard equipment. Like pilot protection, bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, emergency dingy, radios...etc

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2022)

This obsession with self-sealing tanks and armor is interesting.
The early Hurrican lacked all that and it wasn't until around May of 1940 that the Hurricane was upgraded with pilot protection and then during the Battle of Britain, the need to protect the fuselage tank was discovered and was corrected with "Linatex".

The fuel tanks on the Bf109E were coated with a light layer of rubber and provided inadequate protection. It wouldn't be corrected until the Bf109F was put into service.

The French Hawk 75-C1 fought the Battle of France without armor or self sealing tanks and proved itself a potent adversary to the Bf109.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I suspect that if the Germans, (or British) actually had 1940 era Zeros available in time for the BoB, both sides would have rejected them for service, until they could be fitted with standard equipment. Like pilot protection, bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, emergency dingy, radios...etc



British were buying (with cash) during the BoB aircraft without the pilot protection and self sealing tanks: Mohawks, P-40s, Buffaloes, early Martlets, Model 322s from Lockheed... There was no pilot protection or s-s tanks on Gladiators, either.
Hurricane was noted for it's flammable fuel tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 31, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> British were buying (with cash) during the BoB aircraft without the pilot protection and self sealing tanks


Did these aircraft go into service in Europe without the aforementioned upgrades? Honest question, I am curious. 
My understanding was that the first Martlets were fitted with armour once arrived in the UK. Same with the P-40. They were buying whatever aircraft they could get their hands on, but fitting them with standard equipment once arrived. Those aircraft deemed not suitable for combat over Britain, were provided to the overseas territories, where it was assumed they wouldn't face first class equipment

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Did these aircraft go into service in Europe without the aforementioned upgrades? Honest question, I am curious.
> My understanding was that the first Martlets were fitted with armour once arrived in the UK. Same with the P-40. They were buying whatever aircraft they could get their hands on, but fitting them with standard equipment once arrived. Those aircraft deemed not suitable for combat over Britain, were provided to the overseas territories, where it was assumed they wouldn't face first class equipment



They probably received some modifications (British radio, armored headrest?) and went into the combat, but after the BoB, since there was just a token delivered before November of 1940 (none from Lockheed)?
I'm not sure that self-sealing tanks were easy to retrotfit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2022)

For the French Hawk 75 there are conflicting accounts as to seat armor. 
Thickness of seat armor may also be an issue. 
8mm seat armor was being fitted before/during the Battle for France.
One or more squadrons were trying to fit tank protection but this was at the local level and the effectiveness may have been questionable? 

For the P-40/Tomahawk the production/lines changed over in Sept/Oct. 
Late Sept was when the American-British standards were made joint, aside from radios/oxygen etc.
Protection dates from then but they were weeks/months from squadron service.
The air staffs in the west agreed to the need for protection over the summer of 1940. Ramping up production and trying to refit existing planes was a problem. 
The fitting of bullet proof glass was also desired but took a while to become standard.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2022)

Luftwaffe has a concept of a long-range fighter even before 1939 (materialized in the Bf 110). Zero fits in their doctrine far better than in the pre-war RAF's doctrine, that says 'fighters defend the UK, bombers bomb the enemy since they will always get through'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2022)

For Tomo the fitting of self sealing tanks depended on the design of the airplane. 
The P-40 with it's 3 tanks mounted in large spaces made it relatively easy. 
Also the fact that the P-40 held more fuel to begin with helped. 
The Brewster was something of a nightmare. 
The US resorted to fitting 3 brand new tanks, sealing off one of the old ones etc. 
The Groundhog lost 40-50 gallons by the time they figured out decent self sealing tanks that would fit in the same space.

Some planes held a small amount of fuel in a small volume and other planes, with not a whole lot more fuel, spread it out in a variety of spaces giving a much larger target area.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Groundhog lost 40-50 gallons by the time they figured out decent self sealing tanks that would fit in the same space.



Unfortunately, the Groudhog was with 12 small tanks by the time of the C version. Each small tank now becoming a self-sealing tank (with the D version) cut the amount of fuel to a pitiful level for an Ameican fighter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 31, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I suspect that if the Germans, (or British) actually had 1940 era Zeros available in time for the BoB, both sides would have rejected them for service, until they could be fitted with standard equipment. Like pilot protection, bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, emergency dingy, radios...etc


For example, pilot armour was a requirement for Spitfire units in order to participate in the fighting over Dunkirk in May 1940.

152 Squadron Spitfires fitted with armour plating 27 May 1940

609 Squadron Spitfires fitted with pilot armour 30 May 1940

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Unfortunately, the Groudhog was with 12 small tanks by the time of the C version. Each small tank now becoming a self-sealing tank (with the D version) cut the amount of fuel to a pitiful level for an Ameican fighter.


A number of American planes had been designed with integral tanks at the end of of 1930s. The savings in weight became a major problem when the change to self sealing was adopted.
For example the F4U was designed with integral wing tanks and they were never adapted to self sealing.
The B-24 was originally designed for integral tanks. One of the reasons (but not the only one) that the first British ones were used for overwater patrol. There were a more planes. 

There were also other protection systems for fuel tanks besides self sealing.
Like CO-2 or cooled exhaust gases. 
Or heavier skins over the tanks or bulkheads. 
" protection" covered quite a wide range.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 31, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> British were buying (with cash) during the BoB aircraft without the pilot protection and self sealing tanks: Mohawks, P-40s, Buffaloes, early Martlets, Model 322s from Lockheed... There was no pilot protection or s-s tanks on Gladiators, either.


Please see attached passage from Fox's _Knights of the Skies_ regarding Gladiator armour.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jan 31, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> This obsession with self-sealing tanks and armor is interesting.


Why do you say that?, the fitting of protection was a direct result of combat experience. Look at this photo, three hits from cannon shells yet the pilot landed safely with only a piece of shrapnel in his heel that went under his seat armor, if that was a Zero the pilot wouldn't survive. I'm supprised at your post, why protection, to protect your most valuable asset which is your pilots, planes can be replaced, pilots can't.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Why do you say that?, the fitting of protection was a direct result of combat experience. Look at this photo, three hits from cannon shells yet the pilot landed safely with only a piece of shrapnel in his heel that went under his seat armor, if that was a Zero the pilot wouldn't survive. I'm supprised at your post, why protection, to protect your most valuable asset which is your pilots, planes can be replaced, pilots can't.
> View attachment 656476


Why would you be surprised at my post?

You aparently are not aware that pilot protection was an emerging feature by the late 30's, early 40's.

Same too, with self sealing fuel cells.

When the A6M was designed, very few aircraft in the world were equipped with them.

As I mentioned a few posts back, the Hurricane still had an unprotected fuel tank ahead of the pilot *during the battle of britain.*
It wasn't until* late spring of 1940, *that the Hurricane was equipped with pilot protection.
The Bf109E had a form of pilot protection, but inadequate fuel tank protection during the battle of Britain.

Many, and I mean many, fighters in 1940 did *not* have these features for several reasons, first off, was weight.
Next, fuel cell protection was an emerging technology and the Japanese in many cases, used a CO2 suppression system to arrest any fire caused by the tank being hit.

Maybe then, the F4U wasn't used in Europe because it didn't have self sealing cells in the wings?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 31, 2022)

Even when armor was designed for an aircraft, it wasn't always installed. Weight messes with fuel economy. Prior to the start of hostilities USN aircraft did not have armor installed. Aircraft aboard USS Enterprise were fitted with improvised armor made of boiler plate prior to the Marshall Islands raid, 1 Feb, 1942. In Burma, several RAF fighter pilots were lost because even two weeks into the fighting, they hadn't installed the pilot armor in their B-339Es.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Why do you say that?, the fitting of protection was a direct result of combat experience. Look at this photo, three hits from cannon shells yet the pilot landed safely with only a piece of shrapnel in his heel that went under his seat armor, if that was a Zero the pilot wouldn't survive. I'm supprised at your post, why protection, to protect your most valuable asset which is your pilots, planes can be replaced, pilots can't.
> View attachment 656476


I think it was only around the late 1930s that it started to dawn on those upstairs that the pilot was the most valuable asset, it took much longer to train a pilot than WW1, both the Germans and British were producing around 250 fighters a month at the time of Dunkerque, they couldnt dream of training top pilots at that rate, and fighter production increased for almost all parties.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 31, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> It wasn't until* late spring of 1940, *that the Hurricane was equipped with pilot protection.


Not exactly,

17 Squadron - 5 October 1939 "bullet-proof section in the windscreen".

1 Squadron - 12 March 1940 "All aircraft in squadron have been fitted with rear armour"

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


----------



## slaterat (Jan 31, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> It wasn't until* late spring of 1940, *that the Hurricane was equipped with pilot protection



You can check out this post for confirmation, but I will sum it up for you.






Introduction of pilot armor on the Hurricane and Spitfire


I posted some of this before and it seems to be a recurring question, so I thought I would provide some relevant documentation in an easy to find thread.



ww2aircraft.net





All Spitfires and Hurricanes that saw combat with the RAF had front armour protection for the pilot and engine.
Hurricanes were rolling off the production line with rear armour in early 1940. Good rule of thumb, if a Hurricane has a three bladed prop, it has rear armour.
Spitfire Is had rear armour fitted in the field but it was a slow process, most had only the head plate installed.
Spitfire IIs had rear armour fitted at the factory.

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


----------



## slaterat (Jan 31, 2022)

Regarding self sealing tanks, it was an Air ministry decision not to make the reserve tank on the Hurricane I self sealing. After the rather horrid results of this during the BoB, the decision was reversed and the fire proof bulkhead was extended to encompass the reserve tank and the tank was made self sealing.
Hurricane IIs had all three tanks self sealing from the start as well as additional armour front and rear, all by Sept 1940. That's about, what three years ahead of the Zero?


----------



## pinsog (Feb 1, 2022)

Test between Zero and Spitfire Mark V tropical

The son of the pilot of the Spitfire is on this forum and stated his dad bent the tail of the Spitfire 15 degrees during the test against the Zero. He first stated it was 9 degrees but he misread his dads writing, I believe in his flight log.

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


----------



## pinsog (Feb 1, 2022)

Martlet/Wildcat vs Seafire IIc

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 1, 2022)

Good stuff!


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2022)

I like the part about the _stubby little wings_ on the Martlet

Wings were 1ft 2 in longer than the Spitfire wings and had another 18 sq ft of wing area 

Seafire IIC's came with two different engines. Which were about as far apart as you could make a single stage Merlin.

Some had Merlin 46 engines which were the same high altitude single stage Merlin's the Australians got. Sucked at low altitude. 
The others got Merlin 32s (same engines the Barracuda got?) with cropped impellers ( a 1/4 in larger than the cropped Merlin 45s got) and a lower gear ratio.
At 2000ft they had another 50-60hp over what the Merlin 45 had. The Merlin 46 used a larger impeller than any other single stage Merlin (Except the Merlin 47) and used the highest gear ratio (same as the Merlin 45) 

The early Martlets also had several different engines. So we have a story about one pilot dog fighting (testing?) another pilot at an unknown altitude with unknown engines in both planes using unknown boost levels. So what did we actually learn?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 1, 2022)

How much fun they had.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 1, 2022)

I think Corky Meyer was having fun too;
"


> _Without argument, the Spitfire/Seafire configuration was probably the most beautiful fighter ever to emerge from a drawing board. Its elliptical wing and long, slim fuselage were visually most delightful, and its flight characteristics equalled its aerodynamic beauty._





> _The Seafire had such delightful upright flying qualities that, knowing it had an inverted fuel and oil system, I decided to try inverted 'figure-8s'. They were as easy as pie, even when hanging by the complicated, but comfortable, British pilot restraint harness.
> Spins were like a training aircraft, with instant recovery as soon as the controls were released. Even if I couldn't find the trim tab controls handily, which I couldn't, I didn't need them. The stability about all three axes of the aircraft was low enough to be a fighter pilots dream and high enough to fly hands-off in mildly turbulent air, it was a great combination, acrobatics were a pleasure, the aircraft responded right after the thought came to the pilots mind, seemingly without effort._





> _I was surprised to hear myself laughing as if I were crazy._





> _I have never enjoyed a flight in a fighter as much before or since, or felt so comfortable in an aeroplane at any flight attitude. It was clear to see how so few exhausted, hastily trained, Battle of Britain pilots were able to fight off Hitler's hordes for so long, and so successfully, with it._





> _The Lend-Lease Royal Navy Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsair fighters were only workhorses. The Seafire III was a dashing stallion!_

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 2, 2022)

It's great reading pilots' impressions. It gives a bit of the "feel" of an airplane to a ground bound guy like me rather than just a list of numbers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Feb 2, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> It's great reading pilots' impressions. It gives a bit of the "feel" of an airplane to a ground bound guy like me rather than just a list of numbers.


Yes, for us, armchair aviators, is really illustrative.

And somewhere over the... Internet, just found this magazine cover for all the armchair aviators (I must admit the plane in the cover wasn't coincidence, only that didn't found the elder brother).

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 2, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Seafire IIC's came with two different engines. Which were about as far apart as you could make a single stage Merlin.


I am reluctant to apply the word "cropped" to something that rotates at 28,000rpm.

The low altitude Seafires featured engines with reduced superchargers. Engine power went to the propeller, not the supercharger. The LIICs and LIIICs had 1500 to 1600HP until the superchargers ran out at around 6,000ft. At low altitude, these aircraft had very high rates of acceleration and climb. They had four bladed props and six exhaust stacks on each side of the engine, making them look like they had Merlin_61s. Below 9,000ft, they were the world's fastest carrier borne aircraft, until they installed MW in the Corsairs in early 1945. Above 15,000ft, a Zero could easily out perform them. These Seafires were used as the final line of interception at the Battle of Okinawa. 

The Fleet Air Arm definitely used the low altitude Seafires at Okinawa. I am not sure if they used the regular ones. The FAA had Corsairs, and I cannot think of a mission a medium altitude Seafire would have performed better than a Corsair.

The low altitude engines were also installed in some old, beat up, Spitfire_Vs after D-Day. The aircraft were not popular with the pilots. In France, you really wanted a Spitfire_IX or XIV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 2, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> I am reluctant to apply the word "cropped" to something that rotates at 28,000rpm.
> 
> The low altitude Seafires featured engines with reduced superchargers.



Reduced superchargers, as in the impeller blades were cropped to a smaller diameter?




Howard Gibson said:


> Engine power went to the propeller, not the supercharger.



You learn something new every day!

Of course the supercharger requires power to operate. Reducing the impeller size also reduced the full throttle height and power required to drive the supercharger. Which means more power to the prop.




Howard Gibson said:


> The low altitude engines were also installed in some old, beat up, Spitfire_Vs after D-Day. The aircraft were not popular with the pilots. In France, you really wanted a Spitfire_IX or XIV.



The Spitfire LF.Vs hastily introduced in 1941/1942 to combat Fw 190s at low altitude?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2022)

Some Seafires were reputed to have used Merlin 46 engines.

There were 4 different (at least ?) impellers used on the single stage engines.
The standard 10.25in diameter.
The 9.75in diameter used in the Merlin 30, 32 and 34
The 9.50in diameter used in the Merlin 45M, 50M, 55M and 55MA
The 10.85in diameter used in the Merlin 46, 47, 50A, 56

For supercharger drive gears you had the standard 8.588 gears uses in the Merlin I, II, III, and others.
You had the 6.313 gears used in the Merlin VIII
And you had the 9.089 gears used in just about everything else. 

Please note that a lot of the low altitude engines used the 9.089 gears with the 9.50 diameter impeller. 

The Merlin 46 used the 9.089 gears with the 10.85 impeller and required the most power to to drive the supercharger. It also gave the most power at high altitude. 
The Merlin 32 used the 8.588 gears with the 9.75 in impeller and that is how they got the low altitude power. 

A Merlin 45 used the 9.089 gears with the 10.25 in impeller and
A Merlin 45M used the 9.089 gears with the 9.50 in impeller. 

Somebody else can calculate the tips speeds.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 3, 2022)

pinsog said:


> Test between Zero and Spitfire Mark V tropical
> 
> The son of the pilot of the Spitfire is on this forum and stated his dad bent the tail of the Spitfire 15 degrees during the test against the Zero. He first stated it was 9 degrees but he misread his dads writing, I believe in his flight log.


Your comparing a MkV Trop fitted with a Merlin 46 running 9 psi boost, at the time of this test both the Merlin 45 and 46 were cleared for 16 psi, that Spitfire did 330mph when regular MkV hit 375mph to give you an idea of it's performance loss.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 3, 2022)

I think it has been covered many times before on this forum, but if you wanted to design a Spitfire to perform as poorly as possible, the final product would look a lot like the Spitfires used in the Australian A6M trials.

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


----------



## pinsog (Feb 3, 2022)

They must have needed filters to operate in the dusty environment or they wouldn’t be on there. Could they run 16 psi boost with the filter on? If my group was losing 28-5 I’d be having my mechanic turn the boost up so I didn’t die. 

Death trap Zero didn’t have armor or self sealing tanks, does anyone know how many pilots lived out of the 28 Spitfires shot down? 

Many of the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were built from the wrecks of multiple planes after being shelled by battleships and cruisers, couldn’t hit 330 mph on the day it rolled off the factory floor, flown by a 100 pound woman with no guns or ammo, climbed like a brick and it still fought Zeros to a 1 to 1 ratio not including the bombers they destroyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 3, 2022)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire LF.Vs hastily introduced in 1941/1942 to combat Fw 190s at low altitude?


I don't think they went nuts with LF and HF Spitfires in '41-'42. Spitfire_Vs with Merlin_55Ms were flown over France after D-Day in '44. These were known as "clipped, clapped, cropped Spitties". There were much better Spitfires out there. 

Just because better technology has been introduced, it doesn't mean that everybody gets to fly it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> I don't think they went nuts with LF and HF Spitfires in '41-'42. Spitfire_Vs with Merlin_55Ms were flown over France after D-Day in '44. These were known as "clipped, clapped, cropped Spitties". There were much better Spitfires out there.
> 
> Just because better technology has been introduced, it doesn't mean that everybody gets to fly it.


As I understand it the "clapped" refers to them being used machines that were modified. Clipped and cropped refers to them being optimised for a specific purpose, that is low altitude speed/climb and a higher rate of roll. Other Spitfires were modified with extended wing tips pressurised cockpits etc for high altitude performance but were awful to fly at lower levels and didnt like to land, preferring to float along the runway, technology is sometimes a compromise and at other times a pursuit of a single goal.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> I don't think they went nuts with LF and HF Spitfires in '41-'42. Spitfire_Vs with Merlin_55Ms were flown over France after D-Day in '44. These were known as "clipped, clapped, cropped Spitties". There were much better Spitfires out there.
> 
> Just because better technology has been introduced, it doesn't mean that everybody gets to fly it.



Clipped - clipped wings to improve roll rate to compete against the Fw 190A in 1941/42.

Cropped - supercharger impeller machined down to improve boost and power to increase low altitude power to combat low flying Fw 190A raiders in 1941/42.

Clapped - because they were used examples, war weary, if you like.

They may well have still been flying them over the D-Day beaches, as a significant proportion of Spitfires in service in 1944 were still Vs. But they were relegated to ground attack or secondary roles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2022)

wuzak said:


> They may well have still been flying them over the D-Day beaches, as a significant proportion of Spitfires in service in 1944 were still Vs. But they were relegated to ground attack or secondary roles.


Why not optimise the second line machines for the use you intent to put them to? D-Day was an amphibious landing, everything of importance was at ground level, by mid 1944 Spitfire Mk Vs were not going to be tasked with providing "top cover".


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2022)

They were flying a Spitfire VB with a Merlin 50M at Boscombe Down in early 1943. 
Report was written 25th of May 1943. 

see; Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance

Wings were not clipped. 
Due to the "cropped" impeller the engine was allowed to use 18lbs of boost instead of the normal 16lbs of boost. 

Please note that this was over a year before Normandy. 
I would also note that the test aircraft was only 94 airframes different (newer) than the airframe used for the first VB Spitfire built as such and with full operational equipment and tested in May of 1941. How "clapped" the example used when testing the Merlin 50 engine may have been is subject to question but the airframe may have been almost 2 years old?

in any case the test Spitfire was flying within 1-2 months of the First P-47 Thunderbolt combat sorties over Belgium and France. The Idea that the cropped impeller/low altitude Spitfire V was a "D-Day" special is pretty thin.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2022)

Getting back to the Zero vs Spitfire over England in 1940 and the relevance of the Australian trials. 

The Merlin 46 operating at 9lbs of boost was within 30-40hp of a Merlin III running at 6lbs boost until around 17,000ft is reached. The Merlin III then has less power the higher the plane goes. The Merlin 46 gets stronger until 22-23,000ft is reached. 

The test makes it clear that the Spitfire has a performance edge over 20,000ft and NO TESTS over 20,000ft were performed. 
The improved supercharger inlet on the Merlin 46 is overshadowed by the higher supercharger gears and the larger diameter impeller at altitudes of under 17-18,000ft. 
The Spitfire Is over England in 1940 have weaker armament than the VCs over Darwin but the eight .303s are lighter in weight and don't have the drag producing gun barrels 20mm feed blisters. They also don't have the Vokes/tropical filter nor do they have the tropical radiator and oil coolers fitted. With other added equipment the RAAF Spitfire Vs were about 500lbs heavier than a Spitfire I over England in the summer of 1940 or almost 8-9% lighter. 

A Spitfire I running 12 lbs of boost was good for 314mph (?) at sea level and 359mph at 11,500ft, knock 5-10mph off if you wish. If the Zero vs Spit fight descend to lower altitudes over England in 1940 the Spitfire Is will have over 300hp more power than the Darwin Spitfires did and will be lighter. 
The Zero would still be dangerous but the results could very well be different.

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 3, 2022)

The L.F. Mk V had the Merlin 45M, 50M, 55M, a Mk V with a 50 is not a L.F.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 3, 2022)

2TAF definitely used 'L' or 'LF' modified Mk Vbs and Mk Vcs from its formation in June 1943 and into the early part of 1944, but these had nearly disappeared by the time of D-Day. 

From the 2TAF's June 1944 order of battle, I make it eight Mk V squadrons. In comparison, 2TAF had 35 Mk IX squadrons in service at the same time, along with a single Mk VII squadron.

Almost all of 2TAF's Mk Vs - with the exception of some meteorological and air spotting aircraft - appear within 83 Group, but placed in reserve with ADGB. From the 83 Group intelligence summaries it appears none of their Mk Vs actually saw any combat post D-Day. There aren't any claims made or losses recorded for Mk Vs for June through to the end of August.

From my reading, early 1943 to early 1944 was the heyday for the LF Mk V.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> 303 Squadron were certainly the highest CLAIMERS. However modern research comparing actuals to claims places 603 Squadron as top scorers, with 303 in 4th place.



Ahh, the Scots'll be pleased. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Sqn, AuxAF memorial at Edinburgh Airport, formerly RAF Turnhoose.





2007 603 Sqn Spitfire

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Not at all, aircraft are like any other fighting machine, there is a balance between performance firepower and protection, the Zero doesn't have that balance.



And what are you basing that on? The usual misguided prejudice? 



PAT303 said:


> Have fun flying either way across the channel doing 200mph at 13,000ft with 850 litres in unprotected tanks in 1940-41.



I believe you make far too much of protection and its role. As mentioned earlier, lots of Zeroes shot down lots of aircraft with armour plating and got away with being shot at themselves, so reality doesn't match your argument, Pat 308, which I've pointed out time and again, but which you just repeat without providing credible evidence. 

Everything you state about the Zero has no reference to fact and is based predominantly on your disapproval of the aircraft. Suggesting it couldn't survive in Europe because of a detrimental performance compared to the PTO? Why? Where does this come from? Was there something in the air/water/fuel in Europe compared to the PTO? Did the P-38, B-25 and other types that operated in both theatres suffer the same thing? Or is this peculiar trait happen only to Japanese aircraft, specifically the Zero?

And this hare brained idea that Zeroes couldn't fly over the Ruhr because of flak and other anti-aircraft measures... Again, evidence! This entire theory makes no sense at all and is completely meaningless because it is devoid of context. You might as well say that the B-17 would have been useless over Viet Nam. Totally misplaced statement with no basis of credible reasoning at all.

Let's provide evidence instead of shooting these silly theories around.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2022)

GregP said:


> The link below is a link to an evaluation of the A6M5 Model 52. It notes the controls are very good up to over 300 mph.


The later A6M3s got trim tabs for the ailerons as did all the Zeros afterwards. 
The A6M2s and early A6M3s had no trim tabs for the ailerons which did affect the relative control response before the different models.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 3, 2022)

I remember reading (Air Classics methinks) a B-17 was used in Viet Nam for special missions. This was because the B-17 didn't look American.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I remember reading (Air Classics methinks) a B-17 was used in Viet Nam for special missions. This was because the B-17 didn't look American.



I've read the same. In the example above though, my quote was about a meaningless context as a B-17 bomber instead of B-52s, but you get that, I'm sure. Were B-17 search and rescue aircraft used in South-East Asia? Would make sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 3, 2022)

I knew where you coming from nuuumannn. It's so rare for Viet Nam and B-17 to be in the same sentence that the line "the B-17 didn't look American" leapt to my mind unbidden. I'm glad for the confirmation, though. I've been remembering a lot of things lately that might not have happened.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 3, 2022)

The B-17s used by the CIA (Air America, Civil Air Transport and Intermountain Aviation) were all phased out of service in Southeast Asia by the late 50's.

It might be of interest, though, to know the B-17 of Intermountain Aviation was the ship that snatched up James Bond at the end of the movie* with it's Fulton system.

* Sorry, should have mentioned the movie's name: "Thunderball"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 3, 2022)

Cool!


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 3, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> And what are you basing that on? The usual misguided prejudice?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In fairness, if the A6M was operated by the Luftwaffe then it would have been fitted with armour plate much sooner than was the case in the Pacific. This has nothing to do with the relative merits of the aircraft. It's simply a reflection of Luftwaffe practices based on their experiences in the Spanish Civil War. I think it highly improbable that the Luftwaffe would operate ANY fighter in 1940 without at least some armour protection. 

Since the 1940 timeframe deals with the very earliest of the A6Ms to enter service, I have to imagine that adding armour protection would negatively impact performance of the A6M. Alas, I'm not smart enough to know exactly what that would mean but I imagine it would impact operational range to some extent because the engine has to propel a greater mass and the wing loading will be higher. Manoeuverability would also be reduced because, again, the wing loading will have increased because of the extra weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2022)

Quite likely, Mark. The Zero was designed to a strict set of criteria, which was entirely different to Western designs. Basing the entire ethos of the aircraft on the specification the IJN produced meant that Horikoshi had to be tight with structural weight and that resulted in structural weakness in the wings of the first production batch of A6M-2s, which resulted in the loss of a couple of aircraft, but this was rectified relatively early by increasing the wing skin thickness and adding a strengthening strip laterally across the wing. Balance weights were added to the ailerons as well to counteract heavy forces on the controls. By the time the type went into action in China though, the strengthening had been added and the problem had been resolved, but initially, as mentioned earlier, restrictions on dive speeds were added.

Western aircraft design differed in that the aircraft were designed with all the accoutrements required or expected of a modern combat aircraft and a suitable powerplant added that could carry the lot. Different design philosophy, and yes, had the Luftwaffe operated the type it would have had issues in its initial A6M2 incarnation, but not in later versions with more powerful engines and strengthened wings - following the rectification of the wing issues the type never suffered structural weakness in service (despite claims to the contrary here and elsewhere). Despite the added weight and wing loading however, its range and good performance would still have been a useful addition to the German order of battle, still being able to out range the Bf 109 and provide bomber escort for the longest ranged LW raids against the UK.

This persistent claim that the Zero HAD to fly at 200 mph at 10,000 feet is a fallacy too, (why did it _have_ to fly at that speed and height???), from bases in France it could have easily been able to provide extended coverage over the British Isles, I mean, you can see France from the Kent coast. 

That is, had the Japanese possessed a time machine...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2022)

`


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2022)

·


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2022)

Adding to this discussion about the Zero and fitting armour, and lets face it, the armour wouldn't have been that much of an increase in weight. The earliest Bf 109E-3 variants that saw combat during the Battle of Britain had neither armour nor self sealing tanks, but later models were retrofitted with head rest and back armour, as well as the front glazed hardened panel, of which the head rest plate weighed 29 lbs and the back armour 59 lbs. This means the weight of these panels alone was 88 lbs. Not a huge amount to add to our Zero.

Let's consider weights and engine power output. The Zero, it's interesting to note was lighter in empty weight than the dimensionally smaller Bf 109, but had a higher MTOW than the Messerschmitt and in the A6M2 model equipped with the Sakai 21 engine (again, we'd need a time machine as this didn't happen until mid 1941), had a slightly higher power output (1,130 hp at height) than the Emil's DB 601 (1,175 hp on take off, 990 hp at height), although the A6M2 model 21's Sakae-12 was rated at 940 hp on take off and 950 hp at height.

Performance wise, the Bf 109E-3's maximum speed was 348 mph at around 15,000 ft, while the A6M2 model 21's was 331 mph at the similar altitude, the Emil's cruise speed was 210 mph and the A6M's was 207 mph, barely anything in it, although the Bf 109's maximum cruise was 300 mph, but I don't have a max cruise for the Zero. The Bf 109E-3's maximum range on internal fuel was 410 miles, whereas the Zero's was 1,160 miles - a yuuuuge difference. The Zero's service ceiling was 33,000 ft, whereas the Bf 109's was 34,000 ft. The E-3 was armed with two rifle calibre machine guns and two cannon, the same as the A6M2.

Bearing all this in mind, there's really not much in it performance wise with the exception of range and with added weight of armour plating to our Zero, I don't believe that more than 1,000 mile range is going to be affected as much as what we might wish to believe; it certainly would have still had a superior range than the Bf 109 and probably every other European fighter. The Fairey Fulmar which was bigger and far heavier than the Zero had an 800 mile range, and even with its range reduced to this for the sake or argument (I'm sure they're coming), the Zero would have still exceeded the amount of time the Bf 109 could spend on station by a large amount.

The figures used in this assessment come from wiki and other online sources, one of which was a magazine scan on a modelling website, which gave me the Emil 3's figures.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2022)

Even the He112B, which had a superior range to the Bf109, would have been hard-pressed to match at the A6M's range.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The E-3 was armed only with four rifle calibre machine guns,


is the E-1 that armed only with four rifle calibre mg

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> is the E-1 that armed only with four rifle calibre mg



Correction duly made, thanks Vincenzo. I knew that, I just got muddled up...


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> And what are you basing that on? The usual misguided prejudice?


Name one other aircraft that followed the A6M's design, just one.


nuuumannn said:


> I believe you make far too much of protection and its role.


So both RAF and Luftwaffe aircraft were fitted with protection from the factory and aircraft in service were retrofitted with field kits based on actual combat experience especially after France, not only that every nation not only fitted protection but continued to increase it as the war went on but according to you it was all done for no apparent reason?.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> And this hare brained idea that Zeroes couldn't fly over the Ruhr because of flak and other anti-aircraft measures... Again, evidence! This entire theory makes no sense at all and is completely meaningless because it is devoid of context.


The aircraft that fought in WW2 from every nation except Japan where fitted self sealing tanks, pilot armor, armored windscreens which was detrimental to their performance, as for the A6M even it's seat had holes in it to reduce weight




go back to the photo of the Spit that took the cannon hits, the Zero pilot dies in that situation, you want evidence, it's as plain as day.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2022)

The A6M2 did have phenomenal range/endurance. 
This came from 3 things.

The roughly 142 US gallons of internal fuel. 
The 84-87 US gallon drop tank.
The ability to cruise at 180kts at very, very lean mixtures. Like 16.4 US gallons per hour (?) height not stated. Since this document was translated several times and metric units converted there may be an error? 

In any case the same document says that at 190 kts the fuel burn jumps to 24 US gallons per minute. Which still puts the Zero way, way out in front of whatever is in 2nd place. 

The actual utility of the this range to the Luftwaffe is somewhat in question.
Two of the 3 German bombers can only make limited to use of such range. The Zero can fly further than the Do 17 or Ju 88 A-1 can with anything approaching a full load of bombs. 

Can the German pilots fly 300-400 miles over open water with the standard Luftwaffe training?
Can the Zero (even with German radios) fly either the over water or cross England missions using German navigation techniques/procedures? 

According to Wiki (better source more than welcome) 
" Communications equipment was the FuG 7 _Funkgerät 7_ (radio set) short-range radio apparatus, effective to ranges of 48–56 km (30–35 mi)."

Perhaps the Japanese radios were longer ranged but more problematic? 

The Zero can certainly add to the Luftwaffe's ability to penetrate deeper into Britain, but it doesn't look like the wonder weapon some are making it out to be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 4, 2022)

Can someone please clarify which, if any, Zeros were operational in the time frame stipulated by this thread's subject title - "March until October of 1940"? Are there performance tests (or some other fairly reliable source) available showing the performance of operational Zeros in the "March until October of 1940" time frame? Any basic stats for this 1940 era Zero? Forget about Zeros, Spitfires or 109s from 1941, 42, 43, etc. as they are of little or no relevance to the thread's query. I don't see how to compare a 1940s Zero against Me 109 E's or Spitfire I's if we don't know the condition and performance of a 1940 era operational Zero. Thank you.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Even the He112B, which had a superior range to the Bf109, would have been hard-pressed to match at the A6M's range.


It does not have to match the A6M's range. 

The Bf109Es had around fifteen minutes of free chase time over London. Add fifteen minutes to the endurance of the Luftwaffe fighter and you have half an hour of free chase time over London. That is quite an improvement.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Can someone please clarify which, if any, Zeros were operational in the time frame stipulated by this thread's subject title - "March until October of 1940"? Are there performance tests (or some other fairly reliable source) available showing the performance of operational Zeros in the "March until October of 1940" time frame? Any basic stats for this 1940 era Zero? Forget about Zeros, Spitfires or 109s from 1941, 42, 43, etc. as they are of little or no relevance to the thread's query. I don't see how to compare a 1940s Zero against Me 109 E's or Spitfire I's if we don't know the condition and performance of a 1940 era operational Zero. Thank you.



Ask and you shall receive  Table, kindly translated and provided by 

 Shinpachi
, is attached. 
Basic points for the 1940 Zero: 533 km/h (288 kt) at 4550 m, endurance of almost 7 hours at 180 kt at 4000 m.

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 4, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Can someone please clarify which, if any, Zeros were operational in the time frame stipulated by this thread's subject title - "March until October of 1940"? Are there performance tests (or some other fairly reliable source) available showing the performance of operational Zeros in the "March until October of 1940" time frame? Any basic stats for this 1940 era Zero? Forget about Zeros, Spitfires or 109s from 1941, 42, 43, etc. as they are of little or no relevance to the thread's query. I don't see how to compare a 1940s Zero against Me 109 E's or Spitfire I's if we don't know the condition and performance of a 1940 era operational Zero. Thank you.


The 19th August the Zero fly the first mission over the China, w/o opposition meet, the 13th September they get the first air battle over China claiming 27 kill for no losses. the Zero were model 11 that is the same of model 21 w/o the folding wingtips

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 4, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Ask and you shall receive  Table, kindly translated and provided by
> 
> Shinpachi
> , is attached.
> Basic points for the 1940 Zero: 533 km/h (288 kt) at 4550 m, endurance of almost 7 hours at 180 kt at 4000 m.



Excellent, thank you! So, should we be looking at the Zero Model 11 "adopted" in July 1940? Any idea if they were operational in the period March - October 1940? Any idea how many were built in that time frame? 331 mph at 14,927' is good enough. Constant speed prop is nice. 950 HP at 13,780' is not great but in the ballpark. Climb is very competitive.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 4, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> A6M1 were the prototypes has not importance if they have the guns
> 
> the production of the A6M2 Model 11 was, by japanese wiki,:
> May: 5
> ...


i repost from page 7


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 4, 2022)

Hurricane IIA and Spitfire IIA armament would be almost tailor made for engaging a Zero. 160 rounds per second, loaded with (50%?) Mark VI De Wilde incendiary ammunition hitting an unarmoured airframe stuffed full of fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A Merlin 45 used the 9.089 gears with the 10.25 in impeller and
> A Merlin 45M used the 9.089 gears with the 9.50 in impeller.
> 
> Somebody else can calculate the tips speeds.



For the first one: 831.5 mph / 371.683 m/s / 1337.951 km/h
For the second one: 770.63 mph / 344.486 m/s / 1240.052 km/h

Above assumes 3,000 rpm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 4, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Hurricane IIA and Spitfire IIA armament would be almost tailor made for engaging a Zero. 160 rounds per second, loaded with (50%?) Mark VI De Wilde incendiary ammunition hitting an unarmoured airframe stuffed full of fuel.


Destroying a Zero wasn’t a huge problem, it’s being able to hit the thing that’s the problem. For anyone here that shoots a shotgun, they can tell you that killing a dove isn’t particularly hard IF you can hit the speedy little critters. Considering how little flight and gunnery training the British pilots had that were thrown into combat, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

I’m a fan of the 50 BMG, but I have begun to wonder within the last year if the Wildcat would have been better off with 8 30’s instead of 4 50’s because of the substantial weight savings.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Hurricane IIA and Spitfire IIA armament would be almost tailor made for engaging a Zero. 160 rounds per second, loaded with (50%?) Mark VI De Wilde incendiary ammunition hitting an unarmoured airframe stuffed full of fuel.


The MK VI De Wilde ammo was in short supply, It got better as the BoB went on but about 25% was as good as it got in 1940.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2022)

pinsog said:


> Destroying a Zero wasn’t a huge problem, it’s being able to hit the thing that’s the problem. For anyone here that shoots a shotgun, they can tell you that killing a dove isn’t particularly hard IF you can hit the speedy little critters. Considering how little flight and gunnery training the British pilots had that were thrown into combat, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.


And here is part of the problem.

300-400 A6M2s in the summer/fall of 1940 WITH 300-400 pilots trained to the same standard the Japanese had in 1940-41 or 300-400 A6M2s flown by 300-400 German pilots with a fair number of them flown by pilots not much better (if any better) than the British pilots thrown into the the thick of things in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 4, 2022)

pinsog said:


> Destroying a Zero wasn’t a huge problem, it’s being able to hit the thing that’s the problem. For anyone here that shoots a shotgun, they can tell you that killing a dove isn’t particularly hard IF you can hit the speedy little critters. Considering how little flight and gunnery training the British pilots had that were thrown into combat, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
> 
> I’m a fan of the 50 BMG, but I have begun to wonder within the last year if the Wildcat would have been better off with 8 30’s instead of 4 50’s because of the substantial weight savings.


Hi
If we are dealing between March and October 1940, the Zero's would not be even noticed unless the development and production timeline is moved forward magically. 15 pre-production A6M2s were sent to China in July 1940 and saw their first successful action on 13th September 1940, reinforced later by some production aircraft. They would have had a 'zero' impact in 1940 during the BoB period. 837 were produced between March 1939 to March 1942 period but mainly 1941 and 1942 not 1940 so for combat use not a 1940 aircraft really. Japanese pilots and aircraft may also had a problem adjusting to a sophisticated air defence system with rather more opposing aircraft than they met in the Far East in the real world of 1942.

Mike

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 4, 2022)

pinsog said:


> I’m a fan of the 50 BMG, but I have begun to wonder within the last year if the Wildcat would have been better off with 8 30’s instead of 4 50’s because of the substantial weight savings.


Against Japanese forces, I would certainly agree, the .30 Browning was also more reliable at that point in time. If its a Wildcat intercepting German and Italian bombers in the Mediterranean, the 30's might prove to be a little inadequate. Although the Fulmars seemed to do a good job of it.
I remember reading a Japanese report (I forget where I saw it) on the Hurricane Mk.IIB, and it was fairly dismissive of the types performance, but they were VERY wary of the 12 machine guns.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 4, 2022)

I know the Browning fifties were having issues early on. Problems with cannon too. How reliable were the 20 mm in the A6M2s?


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> 300-400 A6M2s in the summer/fall of 1940 {...}



Umm, what!? Maybe there were ~50 Zeros produced in the March - October 1940 period? Who knows how many were operational...


----------



## pinsog (Feb 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> And here is part of the problem.
> 
> 300-400 A6M2s in the summer/fall of 1940 WITH 300-400 pilots trained to the same standard the Japanese had in 1940-41 or 300-400 A6M2s flown by 300-400 German pilots with a fair number of them flown by pilots not much better (if any better) than the British pilots thrown into the the thick of things in 1940.


Equal pilots Zero vs Hurricane: top speed and climb equal. Acceleration and turn go to Zero. Dive goes to Hurricane but slow acceleration would allow Zero to get in good burst before Hurricane pulled away. I’d give it to Zero if the pilots were equal.

Equal pilots Zero vs Spitfire I or II: speed goes to Spitfire 360-330 mph. Climb Spitfire might climb faster but Zero climbs steeper. Turn goes to Zero. Acceleration goes to Zero. Dive goes to Spitfire but acceleration is slow allowing Zero to get in some good bursts before Spitfire pulls away. I’d say this would be as close a contest as Spitfire vs ME109

(If we are using time machine I don’t want us bogged down in the fact there were only about 50 Zeros on the planet at the time)

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


----------



## pinsog (Feb 4, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I know the Browning fifties were having issues early on. Problems with cannon too. How reliable were the 20 mm in the A6M2s?


I think the Zeros 20mm worked fine, low ammo at 60 rounds per gun and lower velocity, but I think they always went BANG when the trigger was pulled

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 4, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> If we are dealing between March and October 1940, the Zero's would not be even noticed unless the development and production timeline is moved forward magically. 15 pre-production A6M2s were sent to China in July 1940 and saw their first successful action on 13th September 1940, reinforced later by some production aircraft. They would have had a 'zero' impact in 1940 during the BoB period. 837 were produced between March 1939 to March 1942 period but mainly 1941 and 1942 not 1940 so for combat use not a 1940 aircraft really. Japanese pilots and aircraft may also had a problem adjusting to a sophisticated air defence system with rather more opposing aircraft than they met in the Far East in the real world of 1942.
> 
> Mike


Since we are doing what if’s we will ignore how many Zeros there were, but there weren’t enough I agree.

A sophisticated air defense just means they probably meet the Hurricanes or Spitfires at their own altitude instead of catching them climbing or on the ground. I don’t think it matters with the Hurricane, once they pass each other at the merge I personally think the Hurricane is in deep trouble. I think Zero vs Mark I or II Spitfire is a toss up


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2022)

Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 4, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.


Somewhat slower than a Bf109E, it had a substantially lower rate of climb, and would have been vulnerable to Luftwaffe hit and run tactics. Eric Brown hated the one he flew.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 4, 2022)

pinsog said:


> Since we are doing what if’s we will ignore how many Zeros there were, but there weren’t enough I agree.


Please see Aviation - What If


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2022)

Not a lot of love because apparently there were problems using the full fuel capacity in combat (CG problems). 

The cannon was potent but there was only one cannon with 60 rounds. 

I have some doubts about the view over the nose. It makes the Spitfire nose look good for deflection shooting.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 4, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Japanese pilots and aircraft may also had a problem adjusting to a sophisticated air defence system with rather more opposing aircraft than they met in the Far East in the real world of 1942


worthy of note, that the aircraft the Zero would be facing in 1940 Europe would be arguably higher performing than the ones they met in the far east in 1941/42. A 1940 Spitfire Mk.II in England would even have some performance advantages over the Mk.V's the A6M's faced over Darwin in 1943


SaparotRob said:


> How reliable were the 20 mm in the A6M2s?


The Japanese Type 99 cannon was essentially an Oerlikon FF, and by all accounts, was a very reliable weapon. 
I think the British Air Ministry may have been better off to adopt the Oerlikon FFL instead of the Hispano HS.404 in the 1930's, and spent a couple years developing it to increase the rate of fire. Could have been reliable, and available for the BoB

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 4, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Please see Aviation - What If


I’m well aware of where the ‘what if’ section is, but for the last several posts it’s in the thread we are on in this section so I’m just rolling with it


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Somewhat slower than a Bf109E, it had a substantially lower rate of climb, and would have been vulnerable to Luftwaffe hit and run tactics. Eric Brown hated the one he flew.



The French pilots 1940, with far, far less stick time than E. Brown seem to have an opposite opinion.



Shortround6 said:


> Not a lot of love because apparently there were problems using the full fuel capacity in combat (CG problems).
> 
> The cannon was potent but there was only one cannon with 60 rounds.
> 
> I have some doubts about the view over the nose. It makes the Spitfire nose look good for deflection shooting.



Fuel tanks were in the wings between the spars, ie. about as CoG netutral as possible.
Time of fire was same as with the MG FF. Yes, the Bf 109 has two of them, the Hispano has substantially better MV for better chance to hit.


----------



## pinsog (Feb 4, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> The French pilots 1940, with far, far less stick time than E. Brown seem to have an opposite opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know almost nothing of the D520. Can you give us speed and climb figures?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2022)

part of the idea for the HS 404 cannon was that it would fire at a higher rate of fire than the Oerlikon guns. 
The gas tube was insure the gun was locked when firing and wouldn't unlock until the shell was part way down the barrel. 
The gun was a sort of hybrid system. 
The way to get the Oerlikon to fire faster was to lighten the bolt and other recoiling parts while sticking stronger springs in the gun.
You are depending on not only clever design but metallurgy to keep from breaking the parts and/or breaking the springs. 
And/or accepting a shorter gun life ( more inspections/more replacement parts or tossing the entire gun after a certain point).

A number of guns were made to fire faster at some point in their lives. The question is how long did it really take to improve things?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2022)

pinsog said:


> I know almost nothing of the D520. Can you give us speed and climb figures?



Speed and time-to-altitude graphs are posted here (from the Docavia book on the D.520).
Granted, the 570 km/h lines for both Bf 109E and later D.520 (slightly better engine than the early D.520s, oil system cooling change, better exhausts) are a tad optimistic, to say at least.



Shortround6 said:


> part of the idea for the HS 404 cannon was that it would fire at a higher rate of fire than the Oerlikon guns.
> The gas tube was insure the gun was locked when firing and wouldn't unlock until the shell was part way down the barrel.
> The gun was a sort of hybrid system.
> The way to get the Oerlikon to fire faster was to lighten the bolt and other recoiling parts while sticking stronger springs in the gun.
> ...



HS 404's rate of fire was toned down from 700 (advertised by the HS company before the war) to 600 rd/min (actual, such design was licenced to the British) to improve reliability IIRC

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 4, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> If we are dealing between March and October 1940, the Zero's would not be even noticed unless the development and production timeline is moved forward magically. 15 pre-production A6M2s were sent to China in July 1940 and saw their first successful action on 13th September 1940, reinforced later by some production aircraft. They would have had a 'zero' impact in 1940 during the BoB period. 837 were produced between March 1939 to March 1942 period but mainly 1941 and 1942 not 1940 so for combat use not a 1940 aircraft really. Japanese pilots and aircraft may also had a problem adjusting to a sophisticated air defence system with rather more opposing aircraft than they met in the Far East in the real world of 1942.
> 
> Mike


True. Enough Zeroes to equip a Staffel. With maybe enough replacements to keep the Staffel equipped through November.
But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Hurricanes in China 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 4, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Speed and time-to-altitude graphs are posted here (from the Docavia book on the D.520).
> Granted, the 570 km/h lines for both Bf 109E and later D.520 (slightly better engine than the early D.520s, oil system cooling change, better exhausts) are a tad optimistic, to say at least.



That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing. If the speeds strike you as optimistic, what do you think would be more realistic? I'm rather unfamiliar with the D.520 so any more charts, basic info and numbers built from March - October 1940 would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 4, 2022)

the D.520 production from November '39 to Armistice was around 435


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 4, 2022)

Hmm, I did find this report comparing a Me 109E to the D.520: Rapport Sur L'Avion Messerschmidt 109

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


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 5, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.


 It was a neat little fighter, the best the French had once properly sorted.

Pilot opinion on it was very mixed.

It's ground handling and take-off and landing habits were nearly universally criticised.

In the air, sort of beauty and the beast. It was very nimble and crisp when aerobatted but also had some notable handling flaws. 

Rate of turn was worse than the Hawk 75 or Martlet, roughly comparable with the Hurricane, better than the Spitfire I and clearly superior to the 109E.

Rate of roll was apparently exceptional, better than anything tested against in1939/1940, except the Hawk 75.

It was also good in a zoom climb and accelerated well in a dive - only a little behind the 109E and better than its French and British contemporaries.

However, the aircraft also had a nasty snap stall at almost any speed, which gave the pilot little warning of onset and resulted in at least two spins beforerecovery.

It had some directional instability and suffered oscillation when completing a manoeuvre. There was also a pronounced tendency to yaw/crab with changes in speed and power. Seems to me the tail surfaces were probably a bit small.

Several pilot accounts refer to it as underpowered, slow to accelerate and having a tendency to mush in manoeuvres at higher altitudes.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2022)

The Royal Bulgarian Air Force used their D.520s to good effect in defending Sofia.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 5, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.


No.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 5, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.


Really quick translation of snippets from Rapport Sur L'Avion Messerschmidt 109

V – Results

I) Messerschmidt 109 versus D.520

A-Performance

a) Level at low altitude (600 m) Substantially similar speeds. The test was carried out on the Messerschmidt with the radiator shutters open. Closing these flaps would have given it a slight advantage (20 to 30 km/h)

b) Climb to 5.500 m The Messerschmidt's climb rate is slightly higher. A quality favors it: the engine cools in a correct way, so that the D.520 had to reduce throttle every time due to the rise in temperature of the coolant (once at 4,500, the other time at 3,000) The climb time of the Messerschmidt to 5,000 m. is about 6' 20"

c) Level 5,500 Very similar speeds with a slight superiority to the Messerschmidt 109

Lessons

A - Performance

- Slightly higher level speed for the Messerschmidt at the working altitudes adopted.

- The Messerschmidt's fairly much higher rate of climb which, in combat, should be able to derive some advantage from it. Prolonged climbing maneuvers are therefore to be avoided for the Dewoitine 520 being pursued. It seemed that the Dewoitine 520 had an advantage in combat by switching to "Manual" and reducing its pitch slightly. This point should be checked systematically by a Group equipped with Dewoitine 520.

-Dive speed: the two planes hold each other noticeably

B – Combat handling

- The Dewoitine 520 in tight maneuvers of dogfighting tends to stall more than the Messerschmidt 109 assisted by its leading edge slots. The stall of the Dewoitine 520 is very brutal and always occurs to the left; it is therefore more serious in spinning combat on the right hand where the pilot of the Dewoitine 520 makes an almost complete barrel roll PG; consequently, the dogfight should preferably engage to the left, if at least the choice of direction of turn is possible.

- Following the engagements in rotating combat which ended in a brutal stall of the D520, it appeared that this stall, although easy to recover, led to the loss of control of the aircraft for a few moments and, as a result, of the field on the opponent. It is therefore dangerous, especially if the Messerschmidt 109 tends to have the advantage at this moment, to catch a stall to resume the spinning combat. It is better to transform the stall into a reversal as tight as possible, than the Messerschmidt carried away by its Speed can only follow with a very noticeable delay. The stall used from the exit then becomes a good clearing maneuver which, in some cases, can even allow the D520 to quickly regain the advantage afterwards.

- Apart from this question of stall, we can admit that the two planes are comparable from the maneuverability point of view: the engagements lasted a long time before a decisive advantage was taken on one side or the other. Nevertheless, the D520 must be considered more maneuverable because of its less strong reactions to the controls and in particular to the elevator at high speeds: the pilot of the Messerschmidt must use his trim wheel frequently; this maneuver is hard and inconvenient. The pilot of the D520 can on the contrary leave his horizontal stabilizer at an average position or at least use it in the smallest proportions; This has a definite advantage for the D520 when it comes to fast, high-speed evolutions
where strong dives alternate with chandelles.

- Nothing special to say about aiming stability for either aircraft. This stability is satisfactory except when the plane has a tendency to stall, especially in tight dogfights.

With regard more particularly to the holding of the equipment in combat, the Messerschmidt currently seems well developed (see appendix note). On the contrary, the D520 cools insufficiently when climbing; there were, moreover, systematic incidents involving the train and the micropump.

I think I'd pass on the D.520

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 5, 2022)

Googled these:

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


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 5, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Hurricane IIA and Spitfire IIA armament would be almost tailor made for engaging a Zero. 160 rounds per second, loaded with (50%?) Mark VI De Wilde incendiary ammunition hitting an unarmoured airframe stuffed full of fuel.


I was going to post this, De Wilde incendiary ammunition had a 1 in 5 chance of setting self sealing fuel tanks on fire from 200 yards when tested on Blenheim test aircraft, the unprotected Zero tanks would be 5 out of 5.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 5, 2022)

pinsog said:


> Destroying a Zero wasn’t a huge problem, it’s being able to hit the thing that’s the problem.


I'm seriously starting to wonder how Japan lost, considering the Emil is approx 40mph faster and the MkII Spit 46 mph I'd suggest they would use that speed to dictate the fight and engaged and disengage at their choosing with the Zero being unable to do anything about it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2022)

So the general consensus then, is that all A6Ms flew slow, couldn't perform basic aerobatics and instantly blew up if a bullet passed near it.

It must be asked then, what exactly shot down so many Allied aircraft in the Pacific theater?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> So the general consensus then, is that all A6Ms flew slow, couldn't perform basic acrobatics and instantly blew up if a bullet passed near it.
> 
> It must be asked then, what exactly shot down so many Allied aircraft in the Pacific theater?


Nates and Claudes?

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Nates and Claudes?


Must be - couldn't have been the Hayabusa, because you know it was comparable to the A6M...


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 5, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> So the general consensus then, is that all A6Ms flew slow, couldn't perform basic acrobatics and instantly blew up if a bullet passed near it.
> 
> It must be asked then, what exactly shot down so many Allied aircraft in the Pacific theater?


Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 6, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Must be - couldn't have been the Hayabusa, because you know it was comparable to the A6M...


It did outscore the Zero.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.


Could you give me a reference on those numbers, please?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.


The Me262 was a superlative high-speed turner, nothing could match it - BUT if the 262 were drug down into a slow turning fight, it had no chance of survival.

The A6M was the exact opposite.

It's obvious by now that you have an agenda that reaches past the A6M's merits...I'm not sure why you hate on Japanese aircraft so much, but you really should take some time to learn about the IJN's requirement that the A6M addressed, about the time period that it was born from and how it performed under those conditions.

You may also want to read about Nichizawa, who was killing F6F Hellcats with his A6M5 by late 1944...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I'm seriously starting to wonder how Japan lost, considering the Emil is approx 40mph faster and the MkII Spit 46 mph I'd suggest they would use that speed to dictate the fight and engaged and disengage at their choosing with the Zero being unable to do anything about it.


If Japan had only faced Spitfire Mark V Tropicals they wouldn’t have lost. In fact they probably would have lost more pilots in training than in actual combat.


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 6, 2022)

I thought our BoB Zero would've been cruising at higher speed, given the reduced range (for the Zero).


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I thought our BoB Zero would've been cruising at higher speed, given the reduced range (for the Zero).



A whole bunch of things need to change if the Luftwaffe were to operate the A6M1. I've already pointed out that armour protection for the pilot and, ultimately, self-sealing fuel tanks would be implemented pretty darn quickly because that's the experience the Luftwaffe gained from operations in Europe from the Spanish Civil War onwards. Then there's pilot parachutes. Did the A6M1 pilots fly with them? If not, that's yet more weight. Or radios? None of these things individually make much difference but add them all up and slap them in an airframe that was cutting every last ounce of surplus weight and it will affect performance.

Then there's the differences in operational theatre. In China and the Pacific, the A6M was needed to fly very long ranges over water or territory that wasn't defended. It accomplished that goal by having the external fuel tank, by flying at speeds below those typically required for combat, and by the pilots super-leaning the engine mixture. You could apply all those actions in Europe but--and it's a big BUT--you can't do it for very long. Thus the practical operational range of your proposed Luftwaffe A6M1 will be much less than that gained by the IJNAF in the Pacific. The Luftwaffe may not even bother with the external fuel tank because it won't actually buy them much. 

Finally, the Luftwaffe is going up against an adversary with a thoroughly-developed fighter warning and control system, equipped with fighters that were close peers of the A6M1. The IJNAF could afford to go in high and slow in China in 1940 because it could dictate the terms of the fight against Chinese biplane fighters. That's not an option for a Luftwaffe A6M1. They'll have to increase speed and they will be confronted by larger, more capable defensive forces than they ever faced over China (or anywhere else in the Pacific until the middle of 1942.

Yes, the A6M1 in Luftwaffe fit would almost certainly out-range the Me109 but it would do it at a cost, and it certainly wouldn't have the range it exhibited in China and the Pacific. The IJNAF fighter pilots saw themselves as airborne samurai for whom death in battle was an honour. The Luftwaffe had an entirely different world view and any A6M1 operated by the latter has to adapt to their values.

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


----------



## wuzak (Feb 6, 2022)

To clarify:

There are 60 A6Ms manufactured prior to October 1940?
These are A6M1s?
A6M1s and A6M2s don't have the upgrades that allow for better control at higher speeds?
How many of these have made it to units by October?
If Germany is to use them for teh BoB, do Japan give up theirs, or does Germany start manufacturing them under licence?
if Germany is manufacturing them, would they appear before the Fw 190A?
Apart from armour or self-sealing tanks, is there any equipment that the A6M lacked that would be required to work with the Luftwaffe?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Feb 6, 2022)

Seafires and Merlin 32. It looks like a small number of Seafire IIC were converted to LF by installation of Merlin 32, none officially produced. Merlin 32 production began in June 1942, with 256 built to the end of the year. Barracuda II, 1 produced in October 1942, then production from December 1942 on. Seafire IIC production at Supermarine June 1942 to April 1943, at Westland December 1942 to September 1943. Seafire III production began at Westland in April 1943.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> It's obvious by now that you have an agenda that reaches past the A6M's merits..


Suburo Sakai was seriously wounded and blinded in one eye from a .30 cal bullet that hit him after penetrating through the unarmored windscreen of his A6M, he later stated that air forces shouldn't fight a war with acrobatic aircraft, enough said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 6, 2022)

This is an exercise for some of the aircraft discussed here in the March - October 1940 period. Not sure if the Australian Zero test is a good fit but it gives an idea. I like the two speed blower on the Zero's engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Could you give me a reference on those numbers, please?


Look at the results from the Philippine sea as an example, first attack 41 aircraft lost out of 68, second attack 97 out of 107 aircraft shot down, fourth attack all 49 aircraft shot down or damaged beyond repair, Alex Vraciu: The Navy’s most indestructible ace six bombers with only 360 rounds of ammunition, yeah protection is overrated.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> This is an exercise for some of the aircraft discussed here in the March - October 1940 period. Not sure if the Australian Zero test is a good fit but it gives an idea. I like the two speed blower on the Zero's engine.
> 
> View attachment 657154


The Darwin MkV's were slower than the Hurricane by about 2mph, no wonder they struggled.


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 6, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The Darwin MkV's were slower than the Hurricane by about 2mph, no wonder they struggled.


I think Battle of Britain era Hurricanes might have had a hard time against Zeros - in the what if imaginary fantasy world discussed. BoB Spit I's- probably not if they used half decent tactics.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

pinsog said:


> If Japan had only faced Spitfire Mark V Tropicals they wouldn’t have lost. In fact they probably would have lost more pilots in training than in actual combat.


The Darwin MkV's with low boost Merlin 46's were slower than a standard Merlin 45 engined trop with a 90G drop tank fitted. Spitfire Mk.VB (Tropical) AB.320 Report, a 1940 MkII would better both versions of the MkV plus the A6M purely on performance.


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 6, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> I think Battle of Britain era Hurricanes might have had a hard time against Zeros - in the what if imaginary fantasy world discussed. BoB Spit I's- probably not if they used half decent tactics.


I think so too, it would come done to who had the better position or saw the other first unless the Hurri's paired up and used tactics like the thatch weave


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 6, 2022)

Did the Sakae Model 12 used in the Zero Model 11 have a two speed supercharger? If not, that Zero curve I used in the comparison chart may not be appropriate. That would be unfortunate as the curve derives from a nice data set. Looks like the Sakae Model 21 did have two speeds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> To clarify:
> 
> There are 60 A6Ms manufactured prior to October 1940?
> These are A6M1s?
> ...


Hi
Between March and October the 'Zero' was in pre-production, start of full production and operational trials (in small numbers) in China, it would not be available to the Germans whether from Japanese (which would have slowed down deliveries to the IJN) or licence production in Germany. We should remember that the 'Zero' first flew April 1939 (3 years or so after the Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire), the Fw 190 first flew in June 1939 so these aircraft were near contemporaries, so the Germans would have been stupid to decide to produce a 'Zero' which would have a entry into service after the Fw 190 probably. Also in the real world the Fw 190 performed better than the 'Zero' would have done against the Spitfire V on its own turf (a totally different ball game to the Darwin Spitfires). Armour plate in fighters in 1940 was not a luxury it was essential for air combat in the ETO, the Japanese also found it was needed during combat during 1942 which is why it was added to 'old' designs and built into new ones.
Japanese aircraft that would have been available during March-October 1940 would have been the Ki 27 'NATE' (first flight October 1936) and A5M4 'CLAUDE' (First flight February 1935), it was these two aircraft that were the contemporaries of the Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire, however, you may not want to use them over Britain during 1940. In 1938 British Naval Intelligence judged the 'CLAUDE' as the best carrier fighter in the world, but probably not good to use over Britain in 1940. 
The 'ZERO' was a 1941 fighter rather than a 1940 fighter and it, despite wishful thinking, be anywhere near operationally available between March and October 1940. We should also remember that the Japanese CAGs of 1940 did not have the aircraft that were available to them at PH in December 1941 so March-October 1940 was all rather different than December 1941 into 1942. If they magically appeared in European waters during March-October 1940 they also may have had serious problems particularly as the Japanese Navy had very poor anti-submarine capability as the RN knew as during 1939-1940 they had sent submarines (eg. Regulus and Rainbow) into Japanese waters, which included shadowing Japanese fleet exercises and taking photos of ships undetected. The first the Japanese realised this had happened was when they captured the photos (probably then used as ship recognition material) at Singapore in 1942 (I don't know if the US Navy undertook this type of mission as well?), so I would expect that the Japanese fleet, like aircraft, appearing in Europe in 1940 may also have had problems.

Mike

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


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Feb 6, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> In 1938 British Naval Intelligence judged the 'CLAUDE' as the best carrier fighter in the world


I presume you have a reference for this statement. Which one?

BTW, why the british didn't think that if the A5M was the best carrierborne fighter in 1938, there should, could, would be one better in the pipeline for service in a couple of years? Racist bias could be an answer but wouldn't those racist bias prevented the consideration of the A5M as the best in it's category?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Did the Sakae Model 12 used in the Zero Model 11 have a two speed supercharger? If not, that Zero curve I used in the comparison chart may not be appropriate. That would be unfortunate as the curve derives from a nice data set. Looks like the Sakae Model 21 did have two speeds.



Just 1-speed S/C on the Sakae 12.
The Sakae 21 was with 2-speed S/C. It was all-together an upgrade over the 10 series, with bigger impeller and allowed for greater RPM - all totalling in greater power both in low and high altitudes. Internal changes upped the weight by some 60 kg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 6, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Just 1-speed S/C on the Sakae 12.
> The Sakae 21 was with 2-speed S/C. It was all-together an upgrade over the 10 series, with bigger impeller and allowed for greater RPM - all totalling in greater power both in low and high altitudes. Internal changes upped the weight by some 60 kg.


Thank you tomo. I should replace (or delete) that Zero curve on the comparison chart above but I haven't yet found a more appropriate date set for a Zero with the 1-speed Sakae 12.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2022)

J-Aircraft has a good detail listing of the A6M's chronology, from the A6M1 to the A6M8 including production totals of all types, here:


Zero Facts and Figures

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


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 6, 2022)

Escuadrilla Azul said:


> I presume you have a reference for this statement. Which one?
> 
> BTW, why the british didn't think that if the A5M was the best carrierborne fighter in 1938, there should, could, would be one better in the pipeline for service in a couple of years? Racist bias could be an answer but wouldn't those racist bias prevented the consideration of the A5M as the best in it's category?


Hi
Andrew Boyd's 'British Naval Intelligence - Through the Twentieth Century' Seaforth Publishing, 2020, has the following:




His earlier book also contains some interesting information 'The Royal Navy in Eastern Waters',Seaforth, 2017, here are a few pages reference 1941 knowledge:








Mike

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


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 6, 2022)

Fwiw, I swapped out the Aussie Zero data for US Navy data for a single-speed A6M2, although I have serious reservations about the Zero's inclusion in a BoB period comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Feb 6, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Andrew Boyd's 'British Naval Intelligence - Through the Twentieth Century' Seaforth Publishing, 2020, has the following:
> View attachment 657180
> 
> ...


Thanks!

So british intelligence had a pretty good knowledge of the japanese air and naval forces but some how it didn't arrive at squadron level. Or was it utterly dismished?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Feb 6, 2022)

pinsog said:


> equal pilots Zero vs Hurricane: top speed and climb equal. Acceleration and turn go to Zero. Dive goes to Hurricane but slow acceleration would allow Zero to get in good burst before Hurricane pulled away. I’d give it to Zero if the pilots were equal.



The Hurricane gets a big advantage in toughness, and any high speed ( over 250 mph) maneuvers. These two are close enough that the winner is who ever has the tactical advantage. In the combats between the two that I have read and analyzed, it seems that the winner is who ever has the altitude advantage. Keep in mind that in the combats in the PacificTheater ,between the two types, the Zero had an average numerical advantage of almost 4 to 1.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2022)

wuzak said:


> To clarify:
> 
> There are 60 A6Ms manufactured prior to October 1940?
> These are A6M1s?
> ...



They built three A6M1s, 1500 A6M2s, 721 A6M3s, two A6M 4s, 4934 A6M5s, 2961 A6M6s, and 164 each A6M7 and A6M8. That totals 10,449 A6Ms. 

I don't think you can get 60 A6M1s from that production run. More likely A6M2s.

Cheers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 7, 2022)

slaterat said:


> The Hurricane gets a big advantage in toughness, and any high speed ( over 250 mph) maneuvers. These two are close enough that the winner is who ever has the tactical advantage. In the combats between the two that I have read and analyzed, it seems that the winner is who ever has the altitude advantage. Keep in mind that in the combats in the PacificTheater ,between the two types, the Zero had an average numerical advantage of almost 4 to 1.


The speed a Zero stiffens up gets less and less with each telling. I’ve read as high as 320 mph from actual reports and 300 mph was the official figure I’ve always seen. Also it was ONLY the ailerons that stiffened up, a Zero has good elevators at any speed. How exactly is a Hurricane with a top speed of 315-330 fresh off the factory floor supposed to MAINTAIN 300+ mph in a fight after being in combat for a while? A Zero could do a loop from cruise speed and GAIN altitude. A Hurricane can’t outrun it, can’t out climb it, can’t out turn it, has much slower acceleration and can’t out dive it before a Zero can get in a good burst. Once they are at the merge a Hurricane has 0 cards to play. The Hurricane is tough? They said during the Battle of Britain you could tell the Hurricane pilots from the Spitfire pilots in the hospital because the Hurricane pilots were all burned to a crisp. They had a plate of armor behind the seat, so you better hope that Zero doesn’t fire at you unless he’s directly behind. All those Brewster Buffalos at Midway had armor and self sealing tanks, they went down in flames just the same.

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Not a chance, A6M2's flying into English or German controlled airspace in 1940 would be butchered, Spitfires and Me109's are not only significantly faster but armored with good pilot protection, one thing also forgotten is they have working radio's.


I am not 100% behind this comment. If correct, I would add the caveat being, Spitfires/ME109s would butcher the Zeros, as long as good team tactics were practiced. It was just two short years later, when RAF Spitfire pilots ignored US Marine ace Joe Foss’s (Wildcat/Corsair Ace and Medal of Honor winner for actions with the Cactus Airforce at Guadalcanal and future Senator) advice regarding team tactics and avoiding low speed one-on-one dogfights against the Zero fighters resulting in devastating losses through early 1943 until a changing of tactics started to balance the score.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 7, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> I am not 100% behind this comment. If correct, I would add the caveat being, Spitfires/ME109s would butcher the Zeros, as long as good team tactics were practiced. It was just two short years later, when RAF Spitfire pilots ignored US Marine ace Joe Foss’s (Wildcat/Corsair Ace and Medal of Honor winner for actions with the Cactus Airforce at Guadalcanal and future Senator) advice regarding team tactics and avoiding low speed one-on-one dogfights against the Zero fighters resulting in devastating losses through early 1943 until a changing of tactics started to balance the score.


In 1940 Zero's would be flying into the best coordinated air defense systems in the world with both the Spit and 109 at their best, neither the Luftwaffe in 1940 or the RAF in 1941 could crack the other side, thinking the A6M will do any better is folly.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 7, 2022)

pinsog said:


> The speed a Zero stiffens up gets less and less with each telling. I’ve read as high as 320 mph from actual reports and 300 mph was the official figure I’ve always seen. Also it was ONLY the ailerons that stiffened up, a Zero has good elevators at any speed. How exactly is a Hurricane with a top speed of 315-330 fresh off the factory floor supposed to MAINTAIN 300+ mph in a fight after being in combat for a while? A Zero could do a loop from cruise speed and GAIN altitude. A Hurricane can’t outrun it, can’t out climb it, can’t out turn it, has much slower acceleration and can’t out dive it before a Zero can get in a good burst. Once they are at the merge a Hurricane has 0 cards to play. The Hurricane is tough? They said during the Battle of Britain you could tell the Hurricane pilots from the Spitfire pilots in the hospital because the Hurricane pilots were all burned to a crisp. They had a plate of armor behind the seat, so you better hope that Zero doesn’t fire at you unless he’s directly behind. All those Brewster Buffalos at Midway had armor and self sealing tanks, they went down in flames just the same.



So, again, you're comparing the IJNAF A6M and not some Luftwaffe adaptation of the airframe which would, inevitably, be considerably heavier due to armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, radio, parachute etc.

At risk of being churlish, if all you have is effective elevator control, then you have 2 options. Option 1 is to push the stick forward, the cows get bigger, and your speed increases, further exacerbating your control issues. Option 2 is to pull the stick back (cows get smaller) which immediately means you're losing speed. On the plus side, that means you can maneuver again...but on the negative, you're flying slower which makes you a potential target against a higher-energy adversary.

Much of your commentary depends on both aircraft merging on an equal footing. However, that wouldn't typically be the case. The goal of Fighter Command was to get above the incoming Luftwaffe raids, and the Hurricane has a ceiling advantage of a couple of thousand feet over the A6M2. Thus, if positioned in sufficient time, the Hurricane could use boom-and-zoom tactics which mitigates your perceived disadvantages of acceleration in the dive ('cos they'd already be diving) and it gives the Hurricane superior energy, giving it more options...certainly not the zero options you claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 7, 2022)

Are the cows imperial or metric?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Are the cows imperial or metric?



Doesn't matter...they're mad.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Doesn't matter...they're mad.


Probably because they were to Whitworth standards.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 7, 2022)

A Bob era Hurricane is particularly dangerous to any contemporary adversary under 10,000', where it could utilize 1,310 hp with +12 boost. It would be folly to take them lightly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 7, 2022)

Actually, we _are _comparing IJN A6M2 11s of 1940 vintage to their foreign counterparts. Not German flown or licensed, but the actual planes.

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


----------



## WARSPITER (Feb 7, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Actually, we _are _comparing IJN A6M2 11s of 1940 vintage to their foreign counterparts. Not German flown or licensed, but the actual planes.


Now that is what you call an original concept - might even catch on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 7, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Actually, we _are _comparing IJN A6M2 11s of 1940 vintage to their foreign counterparts. Not German flown or licensed, but the actual planes.



Then we're simply comparing performance charts without any operational context? If so, why bother with the discussion? Just throw the performance data into a table and pick which is best.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 7, 2022)

Think of it as the Metrons beaming the top fighters of the period to an earthlike planet to determine who deserves to win the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Feb 7, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Think of it as the Metrons beaming the top fighters of the period to an earthlike planet to determine who deserves to win the war.


They are the taller ones aren't they - the ones shorter ones are the Metrognomes ?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 7, 2022)

And the very small ones are millimetrons.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Actually, we _are _comparing IJN A6M2 11s of 1940 vintage to their foreign counterparts. Not German flown or licensed, but the actual planes.


In that case all we have is the combat reports of the 12 or so A6M2s used over China in a combat test by one would assume very good pilots against not so good pilots flying mostly biplanes and Russian I-16s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 7, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Actually, we _are _comparing IJN A6M2 11s of 1940 vintage to their foreign counterparts. Not German flown or licensed, but the actual planes.


Hi
Jiro Horikoshi in 'Eagles of Mitsubishi - The Story of the Zero Fighter' page 103 has 120 Zeros, including prototypes by the end of 1940, the 'model 11' up to aircraft number 67, after that they were 'model 21s'. The majority built after the March - October time period. He also mentions that towards the end of September 1940 they gave all relevant data and help to executives and engineers from the Koizumi plant of Nakajima to produce Zeros, the first of these was rolled out in September 1941 so that 'licence' production took one year to be productive.
According to Ritchie in 'Industry and Air Power' page 234, 405 Spitfires were produced by the Southampton and Castle Bromwich works between April and December 1940, despite the Southampton Woolston works being destroyed. Also during 1940 the Gloster works alone built 1,211 Hurricanes. The few 'Zeros' that would have been available in the period concerned would have made no impact on the BoB, their lack of protection, that was found to be necessary in the comparatively large air battles of 1940 Europe, would have caused them problems as it did in later 1942 in the PTO. This was not the China operations of 13th September 1940 and the famous 13 Zeros (out of 15 available) against the Chinese fighters.

Mike

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> In 1940 Zero's would be flying into the best coordinated air defense systems in the world with both the Spit and 109 at their best, neither the Luftwaffe in 1940 or the RAF in 1941 could crack the other side, thinking the A6M will do any better is folly.


I am not suggesting the Zero would break through on it’s own, merely suggesting that the same overconfidence present in 1943 may make an appearance in 1940 resulting in a deviation from normal practice and loss of lives and planes.


----------



## pinsog (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> In 1940 Zero's would be flying into the best coordinated air defense systems in the world with both the Spit and 109 at their best, neither the Luftwaffe in 1940 or the RAF in 1941 could crack the other side, thinking the A6M will do any better is folly.


“The best coordinated air defense system in the world” 

It was a radar and a telephone. Radar gave them current position, speed and direction they were headed so hopefully Spitfires and Hurricanes could get to the proper altitude in time. They didn’t always make it. It wasn’t the Death Star. 

Pilots on both sides were probably close in training with a few experts and a lot of cannon fodder on both sides. Planes were equally well matched against each other with solid strengths and weaknesses on both sides.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 7, 2022)

pinsog said:


> “The best coordinated air defense system in the world”
> 
> It was a radar and a telephone. Radar gave them current position, speed and direction they were headed so hopefully Spitfires and Hurricanes could get to the proper altitude in time. They didn’t always make it. It wasn’t the Death Star.



Nice disparaging comments...but please explain exactly what any other country had? Oh yeah, a telephone and a Mk.I Eyeball.

And, for the record, it wasn't just a radar and a telephone. It was also a highly integrated set of command and control facilities that plotted incoming raids and marshalled the defences to intercept. 

No, the fighters didn't always make it...but it was still the best system in the world.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2022)

pinsog said:


> “The best coordinated air defense system in the world”
> 
> It was a radar and a telephone.


And for the technology of the day, this was the state of the art and I think history shows it worked

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


----------



## pinsog (Feb 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And for the technology of the day, this was the state of the art and I think history shows it worked


Oh I actually agree with you.
A. I know what it is
B. They did as good a job implementing a new technology as could ever be expected (USA had surface ship radar at Guadalcanal but lack of experience in using it really showed up in the early stages of the battle along with Japanese night fighting skills and torpedos)
C. “The best coordinated air defense system in the world” rolls off the tongue MUCH better than “a bunch of radar sites and several telephones”

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 7, 2022)

pinsog said:


> It was a radar and a telephone. Radar gave them current position, speed and direction they were headed so hopefully Spitfires and Hurricanes could get to the proper altitude in time.


So Chain Home system was nothing more than a radar and telephone?.








Plotter (RAF) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 7, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> So Chain Home system was nothing more than a radar and telephone?.


I’m not going to drag the discussion that far off topic. It was leading edge technology and they did as well as anyone could expect the first time it was tried in battle. People can argue Big Wing vs smaller attacks if they want to but the British developed it, used it, it worked and they won the battle. It was a tongue in cheek comment. Let’s move back to the regular discussion.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 7, 2022)

China had telephones and lots of Mk. I eyeballs. Worked well enough for most of the war. Only broke down in 1944 during the I-Go offensive when the Japanese overran many forward bases and OPs.

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


----------



## pinsog (Feb 7, 2022)

The USA had the “integrated hydro air defense system” for the whole war. Less educated people call them the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 7, 2022)

Criticizing Chain Home as being primitive is some serious retrospectroscope stuff. At the time it was in service there was nothing else close in the world.

I think the technical term is "force multiplier."

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


----------



## wuzak (Feb 7, 2022)

Without Chain Home, would the Spitfire and Hurricane be different, or replaced by aircraft with longer loiter times?


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 7, 2022)

pinsog said:


> The USA had the “integrated hydro air defense system” for the whole war. Less educated people call them the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.


State of the art for it’s time and aside from some balloon bombs that took the long way around, it was pretty much impenetrable!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Feb 7, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Without Chain Home, would the Spitfire and Hurricane be different, or replaced by aircraft with longer loiter times?


I would think that fast climb would be even more important without Chain Home. With the engine power of the time and no constant speed props early on, I wouldn’t think they would try to add more fuel, you would more than likely end up with a P40 situation if you did (slow climb)


----------



## wuzak (Feb 8, 2022)

pinsog said:


> I would think that fast climb would be even more important without Chain Home. With the engine power of the time and no constant speed props early on, I wouldn’t think they would try to add more fuel, you would more than likely end up with a P40 situation if you did (slow climb)



I was thinking that they would have to have standing patrols.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 8, 2022)

wuzak said:


> I was thinking that they would have to have standing patrols.



And that's exactly why the Chain Home system was a force multiplier, as 

 Thumpalumpacus
observed.

Maintaining a single standing patrol of 2 airframes during daylight hours consumes almost an entire squadron of airframes: 2 on-station; 2 heading home; 2 outbound for relief; 2 being refuelled/rearmed; 2 for combat spares. Sustaining standing patrols is airframe intensive, increasing airframe hours and decreasing maintenance intervals.

Then there's the problem of of how many squadrons you need to provide the same coverage as the Chain Home system. Bearing in mind you're relying on visual range to detect incoming formations, you can't space your standing patrol pairs too far apart. 

Finally, if you're eating up squadrons in standing patrols, you don't have a force available to scramble and respond to an incoming raid. That means you need even more squadrons that are just sitting around. 

To defend UK airspace using standing patrols alone will probably use up 10 times the number of squadrons that Fighter Command had during the Battle of Britain...and the likely success rate would be lower than was the case in 1940.

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


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 8, 2022)

pinsog said:


> C. “The best coordinated air defense system in the world” rolls off the tongue MUCH better than “a bunch of radar sites and several telephones”


Radio Direction Finding, RDF (which is what it was called in 1940), only looked outwards. So it could determine when and where German raids were building up over France, and their course as they headed out over the Channel. Once they crossed the English coast, the role of tracking the German formations then fell to the Observer Corps as they proceeded inland. The Observer Corps also fed information to the Command and Control system. You omitted to mention this part of the system.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Feb 9, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Without Chain Home, would the Spitfire and Hurricane be different, or replaced by aircraft with longer loiter times?


You need 2 speed and or 2 stage engines to carry more fuel and still be competitive in combat which weren't available.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 9, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> You need 2 speed and or 2 stage engines to carry more fuel and still be competitive in combat which weren't available.


You need superior technology to build a long range fighter that can defeat short ranged interceptors. Fancy superchargers give you performance at a wider range of altitudes. 

In WWII, it just so happens that American bombers and their escort fighters had two stage superchargers, allowing them to fly at altitudes above anything the Germans and Japanese were effective at. This is not something you should rely on. The general rule of thumb is that well designed long range fighters will not have the performance of well designed short range fighers.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 9, 2022)

pinsog said:


> “The best coordinated air defense system in the world”
> 
> *It was a radar and a telephone.* Radar gave them current position, speed and direction they were headed so hopefully Spitfires and Hurricanes could get to the proper altitude in time. They didn’t always make it. It wasn’t the Death Star.
> 
> Pilots on both sides were probably close in training with a few experts and a lot of cannon fodder on both sides. Planes were equally well matched against each other with solid strengths and weaknesses on both sides.


No it wasnt, it wouldnt have worked if it was just that Miscellanea. Teleprinters were used to send details of a raid semi automatically to the filter rooms.

From the link, the teleprinter message to the filter rooms was.....
The message to be transmitted to the filter room was of the form of 10592 AB123C XY1234 N12 46 where

10592 was the time in hours, minutes and tenths of minutes.
ABJ23C was the raid designation for the raid under consideration.
XY1234 was the map reference.
N was the type of aircraft, i.e. hostile or friendly.
12 was the number of aircraft.
46 was the height in thousands of feet.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 9, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Without Chain Home, would the Spitfire and Hurricane be different, or replaced by aircraft with longer loiter times?


I think that was the idea behind the "slip wing" hurricane.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 9, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> Radio Direction Finding, RDF (which is what it was called in 1940), only looked outwards. So it could determine when and where German raids were building up over France, and their course as they headed out over the Channel. Once they crossed the English coast, the role of tracking the German formations then fell to the Observer Corps as they proceeded inland. The Observer Corps also fed information to the Command and Control system. You omitted to mention this part of the system.


Chain Home actually did see "backwards" inland but not very far, the first thing an operator had to do was determine which side of the transmitters the signal was from.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 10, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> In the recent P-40 thread, the discussion about the merits of Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, P-40 etc. was initiated. So I'd start the thread dedicated to this small yet very important time frame, about the best fighters in it. 2-engined fighters also qualify, so do the fighters from the whole world.



Maybe the P-40 wasn't given due consideration?







Regarding these speeds the "Official Performance Summary" notes: "Temporary restrictions on engine operation prohibit the attainment of these values". I have no idea how long these restrictions were in place.

P-40 Official Summary of Characteristics and Performance Summary
Performance Chart Curtiss P-40 Based on Official Performance Summary
Memorandum Report on P-40, A.C. No. 39-156: Speed Tests of P-40 Airplane
Memorandum Report on Pursuit 1-Engine P-40, A.C. No. 39-165

It appears these early P-40's were without armour. I haven't checked yet to see when they got armour.

Max. climb rate of 3,080 ft/min. Dang, this thing is no slouch.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2022)

Check the fine print. 
Also cross reference with the P-40B documents.

Check the normal gross weight.
The gross weight at which the performance numbers were obtained.



Now the early P-40s had zero protection.
They also had two .50 cal guns with 200rpg and two .30 cal guns (one in each wing) with 500rpg. 

The Allison engine was not quite ready for prime time (although it might have been as good or better than some other countries engines) and was limited to 2770rpm and not the full 3000rpm and it was restricted to 950hp ( Vee's for Victory). The first 277 engines (of the US engines) were sent back to Allison for rework. 

The P-40B ballooned to gross weight of 7326lbs but still only carried 120 gal of fuel. 
P-40B performance was measures/estimated on 6833lbs vs the 6787lbs of the P-40. 
The P-40B had 93lbs of armor, crude self sealing tanks, two extra .30 cal guns, more ammo for the .50 cal guns.
One wonders what was left in the plane to get to the weight where the P-40B was rated at? 
less than 30 US gallons of fuel if all the ammo was still in the boxes/bins?

The British Squadrons flying the Tomahawks in the beginning of their career could not get the .50 cal guns to work at all reliably and figured the effective fire power was the four .303 guns. 

There was a report by Army Air Corp Lt Hubert Zemke in England at the time dated July 28th 1941 that went through 3 main areas of the Tomahawk. 
In speed, climb and maneuverability the Tomahawk was found to be superior to the Hurricane MK I up to about 20,000ft. 
At 20,000ft the Hurricane would out climb the Tomahawk. At 18,000ft the Tomahawk was 20mph faster than the Hurricane and it was 30mph faster at 13,000ft. 
The Tomahawk only had a slight edge in maneuverability. 

a lot may depend on the reliability/dependability of the .50 cal guns and the expected life of the Allison engine.

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


----------



## wuzak (Feb 10, 2022)

P-40B didn't fly until 1941.

So for the time frame you would be stuck with P-40/Tomahawk I.


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Check the fine print.
> Also cross reference with the P-40B documents.
> 
> Check the normal gross weight.
> ...


“The early P-40’s had zero protection “🤣

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 10, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Allison engine was not quite ready for prime time (although it might have been as good or better than some other countries engines) and was limited to 2770rpm and not the full 3000rpm and it was restricted to 950hp ( Vee's for Victory). The first 277 engines (of the US engines) were sent back to Allison for rework.



Looks like top speed dropped 22 mph from 357 mph at 15,000' with 1,090 hp/3,000 rpm to 335 mph at 15,000' with 950 hp/2,770 rpm. Memorandum Report on Pursuit 1-Engine P-40, A.C. No. 39-165. Not in the top tier with its contemporaries.


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

The P-40 never gets no respect.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 10, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Now the early P-40s had zero protection.



The RAF seems to have been a bit ahead of others regarding pilot protection. We've preciously discussed how the 109s were rather late in adopting pilot protection equivalent to what the British had, so the P-40 doesn't really fall much behind the 109 or Zero (small numbers that there were) in that respect. Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2022)

wuzak said:


> P-40B didn't fly until 1941.
> 
> So for the time frame you would be stuck with P-40/Tomahawk I.




True, but,

Same engine and aerodynamics.
A bit different weight.
If they were having problems with the guns in spring and summer of 1941 what were they like in the Fall of 1940?

A question is how many of the "P-40s" actually made it overseas. 
The French and ex-French contract aircraft (Tomahawk 81-A/81A-1) are _supposed_ to have four wing guns and thus would be a bit heavier (and have a bit more drag) than the US Army P-40s. Only a few MPH and FPS. 

Still have Zero protection  

What anybody want's to do with the engine problem I don't know. 
The Army wanted the engines to last through a 150 hour type test. Most of the problems were in the last 50 hours. Most of the European (and Russian) engines were lucky they made 100 hours so how the Allison gets factored in I don't know. 

There were other evaluations between the British fighters and the Tomahawks and reports to the US as early as Feb 1941 on how they were doing. But they were non-operational aircraft (I.E. lacking some operational equipment). Again they were rated as being better than the Hurricane I and in some regards as good or better than the Spitfire but altitudes are not given.
Of course both British planes would have (should have had?) armor and BP glass at this time and some sort of Fuel tank protection even if rudimentary compared to a P-40C (but that level of protection was about 250lbs) 

So the caparison should be the early P-40/Tomahawk 81-A and not the later types and balance the performance against the lack of protection and the questionable firepower.
Why the British took months (around 9 months? or more? ) to sort out the .50 cal guns I have no idea, if the US was using the guns successfully?
Or perhaps the the US Army was also also having trouble with them?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2022)

Virtually all American fighter aircraft (USAAC/USN) through 1940 did not have armor of self-sealing tanks...


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2022)

Trying to compare rates of climb or climb to 20,000ft (or pick another altitude) gets really hard. 
The US for instance rated the plane at full military power for 5 minutes and the cuts the power at the end of 5 minutes so the Allison drops to 2600rpm and at 15,000ft the climb dropped to about 2080fps from the earlier 3080fpm. 
Time to 20,000ft with reduced power from just under 15,000 is 8.16 minutes. 
The A6M2 Zero was supposed to do just over 7 minutes to 20,000ft? power limit not given
Spitfire I was supposed to take 7.7 minutes to 20,000ft but using at 2600rpm and 6.4lbs of boost for the entire climb. 
A Spitfire II was supposed to hit 20,000ft in 7.0 minutes using 2850rpm and 8.8lbs of boost.
Ist squadron (No 611) was fully equipped in Aug of 1940.


----------



## special ed (Feb 10, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> “The early P-40’s had zero protection “🤣


Just how were they protected from Zeros?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 10, 2022)

I know, right? There's so many responses one can make.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2022)

wuzak said:


> I was thinking that they would have to have standing patrols.


They would, but they would have been beaten in a short time. It was a huge effort just to cope with the later Fw 190 tip and run raids. There were some standing patrols at times during the BoB in the Thames estuary/London docks area. RADAR (RDF) gave Park and Dowding the possibility to mount patrols only where needed usually as a screen to cover possibilities as a raid progressed. it also prevented the LW from destroying the RAF on the ground.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2022)

special ed said:


> Just how were they protected from Zeros?


Best defense is a good offense.

Shoot them down, that's how...

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


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 10, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Chain Home actually did see "backwards" inland but not very far, the first thing an operator had to do was determine which side of the transmitters the signal was from.


But was that the case in active use?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> You need superior technology to build a long range fighter that can defeat short ranged interceptors. Fancy superchargers give you performance at a wider range of altitudes.
> 
> In WWII, it just so happens that American bombers and their escort fighters had two stage superchargers, allowing them to fly at altitudes above anything the Germans and Japanese were effective at. This is not something you should rely on. The general rule of thumb is that well designed long range fighters will not have the performance of well designed short range fighers.



The boys at North American apparently didn't get that memo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The P-40 never gets no respect.



It was a journeyman and not a thoroughbred. But the world needs journeymen as well, and the -40 filled that role damned well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It was a journeyman and not a thoroughbred. But the world needs journeymen as well, and the -40 filled that role damned well.


I think the P-40 was a perfectly capable fighter, at least equal to best in the world, on paper, in 1939-40. 
But by the time it was properly sorted out as a combat aircraft, it was 1941, and it spent the rest of its career as a second tier fighter. Luckily it was mostly employed in places where it mostly faced other second tier fighters, and did quite well for itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think the P-40 was a perfectly capable fighter, at least equal to best in the world, on paper, in 1939-40.
> But by the time it was properly sorted out as a combat aircraft, it was 1941, and it spent the rest of its career as a second tier fighter. Luckily it was mostly employed in places where it mostly faced other second tier fighters, and did quite well for itself.



Right. Hence my use of the term "journeyman". And even against first-line fighters it wasn't useless in the hands of a good pilot.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2022)

Going a bit off topic the P-40F & L used the same engine as the Hurricane II. 

The P-40F was probably a more effective use of the engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> You need superior technology to build a long range fighter that can defeat short ranged interceptors. Fancy superchargers give you performance at a wider range of altitudes.
> 
> In WWII, it just so happens that American bombers and their escort fighters had two stage superchargers, allowing them to fly at altitudes above anything the Germans and Japanese were effective at. This is not something you should rely on. The general rule of thumb is that well designed long range fighters will not have the performance of well designed short range fighers.



The 1st thing required, so the escort fighter materializes, is that idea of an escort fighter appears in the heads of people that were calling the shots. 
Then we have a thing of LR fighter not needing to carry the bomber-busting firepower (that adds drag and weight) the defensive fighter needs. A LR fighter can be made with only two HMGs in late 1930s and still be very effective against defending fighters, while the defensive fighter will require 4, or even six to beat the bombers. LR fighter force can be concentrated, the SR fighter less so (the fighters from Stuttgart, Frankfurt or Berlin will have a really hard time to influence air battle over Hamburg; fighters from South England will suffer the same vs. raids coming from Netherlands or Norway).

A long-range fighter force will not get in the enemy airspace alone, either.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> But was that the case in active use?


I just posted it as a "aside" to add to the discussion, part of my background was in ultrasonics which is the same technology as far as spurious signals go, so I find such things interesting. I always understood that Chain Home just viewed outwards to sea, in fact if you read The Radar Pages Radar Pages Home page it "looked" mainly out to sea but also generated signals behind the masts, this presented an additional problem to the RDF operators. To answer your question literally, it was always the case because the operators first task was to establish whether the signal they were looking at was from in front or behind the transmitters. If you havnt read it, it is a great read and explains a lot about the problems of Fighter Command during the BoB especially in October.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 10, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In WWII, it just so happens that *American bombers and their escort fighters had two stage superchargers, allowing them to fly at altitudes above anything the Germans and Japanese were effective at*.



B-17, B-24, P-38 and P-47 were all turbocharged. The P-51 was supercharged (but it was a British engine, and in the P-51 it only got a 2 speed supercharger into service in December 1943).

The Japanese did struggle to get engines producing high levels of power above 25,000 ft, but the Germans ... not so much. 

The later 1943 and 1944 models of the DB-605 generally had full throttle rated altitudes between 6200m and 8000m (20,500ft and 26,400ft).
DB 605 AS and DB 605 ASM had FTHs of 7800m (25,600ft) - which is only about 1500 ft lower than the FTH of the Merlin 61/63/V-1650-3.
DB 605 DB and DB 605 DB had FTHs of 6800 m (22,300 ft) - which is about 2000 ft higher than the FTH of the Merlin 66/V-1650-7.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> B-17, B-24, P-38 and P-47 were all turbocharged. The P-51 was supercharged (but it was a British engine, and in the P-51 it only got a 2 speed supercharger into service in December 1943).



P-51 escorting the heavies have had the engine with a 2-stage supercharger. 
On ths other A/C listed there, the turbocharger performed the 1st stage of supercharging, the engine-stage superchargers performed the 2nd stage of supercharging. Yes, we call those 'turbocharged engines', but still the number of stages of supercharging there was 2.



Jabberwocky said:


> The Japanese did struggle to get engines producing high levels of power above 25,000 ft, but the Germans ... not so much.
> 
> The later 1943 and 1944 models of the DB-605 generally had full throttle rated altitudes between 6200m and 8000m (20,500ft and 26,400ft).
> DB 605 AS and DB 605 ASM had FTHs of 7800m (25,600ft) - which is only about 1500 ft lower than the FTH of the Merlin 61/63/V-1650-3.
> DB 605 DB and DB 605 DB had FTHs of 6800 m (22,300 ft) - which is about 2000 ft higher than the FTH of the Merlin 66/V-1650-7.



A big engine has it's appeal 
Problem with the DB 605 engines with big superchargers was their too late appearance, IIRC the DB 605AS was available by mid-1944, the DB 605D by late 1944.
Engine power vs. altitude of the late DB 605s is certainly on par on what the 2-stage supercharged Merlins in service were making.


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 10, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I just posted it as a "aside" to add to the discussion, part of my background was in ultrasonics which is the same technology as far as spurious signals go, so I find such things interesting. I always understood that Chain Home just viewed outwards to sea, in fact if you read The Radar Pages Radar Pages Home page it "looked" mainly out to sea but also generated signals behind the masts, this presented an additional problem to the RDF operators. To answer your question literally, it was always the case because the operators first task was to establish whether the signal they were looking at was from in front or behind the transmitters. If you havnt read it, it is a great read and explains a lot about the problems of Fighter Command during the BoB especially in October.


Thanks for your previous post - I did not know that before. In the meantime, I looked things up on the internet and indeed read that the Operators had first of all to set the receivers correctly. I'd read through your link also, but when it started to get technical I was quickly left behind! Thanks again for the info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 10, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> The later 1943 and 1944 models of the DB-605 generally had full throttle rated altitudes between 6200m and 8000m (20,500ft and 26,400ft).
> DB 605 AS and DB 605 ASM had FTHs of 7800m (25,600ft) - which is only about 1500 ft lower than the FTH of the Merlin 61/63/V-1650-3.
> DB 605 DB and DB 605 DB had FTHs of 6800 m (22,300 ft) - which is about 2000 ft higher than the FTH of the Merlin 66/V-1650-7.



At what boost/power levels?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 10, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> P-51 escorting the heavies have had the engine with a 2-stage supercharger.
> On ths other A/C listed there, the turbocharger performed the 1st stage of supercharging, the engine-stage superchargers performed the 2nd stage of supercharging. Yes, we call those 'turbocharged engines', but still the number of stages of supercharging there was 2.
> 
> 
> ...


Tomo,

I thought the turbo was the "second" or high altitude stage, and the engine driven supercharger was the first stage. Why am I wrong? (I genuinely curious and not being my standard smart arse).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2022)

Jumping on Tomo's answer.

It sort of depends on which way you look at the air flow.
The air flow goes from the intake/scoop through the first stage and then through the second stage where the pressure builds even further and then to the intake manifold/cylinders.
The engine driven stage (or stage closest to the intake manifold) is the 2nd stage. 
The stage that is first compressing the outside ambient air is the 1st stage.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 10, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Tomo,
> 
> I thought the turbo was the "second" or high altitude stage, and the engine driven supercharger was the first stage. Why am I wrong? (I genuinely curious and not being my standard smart are).
> 
> ...


The Americans were the only ones who got turbochargers into production during WWII. Typically, the various Pratt & Whitney and Wright radial engines had built-in superchargers. The turbocharger effectively was part of the airframe. The engine air entered the turbocharger, and it was then pumped into the engine supercharger. The best place for an intercooler would be the output of the engine supercharger.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 10, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> B-17, B-24, P-38 and P-47 were all turbocharged. The P-51 was supercharged (but it was a British engine, and in the P-51 it only got a 2 speed supercharger into service in December 1943).
> 
> The Japanese did struggle to get engines producing high levels of power above 25,000 ft, but the Germans ... not so much.
> 
> ...


As far as I know, all the WWII aeroplane engine superchargers were on centrifugal blowers. To get high pressure on something small, like an automobile engine, you have to consider using a positive displacement blower like a Roots blower. 

If you want substantially more pressure into your aircraft engine without sacrificing airflow, the solution is two centrifugal blowers in series. The American turbochargers blowing air into the engine superchargers achieved this, as did the two-stage centrifugal blowers geared to the crankshafts of the Merlin and Griffon engines. The Rolls Royce/Packard superchargers ran at two speeds, allowing good performance at both low and high altitudes. P-47s were successful at low altitude late in the war because the Germans had run out of fuel and good pilots. 

Definitely, the Rolls Royce blowers were operating at supersonic speeds. There is only so much you can do with a single stage supercharger. The Germans were in very bad shape at 30,000ft against the two-stage Thunderbolts and Mustangs.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The boys at North American apparently didn't get that memo.


In other words, the Americans got lucky. They designed a fantastic airframe, and they got their hands on a very good engine with a two-stage supercharger. If the Germans had developed laminar flow airfoils and two-stage superchargers, strategic bombing would have been suicidal. Strategic bombing caused combat at altitudes that suited Thunderbolts and Mustangs. 

The Mustang was developed into a long range escort. It was not designed to be one.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 10, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In other words, the Americans got lucky. They designed a fantastic airframe, and they got their hands on a very good engine with a two-stage supercharger. If the Germans had developed laminar flow airfoils and two-stage superchargers, strategic bombing would have been suicidal. Strategic bombing caused combat at altitudes that suited Thunderbolts and Mustangs.
> 
> The Mustang was developed into a long range escort. It was not designed to be one.



Right, we got lucky. But -- the laminar-flow wing was just as much a tech advance as a twin-charged engine, no? Superior tech doesn't only exist in the powerplant.

We go lucky with the Corsair as well.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> A big engine has it's appeal
> Problem with the DB 605 engines with big superchargers was their too late appearance, IIRC the DB 605AS was available by mid-1944, the DB 605D by late 1944.



Maybe shade earlier for the AS

From some quick online research (_*caveats for accuracy apply*_), the DB 605AS completed testing towards the end of 1943 and the engine entered combat service sometime during the first third of 1944. It seems there were three Luftwaffe units (JG 1, JG 5 and JG 11) had small numbers of 10G-5/AS and 109G-6/AS in service during April 1944 (or at least that's the earliest I can find).

According to a 2008 Il-2 Sturmovik forum post by Kurfurst (noted 109 aficionado and occasional sparring partner ), 109G-6/AS production/retrofit figures were:
1943: 2 aircraft
Feb 1944: 26 aircraft
Mar 1944: 65 aircraft
April 1944: 95 aircraft

May through August records lost

Sep 1944: 14 aircraft
Oct 1944: 2 aircraft
Nov 1944: 1 aircraft




wuzak said:


> At what boost/power levels?



605 AS: 1200 PS at 8000m (not sure about ata, maybe 1.3??)
605 ASM: 1150 PS at 7800m (assuming that's without MW-50 injection)

605 DB: 1285 PS at 6800m at 1.45 ata
605 DC: 1285 PS at 6800m at 1.45 ata

At least that what the data sheets I have say.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> Thanks for your previous post - I did not know that before. In the meantime, I looked things up on the internet and indeed read that the Operators had first of all to set the receivers correctly. I'd read through your link also, but when it started to get technical I was quickly left behind! Thanks again for the info.


The electronics are over my head but it is worth skimming over that, lots of interesting "stuff" in there. When the Germans investigated CH with a Zeppelin all they found was a wall of "noise", they didnt realise how much it had been optimised to make a very primitive system work well. By primitive I mean two or three years behind the best available in research labs. It takes two to three years to get a system working reliably, then mass produced and installed with trained operators.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Tomo,
> 
> I thought the turbo was the "second" or high altitude stage, and the engine driven supercharger was the first stage. Why am I wrong? (I genuinely curious and not being my standard smart are).
> 
> ...



Shortround6 answered this - basically, we count the stages as the air enters them. In P-43, -47, -38, B-17, -24, air was always 1st entering the compressor 'half' of the turbo-compressor (bear with me here), where it got compreessed, and then was routed to the interocooler (to lower the temperature of the compressed air) and then to the engine-stage compressor via carburetor. In order to avoid over-boosting the engine, waste gates were used so the turbo will be spinning slow at low altitudes (waste gates open), and ever faster up to the rated altitude (waste gates closing with altitude).



Howard Gibson said:


> The Americans were the only ones who got turbochargers into production during WWII. Typically, the various Pratt & Whitney and Wright radial engines had built-in superchargers. The turbocharger effectively was part of the airframe. The engine air entered the turbocharger, and it was then pumped into the engine supercharger. The best place for an intercooler would be the output of the engine supercharger.



In a radial engine, there was next to no space for an intercooler past the engine-stage S/C, unless a wholesale redesign of an engine is done.
Germans also put the turbochargers in use to help out the BMW 801 on some Ju-388s; granted, this was a very small quantity vs. what the Americans did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In other words, the Americans got lucky. They designed a fantastic airframe, and they got their hands on a very good engine with a two-stage supercharger. If the Germans had developed laminar flow airfoils and two-stage superchargers, strategic bombing would have been suicidal. Strategic bombing caused combat at altitudes that suited Thunderbolts and Mustangs.
> 
> The Mustang was developed into a long range escort. It was not designed to be one.





Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, we got lucky. But -- the laminar-flow wing was just as much a tech advance as a twin-charged engine, no? Superior tech doesn't only exist in the powerplant.
> 
> We go lucky with the Corsair as well.



Americans got lucky? Let's try 'Americans were usually doing the job right' statement?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Americans got lucky? Let's try 'Americans were usually doing the job right' statement?


To paraphrase Arnold Palmer. The more research you do into engines metallurgy and aerodynamics the luckier you get.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Americans got lucky? Let's try 'Americans were usually doing the job right' statement?



We got lucky in that adding the Merlin to the Mustang proved not so troublesome, and gave us a LR fighter capable of tangling with almost anything.

With the Corsair, we got lucky in finding that the inverted-gull wing reduced drag at the wing roots, allowing the plane a higher turn of speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Americans got lucky? Let's try 'Americans were usually doing the job right' statement?


In WWII, the Americans had more engineering resources than anyone else. The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy. 

The Germans had their share of good aircraft and engine designers, but they missed the laminar flow wings and two-stage superchargers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> With the Corsair, we got lucky in finding that the inverted-gull wing reduced drag at the wing roots, allowing the plane a higher turn of speed.


My understanding is that the Corsair's reverse gull wings solved a bunch of problems, including good airflow around the wing roots. It was not a lucky guess.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> My understanding is that the Corsair's reverse gull wings solved a bunch of problems, including good airflow around the wing roots. It was not a lucky guess.



I could be wrong, but I have been under the impression they were designed to allow for clearance for the large prop, and that the reduced drag was an ancillary benefit noticed later. I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Getting good dope is why I read here.

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


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In WWII, the Americans had more engineering resources than anyone else. The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.
> 
> The Germans had their share of good aircraft and engine designers, but they missed the laminar flow wings and two-stage superchargers.


I think it is also fair to say that the Americans got the benefit of what was happening in Europe, with regard to what the RAF and Luftwaffe were putting up in the skies in 1940. A Bf 109 and Bf 110 were shipped to the States in 1941, and I expect we also provided info on our own two fighters. What was discovered (and I know Vultee produced a comprehensive report and 20 minute film re the Bf 110) probably helped future thinking and development in some way. Which was no bad thing, given the ultimate performance of the US fighters in the last 12 months of the war over Germany, which was superb! And I say that as a Brit...

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I could be wrong, but I have been under the impression they were designed to allow for clearance for the large prop, and that the reduced drag was an ancillary benefit noticed later. I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Getting good dope is why I read here.


The issues of the landing gear and prop were addressed by the gull wing.

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


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In WWII, the Americans had more engineering resources than anyone else. The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.
> 
> The Germans had their share of good aircraft and engine designers, but they missed the laminar flow wings and two-stage superchargers.


That is your opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 11, 2022)

The reduction in drag was well-known and was the reason the F2A and F4F used the mid wing design.
Trying to use a low wing and get rid of the wing root fillet was part of the Vaught thinking.

Many aircraft designers were trying to do more than one thing with each part or feature.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> In WWII, the Americans had more engineering resources than anyone else. The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.
> 
> The Germans had their share of good aircraft and engine designers, but they missed the laminar flow wings and two-stage superchargers.


I was hoping Drgondog would have commented on this but here goes. 
The Mustang started out as an in-house design, P.509. The P.509 was NAA Spec 1592, circa March 1940. This lead to the Mustang after the BPC went NAA to build P-40s for them. 
“We got something better “. 
My source on the P.509 information is THE SOURCE:
DrgonDog 
In that light, I don’t think the Mustang was that much of a rush job. Based on anecdotal evidence, I don’t think “luck” had anything to do with it.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The fact remains that the Mustang was designed mostly in a panic rush by people with limited experience in fighter design. It all worked out in the end, but it was not a good war strategy.


The Mustang existed before the BPC approached North American.

This artwork is of NAA's P-509 project, rendered in 1940 - look familiar?






This image is from the P-509 thread that explains the genesis of the Mustang from NAA's drawing board to the NA-73 in good detail:






P-509


I’m following the thread asking if the P-51was the best WW2 escort. There’s a few mentions of the P-509. I’m not familiar with it and I can’t find it online. Could someone kindly post some information about it?



ww2aircraft.net

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 11, 2022)

I don't think the P-51 was a stroke of "luck" but a product of nearly limitless resources, access to a skilled workforce, and maybe just as important, the space required and remoteness from the conflict to tinker with the design. 
Its too bad somebody didn't smack Sydney Camm over the head with the NACA laminar flow research a little sooner, perhaps the Typhoon/Tornado could have been skipped, and introduced the Tempest and Fury a year or two earlier

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> We got lucky in that adding the Merlin to the Mustang proved not so troublesome, and gave us a LR fighter capable of tangling with almost anything.
> 
> With the Corsair, we got lucky in finding that the inverted-gull wing reduced drag at the wing roots, allowing the plane a higher turn of speed.



Perhaps the hard work and experience often result with a good luck?



John Vasco said:


> I think it is also fair to say that the Americans got the benefit of what was happening in Europe, with regard to what the RAF and Luftwaffe were putting up in the skies in 1940. A Bf 109 and Bf 110 were shipped to the States in 1941, and I expect we also provided info on our own two fighters. What was discovered (and I know Vultee produced a comprehensive report and 20 minute film re the Bf 110) probably helped future thinking and development in some way. Which was no bad thing, given the ultimate performance of the US fighters in the last 12 months of the war over Germany, which was superb! And I say that as a Brit...



P-38 flew well before 1941. XP-47B was materializing in the winter of 1940/41, with engine and turbocharger system unavailable anywhere else bar USA. NA-73X (Mustang prototype) 1st flew in October 1940.
Probably neither Hurricane, nor Bf 109 nor 110 were offering anything to the Americans. With Spitfire it was another story, prompting NAA to see where the weight could be shed in quest that eventually produced the 'lightweight Mustangs'.
P-47 enjoyed the performance advantage vs. German fighters above 20000 ft for perhaps the last 20 months, and Merlin Mustang some 17 months.

What Americans failed to learn from the air battles of 1940-42 over Europe was that drop tank is a critical asset on an offensive fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps the hard work and experience often result with a good luck?



Of course that's often the case. What hard work did the North American design team put in on the Merlin that made it so easy to adapt for the Mustang, though? I'm really at a loss why this point is being argued. It seems self-evident that someone asking "what if?" with something so complicated as an aero engine installation mod and having it work so smoothly is quite the lucky break.

This is not to say us Americans didn't do many things right; we did. It's just acknowledging that serendipity does sometimes happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Of course that's often the case. What hard work did the North American design team put in on the Merlin that made it so easy to adapt for the Mustang, though? I'm really at a loss why this point is being argued. It seems self-evident that someone asking "what if?" with something so complicated as an aero engine installation mod and having it work so smoothly is quite the lucky break.
> 
> This is not to say us Americans didn't do many things right; we did. It's just acknowledging that serendipity does sometimes happen.



'Merlinized' P-51 from NAA gained the deeper fuselage so the Merlin does not spoil the streamlining of the fighter despite the air tunnel under the engine (we can compare the Mustang X with XP-51B to see the more elegant lines of the later; IMO, granted, the only actual shortcoming of the Mustang X was that every Mustang I the RAF had was not converted into the Mk.X). They also reworked the cooling system from the one the Allison Mustangs had: lowered the intake so it is away from the boundary layer (also introducing the boundary layer splitter), oil cooler in the separate tunnel, intercooler radiator neatly housed together with coolant radiator. Engine power went up by a great deal, the drag probably remained close to the Allison Mustangs (otherwise the engine-related drag usually went up if an intercooled engine was introduced; certainly the engine drag was up in such case with Ta 152 and Spitfire).

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 11, 2022)

So I guess the Mustang was the best British fighterjet.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I was hoping Drgondog would have commented on this but here goes.
> The Mustang started out as an in-house design, P.509. The P.509 was NAA Spec 1592, circa March 1940. This lead to the Mustang after the BPC went NAA to build P-40s for them.
> “We got something better “.
> My source on the P.509 information is THE SOURCE:
> ...


There was a great deal of serendipity with the "birth" of the Mustang/P-51. Late enough to be able to incorporate the latest known technology in the final design but early enough to play a part in the war, but that isnt "luck". NAAs involvement with the British as a respected client and the British involvement with NAA as a responsible manufacturer played a huge part. It may be true that NAA had no "track record" with actual fighters, but they did have the T-6 Texan which the British bought and liked and was an education in mass producing such aircraft. I would also question the worth of "experience". The two companies with the most experience of making aircraft in UK made some of the biggest screw ups. Hawkers took an age to get the Typhoon sorted and Handley Page never got the Halifax to perform anything like a Lancaster.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I could be wrong, but I have been under the impression they were designed to allow for clearance for the large prop, and that the reduced drag was an ancillary benefit noticed later. I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Getting good dope is why I read here.


The reverse gullwing also moved the wing away from the pilot, improving his view downward a bit.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The reverse gullwing also moved the wing away from the pilot, improving his view downward a bit.



I hadn't even considered that, but it sure makes sense.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 11, 2022)

Perhaps if luck was involved in the Mustang saga, it would be that the aircraft was as large as it was. That put it at a disadvantage occasionally against lighter aircraft, but it had the space to eventually carry far more fuel than originally envisioned

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The reverse gullwing also moved the wing away from the pilot, improving his view downward a bit.


I've sat in many warbirds to include a Corsair, to be honest I don't think this made a difference

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 11, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've sat in many warbirds to include a Corsair, to be honest I don't think this made a difference


The Corsair's wing (width and area) were comparable to the F6F's, but the Corsair's cockpit was set back far enough, there was nothing that was going to help a pilot's view, short of putting windows in the wing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2022)

wuzak said:


> At what boost/power levels?



I've posted the data sheets for the DB 605 engines here.


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps the hard work and experience often result with a good luck?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go read the Vultee report...


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> Go read the Vultee report...


I've read it already before. 
What feature of the Bf 110 was adopted on P-38, P-47 or P-51?


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 11, 2022)

Shark mouths.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> I think it is also fair to say that the Americans got the benefit of what was happening in Europe, with regard to what the RAF and Luftwaffe were putting up in the skies in 1940. A Bf 109 and Bf 110 were shipped to the States in 1941, and I expect we also provided info on our own two fighters. What was discovered (and I know Vultee produced a comprehensive report and 20 minute film re the Bf 110) probably helped future thinking and development in some way. Which was no bad thing, given the ultimate performance of the US fighters in the last 12 months of the war over Germany, which was superb! And I say that as a Brit...


I've seen this before and just went through it again, very detailed, but to be honest, I don't think much of the data in the report made much on an influence on other manufacturers and Vultee really wasn't a major player at the time and was eventually swallowed up by Consolidated. The NA-73X flew October 1940 and most other contemporary US fighters of the period were either on assembly lines or entering service. I did find some of the systems interesting (Pneumatics for landing gear operation) and was a bit surprised to read that the -110 did not have a cockpit heating system but did support electrically heated flight suits (I wonder if the -110 was as cold as the P38?!?!  ).

As far as construction and materials used, I didn't notice anything that was really ground shaking

EDIT* I'll correct my statement - the 110 had a hydraulic L/G retraction system, the emergency system used pneumatics, which is pretty typical on larger aircraft of the day.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> I've read it already before.
> What feature of the Bf 110 was adopted on P-38, P-47 or P-51?


Black crosses?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 11, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> I've read it already before.
> What feature of the Bf 110 was adopted on P-38, P-47 or P-51?


The Americans were very interested in construction details, and engine operation and performance. Quite a bit of the report, although collated by Vultee, was compiled by other specialist companies, so you would have to go there to see what exact specifics were picked up. I cannot believed that nothing was gained from what the Americans examined in detail. Can you...?


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 11, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've seen this before and just went through it again, very detailed, but to be honest, I don't think much of the data in the report made much on an influence on other manufacturers and Vultee really wasn't a major player at the time and was eventually swallowed up by Consolidated. The NA-73X flew October 1940 and most other contemporary US fighters of the period were either on assembly lines or entering service. I did find some of the systems interesting (Pneumatics for landing gear operation) and was a bit surprised to read that the -110 did not have a cockpit heating system but did support electrically heated flight suits (I wonder if the -110 was as cold as the P38?!?!  ).
> 
> As far as construction and materials used, I didn't notice anything that was really ground shaking
> 
> EDIT* I'll correct my statement - the 110 had a hydraulic L/G retraction system, the emergency system used pneumatics, which is pretty typical on larger aircraft of the day.


In 1941 the USA was basically looking at machines flying in 1940. What had actually been taking to the skies in combat, whereas the USA had not yet reached that point. I recall the report commenting favourably on the ease of construction, resulting in ease of replacement parts, and things like that which were important in the field.

The cockpit heating system came in on the Bf 110 E variant. Drawing air in through two openings (one in the nose and one in the fuselage), circulating it around both engines, and then feeding the hot air into the front and rear of the cockpit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> The Americans were very interested in construction details, and engine operation and performance. Quite a bit of the report, although collated by Vultee, was compiled by other specialist companies, so you would have to go there to see what exact specifics were picked up. I cannot believed that nothing was gained from what the Americans examined in detail. Can you...?


I can - to be honest I see nothing really ground shaking when compared to the fighters (US) of the day. I did find the comments on the self sealing fuel tanks interesting


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> In 1941 the USA was basically looking at machines flying in 1940. What had actually been taking to the skies in combat, whereas the USA had not yet reached that point. I recall the report commenting favourably on the ease of construction, resulting in ease of replacement parts, and things like that which were important in the field.


Agree


John Vasco said:


> The cockpit heating system came in on the Bf 110 E variant. Drawing air in through two openings (one in the nose and one in the fuselage), circulating it around both engines, and then feeding the hot air into the front and rear of the cockpit.


Similar system on the P-38 and many other twin engine aircraft of the period

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2022)

I think the biggest take away on this was the testing of the self sealing fuel tanks in which they actually shot up with .30 and .50 caliber rounds. This information was probably made available to the AAF and eventually disseminated to combat units

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 11, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> I cannot believed [...]



C'mon, John, "I can't believe" is not a strong argument. I'd think that if Americans or Brits borrowed ideas from captured German a/c there'd be paperwork on it somewhere. Do you have any documentation or is this just a belief?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Feb 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> C'mon, John, "I can't believe" is not a strong argument. I'd think that if Americans or Brits borrowed ideas from captured German a/c there'd be paperwork on it somewhere. Do you have any documentation or is this just a belief?


It's a belief, Thump, because every nation was poring over the aircraft of other nations to see what was there, to pick up on the good ideas, and also to counter the things found. So things would be gone into in minute details, like armour plating, the thickess of it, the placement of it. Self-sealing fuel tanks (which has already been mentioned). Armament, and the type of bullets/shells in use. If they can get an aircraft back to flying condition, then testing it against their own latest types (this couldn't be done in 1941 by the USA, but I believe the USA did get German types flying in the Med Theatre). And there are not always extant papertrails (or if there are, they are filed away somewhere which is almost impossible to find). For example, for a long time, I tried to find out what happened to the Bf 110 fighter-bomber of 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210 (S9+CK) after the Vultee examination and report was complete. I wrote to shed loads of companies as well as official USA aviation organisations to try to find out, but drew a 100% blank. So papertrails do go cold, Thump. I could find nothing about it being scrapped, or crated-up and stored/archived somehwere. Some wag once said to me it was probably crated up and in storage in one of the massive Smithsonian facilities, as the staff there don't have a clue about a lot of what they've got, given the overall volume. I don't think I'll find out in my lifetime...

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The aircraft that fought in WW2 from every nation except Japan where fitted self sealing tanks, pilot armor, armored windscreens which was detrimental to their performance, as for the A6M even it's seat had holes in it to reduce weight



Actually, the Japanese did fit these things to their aircraft, including the Zero and I never said it wasn't an essential part of a fighter design, so don't misrepresent my words. My point was that you're stating that it meant the Zero would be entirely useless in combat with an aircraft with armour plating and that means it wouldn't have been effective without it, which, as we know simply was not the case. This is what I'm specifically referring to, as has been pointed out by a few people here, Zeros shot down and bested numerous aircraft types _with_ armour plating. You are generalising and using that as the foundation behind your bias. 

I have no illusions about the Zero and its capabilities and lack thereof, but to state that it was useless simply because it had no armour or self sealing tanks is just not gonna cut the mustard and ignores the first two years of the Pacific War when it bested virtually every fighter in theatre, including the USAAF and USN's best at the time. Everyone knows the Zero lost its sheen in the face of superior tactics and better aircraft, but that doesn't in any way detract from just how innovative the aircraft was in matching the original specifications, nor does it take away from what the Japanese pilots achieved with it.



PAT303 said:


> Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, _like all Japanese planes it did well _until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.



The Bf 109E-3 cruised at 210 mph, the A6M2 Model 21 207 mph, that three mph isn't gonna make that much of a difference and with the Zero's far superior range, and let's emphasise that one more time, over *1,100 miles*, an increase in fuel consumption to improve its speed isn't going to eat too much into that range for it to be an effective escort fighter. As I mentioned earlier, in our hypothetical European scenario (still lookin' for that time machine), the Fairey Fulmar had an internal range of 800 miles, that's still a lot for a single-engined fighter and trumps almost every other fighter in Europe, so even if the Zero's range was knocked down by a few hundred miles, it'd _still_ outrange every other fighter in Europe.

Wow, that's an admission that you've said the Zero did well, must have been difficult for you to swallow and yup, essentially you're right, but at the very end of the war, pilots of far superior aircraft were STILL being advised _not to dogfight with the Zero_.




PAT303 said:


> Suburo Sakai was seriously wounded and blinded in one eye from a .30 cal bullet that hit him after penetrating through the unarmored windscreen of his A6M, he later stated that air forces shouldn't fight a war with acrobatic aircraft, enough said.



See above. Also, Sakai remarked about how he returned to base with his Zero all shot up on a couple of occasions, too, and again, hindsight is a wonderful thing for you to say that the Japanese shouldn't have done what they did, but they did and it caught everyone by surprise.

Here's what Bob Mikesh through Osamu Tagaya in an interview reproduced in Mikesh's book, said about the Zero and the lack of armour plating etc...

"Reading the standard literature on the subject, one gains the impression that the Japanese stand out like a "sore thumb" in not providing these features while everyone else did. This is simply not true. It should be pointed out that the Zero's contemporaries around the world, and just about all other combat aircraft of the period, originally were conceived as machines that would be flown in combat without armour or self-sealing tanks and were designed accordingly. The truth of the matter is that in the mid-1930s nether aircraft designers nor, more importantly, air force officers who were responsible for formulating design specifications to be imposed on aircraft manufacturers and their design staffs, foresaw the importance of these features in a future war."

More from Mikesh...

"In the United States - after witnessing Great Britain's experience in the Battle of Britain, as well as ongoing developments in the European air war - opinion began to favour self-sealing fuel tanks and armour protection for the pilot during 1940 and 1941." "Many US aircraft, including F4F-3s did not have these features at the time of Pearl Harbor. In light of these comparisons, the unprotected nature of the Zero and other Japanese aircraft of the period does not seem particularly out of place." 

"The fault, if there is any, certainly does not lie with the aircraft designers. Where a major difference does exist is in the way the two opponents approached the situation. By December 1941, the US air services had clearly identified the need for these protective features, and were in the process of providing them, albeit incompletely at the time the Japanese struck. Therefore, once the war in the Pacific began, the vast majority of American aircraft had these features within a relatively short period of time. As for the Japanese, they were by no means oblivious to the issue of aircraft protection."

The chapter goes on to describe what happened next, stating that the Japanese took a longer time to do what everyone else was doing, _not_ that they specifically ignored the issue. That was the problem. Another example of the Japanese hierarchy acting against its own aims...

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 12, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> For example, for a long time, I tried to find out what happened to the Bf 110 fighter-bomber of 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210 (S9+CK) after the Vultee examination and report was complete. Some wag once said to me it was probably crated up and in storage in one of the massive Smithsonian facilities, as the staff there don't have a clue about a lot of what they've got, given the overall volume. I don't think I'll find out in my lifetime...


It's in the crate next to the Ark.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 12, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> It's a belief, Thump, because every nation was poring over the aircraft of other nations to see what was there, to pick up on the good ideas, and also to counter the things found. So things would be gone into in minute details, like armour plating, the thickess of it, the placement of it. Self-sealing fuel tanks (which has already been mentioned). Armament, and the type of bullets/shells in use. If they can get an aircraft back to flying condition, then testing it against their own latest types (this couldn't be done in 1941 by the USA, but I believe the USA did get German types flying in the Med Theatre). And there are not always extant papertrails (or if there are, they are filed away somewhere which is almost impossible to find). For example, for a long time, I tried to find out what happened to the Bf 110 fighter-bomber of 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210 (S9+CK) after the Vultee examination and report was complete. I wrote to shed loads of companies as well as official USA aviation organisations to try to find out, but drew a 100% blank. So papertrails do go cold, Thump. I could find nothing about it being scrapped, or crated-up and stored/archived somehwere. Some wag once said to me it was probably crated up and in storage in one of the massive Smithsonian facilities, as the staff there don't have a clue about a lot of what they've got, given the overall volume. I don't think I'll find out in my lifetime...



I sure appreciate the forthright and informative answer, John. I agree that there was definitely osmosis happening in designs, but I suppose with my experience with American bureaucracy that in the design consultations there'd be mention of it. Of course, I haven't prowled those trails to nearly your extent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> More from Mikesh...
> 
> "In the United States - after witnessing Great Britain's experience in the Battle of Britain, as well as ongoing developments in the European air war - opinion began to favour self-sealing fuel tanks and armour protection for the pilot during 1940 and 1941." "Many US aircraft, including F4F-3s did not have these features at the time of Pearl Harbor. In light of these comparisons, the unprotected nature of the Zero and other Japanese aircraft of the period does not seem particularly out of place."


The US Army was issuing requirements that all *NEW *planes be built in armor/self sealing tanks in Sept of 1940. How this translated into planes already contracted for may be a bit different. Certainly the P-40B's were built with a certain amount of of protection and the P-40C's had more (better SS tanks). The P-40D&E were in production in May of 1941.

In fact the US Army tried to standardized the number system so that any aircraft with the letters A, B, and C. after the number in 1940/41 were considered not combat capable. 
As in a B-17B vs a B-17D or a P-39C vs a P-39D. This distinction went away as newer planes that weren't in production at the time came online in 1942/43.


nuuumannn said:


> "The fault, if there is any, certainly does not lie with the aircraft designers. Where a major difference does exist is in the way the two opponents approached the situation. By December 1941, the US air services had clearly identified the need for these protective features, and were in the process of providing them, albeit incompletely at the time the Japanese struck. Therefore, once the war in the Pacific began, the vast majority of American aircraft had these features within a relatively short period of time. As for the Japanese, they were by no means oblivious to the issue of aircraft protection."


A number of the existing aircraft were NOT refitted at the time of Pearl Harbor. 
However in the case of some aircraft (Like P-35s and P-36s and P-40'no letter') there were no plans to ever refit them as the combat squadrons were supposed to be replacing these older aircraft with new production planes and the older planes (at least ones in the US) were supposed to go to training squadrons. 
Some P-40 'no letter' were rebuilt with protection in mid/late 1941 for shipment to the USSR and were called P-40Gs. Around 30?

The F2A-3s were built with protection. The older F4F-3s did not have it but were refitted in Jan/Feb of 1942. Some of the other planes in 1941/early 1942 like dive bombers and torpedo planes were lacking protection. But again, the older planes were already being scheduled for replacement as soon as the new planes could be built/issued.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The US Army was issuing requirements that all *NEW *planes be built in armor/self sealing tanks in Sept of 1940. How this translated into planes already contracted for may be a bit different.





Shortround6 said:


> A number of the existing aircraft were NOT refitted at the time of Pearl Harbor.
> However in the case of some aircraft (Like P-35s and P-36s and P-40'no letter') there were no plans to ever refit them as the combat squadrons were supposed to be replacing these older aircraft with new production planes and the older planes (at least ones in the US) were supposed to go to training squadrons.
> Some P-40 'no letter' were rebuilt with protection in mid/late 1941 for shipment to the USSR and were called P-40Gs. Around 30?
> 
> The F2A-3s were built with protection. The older F4F-3s did not have it but were refitted in Jan/Feb of 1942. Some of the other planes in 1941/early 1942 like dive bombers and torpedo planes were lacking protection. But again, the older planes were already being scheduled for replacement as soon as the new planes could be built/issued.



So, you've essentially confirmed everything that Mikesh and Tagaya have said. September 1940 is well within the throes of the Battle of Britain and from the previous month's combat, ample time for the USA to gain intel from Britain.

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


----------



## slaterat (Feb 13, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> here were other evaluations between the British fighters and the Tomahawks and reports to the US as early as Feb 1941 on how they were doing. But they were non-operational aircraft (I.E. lacking some operational equipment). Again they were rated as being better than the Hurricane I and in some regards as good or better than the Spitfire but altitudes are not given.




Hello Shortround6, do you have the source or link to this report? It seems that the RAF was pretty reluctant to deploy the P 40 in N Europe, and quickly sent all available p 40s to the DAF, while they kept lots of Hurricane IIs in England until mid 42. I suppose the better climb rate and superior high altitude performance of the Hurri II was the deciding factor.


----------



## Venturi (Feb 16, 2022)

Even in N Africa the RAF P-40s had issues with altitude capability. And it was 1941 and 1942, not 1940 - so 109F-2 with the airframe redesign and F-4s with DB605. Not a good comparison from a performance standpoint. When a 109F was captured and tested by the DAF, even somewhat damaged and with unknown engine regime, the test pilot remarked - from memory of reading Shores - “it is a rocket ship, we see why we are at such a disadvantage.”

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 16, 2022)

Venturi said:


> Even in N Africa the RAF P-40s had issues with altitude capability. And it was 1941 and 1942, not 1940 - so 109F-2 with the airframe redesign and F-4s with DB605.


The F-4 had the DB-601E engine, the F-2 the DB-601N engine


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think @PAT303's point about range being a result of the Zero's flight regime is fair. Flying relatively low and slow is very different between PTO and ETO.
> 
> 
> No argument here.


If im picking from that time chunk ill take a P-40 if you wait a few months you'd see me in a mk2 trop hurricane


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> If im picking from that time chunk ill take a P-40 if you wait a few months you'd see me in a mk2 trop hurricane



I'd be concerned about altitude performance. German bombers regularly flew above 22-24,000 feet, where especially the early P-40s were wheezy. Even the later variants weren't praised for performance above 20k.


----------



## Ovod (Feb 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'd be concerned about altitude performance. German bombers regularly flew above 22-24,000 feet, where especially the early P-40s were wheezy. Even the later variants weren't praised for performance above 20k.



How accurately can a German bomber hit its target from 22-24,000 feet? Even if the defending fighters can't reach the enemy at such an altitude, forcing the enemy to fly at such an altitude can be seen as a small victory, surely?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

Ovod said:


> How accurately can a German bomber hit its target from 22-24,000 feet? Even if the defending fighters can't reach the enemy at such an altitude, forcing the enemy to fly at such an altitude can be seen as a small victory, surely?



Well, no doubt the accuracy was pretty bad from those levels at that time, but that's where they were. And if you're the defending air force, do you want to procure aircraft that run out of breath up there?

You don't need tremendous accuracy to hit London, and that's the main air battle we're looking at in this timeframe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'd be concerned about altitude performance. German bombers regularly flew above 22-24,000 feet, where especially the early P-40s were wheezy. Even the later variants weren't praised for performance above 20k.



IIRC the flight altitude of German bombers in 1940 was ~15000 ft. It took slapping the turboes on B-17s and B-24s to make bombers cruise above 20000 ft, or the 2-stage Merlins on Mosquitoes to do the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> IIRC the flight altitude of German bombers in 1940 was ~15000 ft. It took slapping the turboes on B-17s and B-24s to make bombers cruise above 20000 ft, or the 2-stage Merlins on Mosquitoes to do the same.



I was under the impression that the BoB bombers flew higher?

Or am I confuzzling that with the altitude of the escorting fighters?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 19, 2022)

Cool word.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 19, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Had to look that one up. It's called the Skyline (non-export models) and now known as the GTR or Godzilla. I prefer the looks of the R33 / 34 versions myself!


Can i make a flat-4 powered suggestion the 1995 subaru impreza wrx sti the road going version of the car that would take the late colin mcrae to his only WRC title

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Any plane is only as good as how it fits the doctrine it's designed for and the pilots tasked to execute the mission.
> 
> As for the radios, where the hell was Sony when you needed it?!
> 
> ...


Sony really ? as a former ham ex KD8KXV get a kenwood or what in that time period would have been brand as a trio which would become kenwood and compete with both icom and yaesu


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> Sony really ? as a former ham ex KD8KXV get a kenwood or what in that time period would have been brand as a trio which would become kenwood and compete with both icom and yaesu



It's a joke, son. I've got a Kenwood amp in my bedroom for cranking some Sabbath. The CD player is Sony, though.


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's a joke, son. I've got a Kenwood amp in my bedroom for cranking some Sabbath. The CD player is Sony, though.


I didnt know you was joking kenwood does make decent radios though even though i dont use it anymore sitting on my dresser is a kenwood ts-850s 100 watt transceiver im sure would still work to this very day


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> I didnt know you was joking kenwood does make decent radios though even though i dont use it anymore sitting on my dresser is a kenwood ts-850s 100 watt transceiver im sure would still work to this very day



I was just ripping on how the Japanese overtook the radio market in the 70s/80s when their 40s stuff was pretty weak.

My stereo rig is all 80s-era Japanese, because they knew how to do it right by then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Feb 27, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> The F-4 had the DB-601E engine, the F-2 the DB-601N engine



The 109E-3/4 had the DB 601A, the late E-7 and F-2 the 601N, and the G-2, G-4, G-6 as well as later 109 models the DB605 variants. I just double checked, and you’re right. The F-4 with the DB 601E in particular was a leap of performance over the opposing contemporary allied fighters (Spitfire MkV which had parity or better with the 109F-4 were rare in the desert at this time).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 27, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I was under the impression that the BoB bombers flew higher?
> 
> Or am I confuzzling that with the altitude of the escorting fighters?



Repost from elsewhere:

Late May '40 French report:
_The bombers almost always operate in columns of 9 to 25 aircraft, divided into sections of 3 or 5. Sometimes the formation comprises as many as 60 aircraft, divided into several columns staggered laterally and in height._

_A number of bombing attacks were carried out by 3 to 6 aircraft.

The average height of these raids is from 2000 to 3000 metres, but several attacks on aerodromes were carried our using low flying tactics._

_Dive bombing was primarily used in attacks on targets in the zone of ground fighting._

Late September '40 British report:
_The bomber formations have operated at heights varying between 10,000 ft. and 20,000 ft., though reports indicate that the favourite operational height is between 13,000 feet and 17,000 feet._

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


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I was under the impression that the BoB bombers flew higher?
> 
> Or am I confuzzling that with the altitude of the escorting fighters?


Off course standard Luftwaffe bombers such as the He-111H or the Ju 88 could and did operate at 20,000 feet - especially later on during the Blitz and as such reducing losses
considerably - however the accuracy of a bomb dropped at 20,000 feet would hit anywhere within a range of 4-5 km. So maybe a means towards terrorizing the civilian population
and causing damage but useless towards a pinpoint attack such as industrial plants. Described quite well in the book General Wever KG.4

The Germans taking air-superiority for granted - emphasized on the dive bomber role of its bomber-fleet - especially the Ju88 at a dive-angle of 35-40degree and as such being very
effective in striking targets at high accuracy. But for the BoB this wasn't a feasible attack role. 

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 14, 2022)

msxyz said:


> The Reggiane Re.2000 should be in the list as it was superior, in most respects, to the G.50 and C.200 (Max speed 530Km/h, climb to 6000m 6'10", combat range over 700Km). Shortly before the war, in 1939, a British mission sent to Italy sought to procure 300 of them. The deal evaporated once war broke out but still it was sold in small number to Sweden (60) and Hungary (70+ ~200 produced locally). Italy, on the other side, never adopted it because it was too complex to manufacture and its unprotected, integral wing fuel tanks were considered a liability. Only the Italian Navy used some of them catapulted from ships. The Re.2000 was however the basis for the Re.2001 (same fuselage, different wings, inline DB601 engine) and the Re.2002 (same fuselage, same wings of the 2001, more powerful radial engine, 3 hardpoints)


id rather have flown the fiat to be honest of course the best fighters hailing from this time are these four the p-36 and 40 the 109-E-3 and the G 50

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I'm going with Tkdog on this. The Me 109 and Spitfire would be as effective in striking island outposts in the middle of nowhere as the A6M and F4F would be in the Battle of Britain. Since the timeframe is before the great carrier battles, perhaps carrier planes shouldn't be considered. As no-one mentioned Fulmars, Me 109Ts and Rocs, this shouldn't be a problem.



Devil's advocate hat on here, I think A6M would have been pretty good in the Battle of Britain, in the sense that at least they had very good range and loiter time, so they could attack in the less expected routes, forcing Fighter Command to spread much more thin, we also know that A6M did very well against Hurricanes and pretty well against early Spitfires too. Not sure which if any German bombers had sufficient range to really take advantage of the long legs of the A6M but anyway, you would have any of this 20 minutes of fighting time type restrictions.

Then again, of course, BoB being largely an attrition war, no doubt losses would become telling.

IIRC in the beginning none of the fighters had armor etc., maybe they would have put some in after early experiences there. I think both German and British fighters had somewhat limited fuel tank protection too.

Anyway, for my money, the A6M is certainly in the running with the Spitfire I and Bf 109e as one of the best fighters in the world in this time frame.

I think Ki-27 is also good, as is the MC.200, the Dewoitine D.520 (they would have done better in the Battle of France if the pilots had any time to familiarize themselves with the type), P-36 is pretty good, the D.XXI is good. The I-16, though ridiculed, if you look at the variants with the 20mm cannon, I think is still a pretty good fighter at this point. The Hurricane is also clearly a very good fighter in mid 1940, especially for shooting down bombers which is the most important job a fighter has.

My personal favorite from that period though is probably the Westland Whirlwind. Small, fast, heavily armed. There is a lot to like! But not ideal for bomber escort or interception necessarily.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> id rather have flown the fiat to be honest of course the best fighters hailing from this time are these four the p-36 and 40 the 109-E-3 and the G 50



Really? You include the G-50 in a list of the four "best fighters hailing from this time" but you don't include the Spitfire? 

Even the Hurricane was far better than the G-50 - faster, higher ceiling, longer range, more firepower.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 15, 2022)

The Spit and the Emil are 1 & 2, depending on one's preferences -- you'll get no argument from me either way, the P-40 a distant third, and 4 ... ? I don't know.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Devil's advocate hat on here, I think A6M would have been pretty good in the Battle of Britain, in the sense that at least they had very good range and loiter time, so they could attack in the less expected routes, forcing Fighter Command to spread much more thin, we also know that A6M did very well against Hurricanes and pretty well against early Spitfires too. Not sure which if any German bombers had sufficient range to really take advantage of the long legs of the A6M but anyway, you would have any of this 20 minutes of fighting time type restrictions.
> 
> Then again, of course, BoB being largely an attrition war, no doubt losses would become telling.
> 
> ...


Full disclosure: I recently realized I am a Zero fanboi. I hold GregP and his gang fully responsible. 
What might be important to consider is who are flying the planes. If it’s IJN pilots then ix-nay on the armor. Source? Anecdotal, of course!
There have been numerous posts in various threads regarding the Whirlwind. A bunch of killjoy grownups killed those ideas. It does look really cool, though. 
Bitchin’ avatar, Dude!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Full disclosure: I recently realized I am a Zero fanboi. I hold GregP and his gang fully responsible.
> What might be important to consider is who are flying the planes. If it’s IJN pilots then ix-nay on the armor. Source? Anecdotal, of course!
> There have been numerous posts in various threads regarding the Whirlwind. A bunch of killjoy grownups killed those ideas. It does look really cool, though.
> Bitchin’ avatar, Dude!



I read those, I get that it was in a production dead end due to the peregrine engine, but I still think it was an outstanding design. A lot of those 'grown up' arguments are just aout rationalizing whatever was actually done during the war. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have done something different. There was a lot of wasted capacity as we can see clearly with the power of hindsight. I'd certainly trade all of the Defiants and Blackburn Rocs, Vought Vindicators and Airacudas for a few more Whirlwinds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2022)

Certainly not the Rocs?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

Lets keep a few ok

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

I nominate the Blackburn Roc as the best fighter of WW2!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 15, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I nominate the Blackburn Roc as the best fighter of WW2!



I think there's a Groundhog Expert who'd like a word with you ...

<grabs helmet, dives for slit-trench>

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I'd certainly trade all of the Defiants and Blackburn Rocs, Vought Vindicators and Airacudas for a few more Whirlwinds.


well, since the only started making Whirlwinds after they stopped making Rocs, Vindicators and Airacudas (mostly) it wasn't going to change anything.

I am a Whirlwind fanboy and while I don't believe you were ever going to get a a pair of Merlins in it, any more than you could put a Pair of Allisons in a P-40 I sure think the Whirlwind got a bum deal and some not very good accounting. 
"Nigel, that Whirlwind using two 12 cylinder engines and weighing 8,000lbs tare weight is too expensive, what can we replace it with?"
"Well, Algernon, how about we use *one* 24 cylinder engine in an 8,000lb tare weight aircraft, that should save oodles of money"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I nominate the Blackburn Roc as the best fighter of WW2!


Buffalo.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Buffalo.


The Scourge of the Sudan.................The Gloster Gauntlet!

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

The most underrated BEAST in the French arsenal, the Caudron 714! I have it on good authority that one of these shot down six F-15s over the Bekaa Valley in Syria in 1983, but it was covered up. Definitely the best fighter of WW2... or any war.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

You are confusing it with the Christmas Bullet




A sure contender for anybody's best/worst list.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> You are confusing it with the Christmas Bullet
> View attachment 664913
> 
> A sure contender for anybody's best/worst list.



Magnificent! Surely this is a contender to fly alongside France's greatest "escort fighter" - the graceful Amiot 143 






These of course would love to escort their 'sister by another mister', the LWS-6 / PZL.30 "Zbur"






Separated at birth?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2022)

I love the Amiot 143. The employee lounge downstairs was a great idea.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I love the Amiot 143. The employee lounge downstairs was a great idea.


Part of it is upside down, but I cant figure out which part.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

You laugh, but let me tell you, the English can't even conceive of a proper _Salade_ and there are never any kind of fresh ingredients onboard a Halifax. The Germans with their crude schnitzels would be simply intimidated by the _Foix Gras_. The Italians have their pasta, and who can deny it's good? But there simply isn't room or facilities in a Savoia 79 to make a proper _Daube Provençal. _And we all know that after a taxing escort mission, you need to relax properly with a dish that yes has noodles but also a rich sauce that you can only cook in a daubière. 

Everyone says their wine is "as good as" or "better than" the wine served in the employee lounge of the Amiot 143, but that's just like everybody claims they have more oil than Saudi Arabia. It's never true.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 15, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You laugh, but let me tell you, the English can't even conceive of a proper _Salade_ and there are never any kind of fresh ingredients onboard a Halifax. The Germans with their crude schnitzels would be simply intimidated by the _Foix Gras_. The Italians have their pasta, and who can deny it's good? But there simply isn't room or facilities in a Savoia 79 to make a proper _Daube Provençal. _And we all know that after a taxing escort mission, you need to relax properly with a dish that yes has noodles but also a rich sauce that you can only cook in a daubière.
> 
> Everyone says their wine is "as good as" or "better than" the wine served in the employee lounge of the Amiot 143, but that's just like everybody claims they have more oil than Saudi Arabia. It's never true.



It's like the upper deck of a 747, on the lower deck! All it needs is a sauna.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 15, 2022)

A bathing apparatus on a French plane?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

There is a bidet in the bathroom, I can tell you that Mr. "_pantalon puant_"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 15, 2022)



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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

Don't get me started on the 'food' in a B-17. They make the British look like _gourmands.... _


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 15, 2022)

Uhh. The covered basin in the aft fuselage is NOT a soup tureen.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 15, 2022)

I believe this the the interior view of the employee lounge inside the Amiot 143. You can talk all you like about horsepower and machine guns, fuel and bomb load, but how many michelin stars does your flying lounge rate?

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


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 16, 2022)

I never read or heard form Luftwaffe veterans that they feared the Hurricane quite the contra actually - but the Spitfire was seen as equal to the Bf109 and offering a clear advantage
in regards to the loitering time.
Off course radar helped tremendously to enhance both the Hurricanes and Spitfires presence. Without it the RAF could never have managed to send appropriate numbers of their
own aircraft's to engage/concentrate towards any Luftwaffe conducted attack.
Due to being condemned to flying close escort in the 2nd stage of the BoB, it didn't matter for a Bf109 pilot by what RAF aircraft he was attacked by.
Same goes for the loitering time - once the Bf109 pilot had to turn back he couldn't engage what ever RAF aircraft he saw or ran into.

So the best air-fighter related system from March - October 1940 was the RAF's non engine Radar - with the Spitfire and Bf109 being overall on equal fighter terms.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> I never read or heard form Luftwaffe veterans that they feared the Hurricane quite the contra actually - but the Spitfire was seen as equal to the Bf109


Since the Hurricane shot down more than the Spitfire in the BoB maybe they were a little misguided in their belief.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 16, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Since the Hurricane shot down more than the Spitfire in the BoB maybe they were a little misguided in their belief.


How many Hurricanes and Spitfires saw action from March-October 1940? 
And due to radar the RAF could always field the necessary forces to concentrate and oppose a Luftwaffe raid - knowing as to where the Luftwaffe was coming from at what height
they came in and as to how-strong they were gave the Hurricane the possibility to gain an advantage already before engaging it's targets.

In the first stage of the BoB - "Battle for the Canal" and the previous engagements in France, the Hurricanes were no match for the Bf109, even the Bf110 had a better kill ratio. 

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> How many Hurricanes and Spitfires saw action from March-October 1940?
> And due to radar the RAF could always field the necessary forces to concentrate and oppose a Luftwaffe raid - knowing as to where the Luftwaffe was coming from at what height
> they came in and as to how-strong they were gave the Hurricane the possibility to gain an advantage already before engaging it's targets.
> 
> ...


So, Hurricanes will not have shot down any Bf 109s or Bf110s in France then? What you describe is the actual situation faced, if a Hurricane had height and position advantage any LW pilot had reason to fear it, also to accept that they were shot down by Hurricanes, not Spitfires as they frequently claimed.


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 16, 2022)

pbehn said:


> So, Hurricanes will not have shot down any Bf 109s or Bf110s in France then?


Where did I say or indicate that?


pbehn said:


> .....also to accept that they were shot down by Hurricanes, not Spitfires as they frequently claimed.


Any sources/examples to support that assumption?

My uncle had claimed 2-3 French aircraft's destroyed on the ground, 1 Hurricane in france and 1 Spitfire during the first stage of the BoB - piloting a Bf-109
So now he should have claimed that the Bf-109 was superior to a Spitfire? come on.
Taking away the advantage of surprise and advantage - but simply comparing both Hurricane and a Bf109 in a dog-fight flown by both equally experienced pilots
I don't see a Hurricane emerging as the winner, and this was confirmed in the battle for France and in the first stage of the BoB. Just look at the loss stats of the Luftwaffe
and the RAF during that period, and the Luftwaffe did not have radar to guide them onto e.g. Hurricanes - more or less guaranteeing an advantage before combat.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Where did I say or indicate that?
> 
> Any sources/examples to support that assumption?
> 
> ...


You said the Hurricane was "no match", if it was "no match" then it would have no chance of scoring a victory. There are many examples, mentioned in several books and documentaries, specifically Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy". German fighter pilots shot down by the RAF usually claimed it was a Spitfire that did it. As I understand the statistics, German bomber strength was at its height before the invasion of Belgium and France and never numerically recovered from its losses in that campaign and the following Battle of Britain, the Hurricane caused most of those losses.


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 16, 2022)

Yes it was no match for a Bf109, which does not implicate in any way that it did not manage to shoot down a Bf109. A Bf109 was no match for a Mustang, but still managed to shot it down. This claim that Luftwaffe pilots claimed to have been shot down by a Spit instead of a Hurricane is what it is, a claim - nothing else. Even if some Luftwaffe pilots did - so?

Due to numbers fielded, off-course the Hurricane shot down more Luftwaffe bombers then the Spitfire, and additionally since the Spits were foremost engaging the Bf109's and
Bf110's whilst the Hurricanes were mostly free to hunt the bombers.

You don't seem to value the vital importance and impact of radar, especially during the 2nd stage of the BoB. It had the tremendous advantage of knowing exactly as to where, what height, direction and strength the Luftwaffe could be found and as such intercepted by directed and assembled RAF forces with an advantage in height and angle. A Bf109
escort spotting an RAF unit flying 2000ft above and at an advantageous angle would force the Bf109 to leave it's course and altitude to intercept the RAF force (or should they just
have continued flying on)?- off course they diverted their course and as such leaving the bombers at the mercy of the following up RAF squadrons.

Without radar the British would have needed to constantly keep masses of it's forces in the air on patrol - a huge negative impact in regards to fuel demand, attrition of aircraft's
and totally wearing out of the RAF pilots. By the time the RAF would have realized that they were concentrating on a far smaller force then one operating in vaster numbers 100mls away
the Luftwaffe would have turned whatever target (especially airfields and it's aircraft's) into rubble. Most likely the Luftwaffe would have enjoyed a numerical superiority in every
encounter.
Due to Radar, whilst the Luftwaffe pilots had already been flying at average for 2 hour to form formations and reaching over England and being under constant psychological pressure of
being attacked, the RAF fighters and it's pilots were fresh on the job (15-20 minutes) to assemble at the destined point of interception.

Even an RAF entirely equipped with Buffalo fighters could have dished out the same losses for the Luftwaffe Bombers and most likely in the same ratio towards the Bf109.
(see the Buffalo's striking performance with the Finnish air force)

The entire BoB from the 2nd stage onward (July) had nothing much to do with dog-fighting at all - but getting the RAF flights into a favorable/advantageous position.
But in France and the 1st stage of the BoB, radar wasn't much or not at all of help. And this is were the Hurricane suffered far higher losses then the Spitfire.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 16, 2022)

Considering that, until the evacuations at Dunkirk, no Spitfire squadrons had been committed to the Battle of France, it is not surprising that they suffered few losses.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Considering that, until the evacuations at Dunkirk, no Spitfire squadrons had been committed to the Battle of France, it is not surprising that they suffered few losses.


Shhush, don't let facts get in the way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Shhush, don't let facts get in the way.


I never have.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Yes it was no match for a Bf109, which does not implicate in any way that it did not manage to shoot down a Bf109. A Bf109 was no match for a Mustang, but still managed to shot it down. This claim that Luftwaffe pilots claimed to have been shot down by a Spit instead of a Hurricane is what it is, a claim - nothing else. Even if some Luftwaffe pilots did - so?
> 
> Due to numbers fielded, off-course the Hurricane shot down more Luftwaffe bombers then the Spitfire, and additionally since the Spits were foremost engaging the Bf109's and
> Bf110's whilst the Hurricanes were mostly free to hunt the bombers.
> ...


The Hurricanes job was to shoot down bombers, the Bf 109 was supposed to stop them, that is what the battle was all about, the Bf 109 was all around a better aircraft in performance terms but that doesnt mean the Hurricane was "no match". The difference between them meant that actual situation and pilot skill frequently made the difference. One of the main advantages of the Bf 109, being unaffected by sudden negative G when going into a dive meant that it was leaving the bombers it was supposed to protect. You cannot wish away RADAR, the LW were fighting an integrated defence system of which the Hurricane and its pilots were part.

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


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 16, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Considering that, until the evacuations at Dunkirk, no Spitfire squadrons had been committed to the Battle of France, it is not surprising that they suffered few losses.


Correct, but Dunkirk (Operation Dynamo, occurred between May 26th and June 3rd) wasn't the end of the Battle of France (May 10–June 25) and neither the end of the stage 1 of the BoB.
The logic of less Spitfires losing less aircraft applies in the same way as more kills by Hurricanes then by Spitfires.

Independently one can check for himself as to how many Hurricanes compared to Bf-109 and Bf110 were lost - during the France and Holland/Belgium campaign.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

I think there were quite a few Hurricane aces in the BoB, look at the Polish squadron for example, and while radar and the overall coordinated defense system certainly helped a great deal, they were not always able to vector the aircraft in time so as to have an advantage. The early Bf 109E had an advantage in performance over the Hurricane but not a huge advantage. A good pilot could and did overcome that.

I think this changed by the time you had the later model E and especially the F. That is when the Hurricane kind of fell behind.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I think there were quite a few Hurricane aces in the BoB, look at the Polish squadron for example, and while radar and the overall coordinated defense system certainly helped a great deal, they were not always able to vector the aircraft in time so as to have an advantage. The early Bf 109E had an advantage in performance over the Hurricane but not a huge advantage. A good pilot could and did overcome that.
> 
> I think this changed by the time you had the later model E and especially the F. That is when the Hurricane kind of fell behind.



30-40 mph advantage for Bf 109E-3 vs. Hurricane I per British test. Or, greater advantage than what Fw 190 had over Spitfire V, or Hellcat over Zero. The earliest 109E, the E-1, might be a bit faster than the E-3 due to lover drag.
Performance discrepancy warranted installation of Merlin XX on the Hurricane to cure the problem,
test report

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> 30-40 mph advantage for Bf 109E-3 vs. Hurricane I per British test. Or, greater advantage than what Fw 190 had over Spitfire V, or Hellcat over Zero. The earliest 109E, the E-1, might be a bit faster than the E-3 due to lover drag.
> Performance discrepancy warranted installation of Merlin XX on the Hurricane to cure the problem,
> test report



There was a discrepancy, and certainly a significant performance advantage for the 109, how much depended on altitude and some other factors, but early A6Ms and Ki-43s had a similar speed disadvantage vs many Allied types (including Spitfires) and still routinely shot them down. There are many other examples as well.

Edit: that test indicates that if the Hurricane and Bf 109 were at the same energy levels, in a merge or otherwise, the Hurricane had an advantage. Of course, with better speed, climb and altitude performance the 109 would often have an energy advantage, but not always, especially since they had to escort bombers that didn't fly so high, right?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I think there were quite a few Hurricane aces in the BoB, look at the Polish squadron for example, and while radar and the overall coordinated defense system certainly helped a great deal, they were not always able to vector the aircraft in time so as to have an advantage. The early Bf 109E had an advantage in performance over the Hurricane but not a huge advantage. A good pilot could and did overcome that.
> 
> I think this changed by the time you had the later model E and especially the F. That is when the Hurricane kind of fell behind.


 I presume you mean 303 squadron there was actually 4 squadrons with a Polish core according to wiki with two officially named "Polish", 302 (City of Poznan) squadron were part of the Duxford wing, formed in July 1940. The highest scoring ace in 303 squadron was actually a Czechoslovak Josef František, who did his own thing as a guest in a spare aircraft, ambushing LW planes in the "old way".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I presume you mean 303 squadron there was actually 4 squadrons with a Polish core according to wiki with two officially named "Polish", 302 (City of Poznan) squadron were part of the Duxford wing, formed in July 1940. The highest scoring ace in 303 squadron was actually a Czechoslovak Josef František, who did his own thing as a guest in a spare aircraft, ambushing LW planes in the "old way".



Yes, and I also don't mean to imply that there weren't many other (British and Commonwealth) 'fighter vs fighter' Hurricane aces either as there certainly were, that was just the first unit which came to mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> There was a discrepancy, and certainly a significant performance advantage for the 109, how much depended on altitude and some other factors, but early A6Ms and Ki-43s had a similar speed disadvantage vs many Allied types (including Spitfires) and still routinely shot them down. There are many other examples as well.



A6Ms and Ki-43s were more than able to climb with Spitfires, and will out-climb anything else in 1942. By second half of 1942, Zero will be as fast, or faster than a tropicalized Spitfire V. Hurricane will not out-climb a Bf 109, especially above 10000 ft.
Against most of Allied fighters, Ki-43s and especially Zeroes have had at least parity in speed.

We also have the tactical situation - Zeros escorting the bombers against Darwin making the landfall will present the defenders with a task of climbing to the 17000-18000 ft, all while hoping the escorts don't dive on them. A situation advantage is a thing even in 21st century.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> A6Ms and Ki-43s were more than able to climb with Spitfires, and will out-climb anything else in 1942. By second half of 1942, Zero will be as fast, or faster than a tropicalized Spitfire V. Hurricane will not out-climb a Bf 109, especially above 10000 ft.
> Against most of Allied fighters, Ki-43s and especially Zeroes have had at least parity in speed.
> 
> We also have the tactical situation - Zeros escorting the bombers against Darwin making the landfall will present the defenders with a task of climbing to the 17000-18000 ft, all while hoping the escorts don't dive on them. A situation advantage is a thing even in 21st century.



My point is that top speed alone isn't always the key deciding factor. Ki-43 didn't actually climb super well, and were fairly slow, Ki-43-I made barely more than 300 mph. Slower than A-36, P-51A, P-40, P-39, Spit V, Spit VIII, and depending on which exact model, probably slower than the Hurricane II or F4F. But they still shot them down, right?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> My point is that top speed alone isn't always the key deciding factor. Ki-43 didn't actually climb super well, and were fairly slow, Ki-43-I made barely more than 300 mph. Slower than A-36, P-51A, P-40, P-39, Spit V, Spit VIII, and depending on which exact model, probably slower than the Hurricane II or F4F. But they still shot them down, right?



PZL P.11s shot down Bf 109Es. Yaks and Spitfire Vs shot down the Fw 190s. So indeed top speed is not everything, but is was recognized as an important asset, and a lot of resources (both material and manpower) were spent to make fighters go faster. Plus, shooting down 3 enemies while loosing just one of own fighters was and still is a far better thing than trading 2:1, let alone 1:1. Pilot's lives and pilot pool was a thing, too.

That Japanese Army & industry was slow in introducing actually fast fighters was a bug, not a feature. So was their attitude towards the pilots.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

I don't totally disagree but I think there are a lot of examples where it wasn't so sharp of a distinction. La 5FN were not as fast as FW 190 or Bf 109 but at low altitude where they were fighting they seem to have done pretty well against them. i guess depending on whose stats you believe of course.

The Japanese military's attitude toward their pilots (when they got shot down, or even just had engine trouble) was definitely nuts, no argument there. Comparable to the resources wasted by the Germans on exterminating civilians instead of building up their military.

The lack of ability by the Japanese to produce powerful, reliable engines more quickly, the reluctance to adopt armor and self sealing fuel tanks (which was related), and I'd say also fairly slow dissemination of good radios, proved to be a problem over time.

But the lethal efficiency of the Ki-43 and the A6M were not flukes and were not overcome so quickly. In 1942 or 43, these were (IMO) still two of the most effective and dangerous fighter aircraft in the world.

I think in 1940 the Hurricane was still quite a good, effective and lethal fighter too, especially in the hands of a good pilot. Hurricane II came out toward the end of BoB right? Those could hold their own with most E marks i think. But once the F arrived it was all over for the Hurri.


----------



## slaterat (Apr 16, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> In the first stage of the BoB - "Battle for the Canal" and the previous engagements in France, the Hurricanes were no match for the Bf109, even the Bf110 had a better kill ratio.


The Hurricane of the summer of 1940 is very much improved from the Hurricane of 1939. Here is a list of some improvements.

Fabric covered outer wings to metal stressed skin covered wings
Rear pilot armour and self sealing fuel tanks added
kidney exhausts to ejector exhausts
external to internal windshield armour
straight mast to tapered radio mast,
gun heating and better lubrication to prevent freezing of guns at higher altitudes
gun harmonization reduced from 800 to 250 yds
Dixon dewilde ammo introduced
Miss Shilling's orifice introduced
two blade fixed pitch prop replaced by three blade constant speed prop
100 octane fuel
A Hurricane I with a rotol constant speed prop and 100 oct fuel, could hold 325 mph from 10,000 to 17,500 ft, climb rate was also improved
Dive speed was vastly improved, the first rotol equipped Hurricane did 460 mph IAS in a dive from 21,000 ft

Add to this , improved tactics, combat experience, radar directed intercept and fighting over your home turf, makes the BoB a whole new ball game.

Slaterat

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

_"Miss Shilling's orifice introduced"_

Ok wut

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

Agree with your post though, the 'improved' Summer 1940 Hurricane was probably a much closer match for a 109E-3 or whatever


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> There was a discrepancy, and certainly a significant performance advantage for the 109, how much depended on altitude and some other factors, but early A6Ms and Ki-43s had a similar speed disadvantage vs many Allied types (including Spitfires) and still routinely shot them down. There are many other examples as well.
> 
> Edit: that test indicates that if the Hurricane and Bf 109 were at the same energy levels, in a merge or otherwise, the Hurricane had an advantage. Of course, with better speed, climb and altitude performance the 109 would often have an energy advantage, but not always, especially since they had to escort bombers that didn't fly so high, right?


The biggest advantage was geography, in principle the Hurricane over UK just had to stay in the fight knowing the opponent had to break off to get home, the situation was reversed with the Spitfire V over France, getting into a turning fight didnt help the Spitfire, it couldnt break off and get home.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> _"Miss Shilling's orifice introduced"_
> 
> Ok wut


*Miss Shilling's Orifice* was a very simple technical device made to counter engine cut-out in early Spitfire and Hurricane fighter aeroplanes during the Battle of Britain. While it was officially called the *R.A.E restrictor*, it was normally referred to under various names, such as *Miss Tilly's Diaphragm* or the *Tilly orifice* in reference to its inventor, Beatrice "Tilly" Shilling.

Complaints from the pilots led to a search for a solution. Beatrice 'Tilly' Shilling, a young engineer working at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, came up with a disarmingly simple solution. She introduced a simple flow restrictor: a small metal disc much like a plain metal washer. The restrictor orifice was made to accommodate just the fuel needed for maximum engine power, the power setting usually used during dogfights. It came in two versions, one for 12 psi manifold pressure and one for boosted engines with 15 psi manifold pressure.[3]​

While not completely solving the problem, the restrictor, along with modifications to the needle valve, permitted pilots to perform quick negative G manoeuvres without loss of engine power. This improvement removed the annoying drawback the RAF's Rolls-Royce Merlin-powered fighters had had in comparison to the German Messerschmitt Bf 109E machine, whose Daimler-Benz DB 601 inverted V12 powerplant had possessed fuel injection since 1937. Miss Shilling travelled with a small team around the countryside to one RAF base after another in early 1941 fitting the restrictors, giving priority to front-line units. By March 1941 the device had been installed throughout RAF Fighter Command. Officially named the 'R.A.E. restrictor', the device was immensely popular with pilots, who affectionately named it 'Miss Shilling's orifice' or simply the 'Tilly orifice'.

This simple and elegant solution was only a stopgap: it did not allow inverted flight for any length of time. The problems were not finally overcome until the introduction of Bendix and later Rolls Royce pressure carburettorsin 1943.

military-fandom.com

PS: Even engineers have a since of humor it would appear...

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2022)

We have to be careful that we keep the planes within the time frame, a big reason were going above 600 posts.
Slaterat's post lists a lot the changes to the Hurricane but many of them were before March (like they weren't flying fixed pitch props anymore) and Miss Schilling had yet to make her contribution in Oct? 

However the same is true for the 109, the 109 in March/April 109 was often not the 109 in use in October.

For the Japanese the Ki 43 was a prototype or two in 1940, not even the combat test the A6M2 got. The A6M2 also had a structual problem with the wing althtugh they didn't find that out until after Oct 1940 but did fix it well before Peral Harbor. 
P-40s in the time frame had no self sealing tanks, no armor and the engines were going back to the factory to be reworked because they would not last until the desired overhaul times.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> *Miss Shilling's Orifice* was a very simple technical device made to counter engine cut-out in early Spitfire and Hurricane fighter aeroplanes during the Battle of Britain. While it was officially called the *R.A.E restrictor*, it was normally referred to under various names, such as *Miss Tilly's Diaphragm* or the *Tilly orifice* in reference to its inventor, Beatrice "Tilly" Shilling.
> 
> Complaints from the pilots led to a search for a solution. Beatrice 'Tilly' Shilling, a young engineer working at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, came up with a disarmingly simple solution. She introduced a simple flow restrictor: a small metal disc much like a plain metal washer. The restrictor orifice was made to accommodate just the fuel needed for maximum engine power, the power setting usually used during dogfights. It came in two versions, one for 12 psi manifold pressure and one for boosted engines with 15 psi manifold pressure.[3]​
> 
> ...


Others have posted here that the RR Merlin could be flown inverted, because that is only minus 1 G with respect to the carburettor, the problem was with much higher negative G as experienced when rapidly entering a dive. From memory the engine suffered very short fuel starvation then a "flooded" engine (or maybe the other way around)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

slaterat said:


> The Hurricane of the summer of 1940 is very much improved from the Hurricane of 1939. Here is a list of some improvements.
> 
> *Fabric covered outer wings to metal stressed skin covered wings*
> 
> ...


The big surprise out of that to me was that stressed skin wings were so much lighter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 16, 2022)

Paint (dope?) is heavy


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Paint (dope?) is heavy


No, to get the required strength for combat loads the canvas/ dope wings needed much more metal inside. The metal skin allowed much weight to be taken out.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Paint (dope?) is heavy


Not really but it can develop considerable weight depending on the type of fabric, amount of seams and stitching, the method of attachment and the amount of dope and paint layers applied. 



pbehn said:


> No, to get the required strength for combat loads the* canvas*/ dope wings needed much more metal inside. The metal skin allowed much weight to be taken out.


Canvas IS NOT used on fabric aircraft, it's way too heavy!!! - mercerized cotton was the common covering and later Ceconite (a nylon-based fabric) was used.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really but it can develop considerable weight depending on the type of fabric, amount of seams and stitching, the method of attachment and the amount of dope and paint layers applied.
> 
> 
> Canvas IS NOT used on fabric aircraft, it's way too heavy!!! - mercerized cotton was the common covering and later Ceconite (a nylon-based fabric) was used.


If I remember right, Dacron, which is a synthetic material, was used as a replacement for organic covering starting around WWII (early-mid 1940's).

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> If I remember right, Dacron, which is a synthetic material, was used as a replacement for organic covering starting around WWII (early-mid 1940's).


Dacron and Ceconite are the same and yes, they replaced organic coverings.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dacron and Ceconite are the same and yes, they replaced organic coverings.


For what it's worth, Dacron (Nylon) was developed to replace Japanese Silk.

While that's great and all for the aircraft industry, I'm thinking of the benefits of a pair of Nylons on a girl

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


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 17, 2022)

pbehn said:


> No, to get the required strength for combat loads the canvas/ dope wings needed much more metal inside. The metal skin allowed much weight to be taken out.


Hi
Drawings of the Hurricane fabric covered and metal covered wings below for comparison:






Mike

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


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 17, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Drawings of the Hurricane fabric covered and metal covered wings below for comparison:
> View attachment 665024
> 
> ...


Great info thanks - any figures in regards to weight differences (only concerning the wings) available?

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 17, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Great info thanks - any figures in regards to weight differences (only concerning the wings) available?
> 
> Regards
> Jagdflieger


Hi
I have yet to find the weight differences of the wings. Weights in general tend to differ from publication to publication, as a compromise here is the specification table from 'The Hawker Hurricane I' Profile Publication No. 111, includes 'early' and 'late' model Mk. I:




Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> I have yet to find the weight differences of the wings. Weights in general tend to differ from publication to publication, as a compromise here is the specification table from 'The Hawker Hurricane I' Profile Publication No. 111, includes 'early' and 'late' model Mk. I:
> View attachment 665026
> 
> Mike


I have seen the weight difference on the "net" which was the reason for my comment, I cant remember where I read it or what the weight difference was but it was much more than I thought possible, however understandable when you see the drawings.


----------



## slaterat (Apr 17, 2022)

I believe the fabric covering on the Hurricane was Irish linen. 

Miss Shillings orifice not installed until 1941, another myth bites the dust....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2022)

slaterat said:


> I believe the fabric covering on the Hurricane was Irish linen.


I believe it was and IIRC was considered the best fabric to use before the synthetics came into play

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Apr 17, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> For what it's worth, Dacron (Nylon) was developed to replace Japanese Silk.
> 
> While that's great and all for the aircraft industry, I'm thinking of the benefits of a pair of Nylons on a girl


I thought the British used something called "Irish linen". 

One of the horrors of war is that materials that look nifty of women get reserved for something military.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> I thought the British used something called "Irish linen".
> 
> One of the horrors of war is that materials that look nifty of women get reserved for something military.


"Irish linen" was used way before WW2









Linen's role in achieving flight - William Clark


Linen is found in many industries from the arts to aviation. It was a primary material in the first recorded flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903




www.wmclark.co.uk

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 19, 2022)

Anecdotally, if you dive into Hurricane pilot accounts during the Battle of France and Battle of Britain -- the general theme was that they were perfectly happy to take on 109s, and weren't discouraged with their own aircraft. 

There are plenty of other things that were disparaged at length (tactics, experience, leadership, overall strategic situation, being outnumbered, etc.), but the Hurricane itself was generally well-liked.

Beyond 1940 is a different story. To the point where reading the accounts of some pilots who began their operational careers later over, say, Malta -- the Hurricane is spoken of in straight-up contempt.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 22, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Really? You include the G-50 in a list of the four "best fighters hailing from this time" but you don't include the Spitfire?
> 
> Even the Hurricane was far better than the G-50 - faster, higher ceiling, longer range, more firepower.


I never meant to insult them. I don't pick the mk1 hurricanes and spits because of the g issue that caused fuel starving. They were both great planes mk2 hurricane is one of my favorites but from the time period in question i don't pick them till the fuel issue is fixed. I'm very sorry i upset you i hope you accept my apology.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 22, 2022)

the "g issue" was common at all fighters in the timeline, excluding the germans


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> I never meant to insult them. I don't pick the mk1 hurricanes and spits because of the g issue that caused fuel starving. They were both great planes mk2 hurricane is one of my favorites but from the time period in question i don't pick them till the fuel issue is fixed. I'm very sorry i upset you i hope you accept my apology.


The G-50 was used in the Battle of Britain, in 429 missions it failed to engage the enemy once.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 22, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> I never meant to insult them. I don't pick the mk1 hurricanes and spits because of the g issue that caused fuel starving. They were both great planes mk2 hurricane is one of my favorites but from the time period in question i don't pick them till the fuel issue is fixed. I'm very sorry i upset you i hope you accept my apology.



No need to apologize and you didn't upset me. I just don't see the G.50 as being even remotely competitive. Having a fuel system that works in negative 'g' is certainly useful but if you're flying a fighter that is more than 30mph slower and has a ceiling that's several thousand feet lower, then you have bigger problems to worry about. The altitude and speed factors alone put the G.50 at a serious disadvantage compared to the Hurricane. 

You're free to include it in your Top 4 fighters for 1940...but I suspect there won't be many agreeing with your opinion.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 22, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> the "g issue" was common at all fighters in the timeline, excluding the germans


That is an interesting question, can you shed any light on what style of carburetor the Fiat A.74 used?
Wikipedia says it was a Stromberg, then links to the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carb, but I would be surprised if Bendix was selling any pressure carbs over-seas at that point.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2022)

pbehn said:


> The G-50 was used in the Battle of Britain, in 429 missions it failed to engage the enemy once.


Well, not a good record for an "escort fighter".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That is an interesting question, can you shed any light on what style of carburetor the Fiat A.74 used?
> Wikipedia says it was a Stromberg, then links to the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carb, but I would be surprised if Bendix was selling any pressure carbs over-seas at that point.


Many nations, both Axis and Allied, manufactured engines and components under license right up to, and in some cases, during WWII.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Many nations, both Axis and Allied, manufactured engines and components under license right up to, and in some cases, during WWII.


I Believe the Italians used Hamilton Standard constant speed propellers?

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 22, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That is an interesting question, can you shed any light on what style of carburetor the Fiat A.74 used?
> Wikipedia says it was a Stromberg, then links to the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carb, but I would be surprised if Bendix was selling any pressure carbs over-seas at that point.


unlucky i can't help you


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I Believe the Italians used Hamilton Standard constant speed propellers?


I do recall reading that some time back, and if I remember right, the G.50 even had an H-S prop.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, not a good record for an "escort fighter".


Reading the wiki page, it had no influence on the battle in any way, positive or negative.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Many nations, both Axis and Allied, manufactured engines and components under license right up to, and in some cases, during WWII.


Granted, but the pressure carburetor was a relatively new invention at that point, so I wonder if perhaps Fiat was using licensed (or unlicensed) float type Bendix carbs, of an earlier design.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That is an interesting question, can you shed any light on what style of carburetor the Fiat A.74 used?
> Wikipedia says it was a Stromberg, then links to the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carb, but I would be surprised if Bendix was selling any pressure carbs over-seas at that point.



BMW was using the licence-produced Stromberg NAY-9A carbs on their 132s (off-springs from the P&W Hornet).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 22, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> BMW was using the licence-produced Stromberg NAY-9A carbs on their 132s (off-springs from the P&W Hornet).


As far as I can tell, the NAY-9A is a float type carb, and thus would be subject to negative G fuel starvation


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 22, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I Believe the Italians used Hamilton Standard constant speed propellers?



That's another little advantage for the G.50 then


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> As far as I can tell, the NAY-9A is a float type carb, and thus would be subject to negative G fuel starvation



Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 25, 2022)

pbehn said:


> The G-50 was used in the Battle of Britain, in 429 missions it failed to engage the enemy once.



429_* sorties *_? The Italian involvement in the BoB was not hundreds of missions, surely?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> 429_* sorties *_? The Italian involvement in the BoB was not hundreds of missions, surely?


The Corpo Aero Italiano (based out of Belgium) was involved in the Battle.of Britain from 25 October 1940 to 3 January 1941.
Pretty sure they were able to muster 400 or more missions in that time...


----------



## Graeme (Apr 25, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> 429_* sorties *_? The Italian involvement in the BoB was not hundreds of missions, surely?



From this source - 622 sorties in 6 months.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 25, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> 429_* sorties *_? The Italian involvement in the BoB was not hundreds of missions, surely?


It was taken from wiki, possibly something lost in translation, as per Graugeist and Graeme's posts the number of sorties was higher, maybe it means planned operations not training or "scrambles". But in any case the result is the same, on the few occasions they saw Hurricanes they couldnt catch them.


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 25, 2022)

pbehn said:


> It was taken from wiki, possibly something lost in translation, as per Graugeist and Graeme's posts the number of sorties was higher, maybe it means planned operations not training or "scrambles". But in any case the result is the same, on the few occasions they saw Hurricanes they couldnt catch them.


Hi
The book 'Regia Aeronautica, The Italian Air Force 1923-1945 - An Operational History' by Chris Dunning has Chapter 10 covering this period, including the following:















Mike

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


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 25, 2022)

Greyman said:


> Anecdotally, if you dive into Hurricane pilot accounts during the Battle of France and Battle of Britain -- *the general theme was that they were perfectly happy to take on 109s, and weren't discouraged with their own aircraft.*
> 
> There are plenty of other things that were disparaged at length (tactics, experience, leadership, overall strategic situation, being outnumbered, etc.), but the Hurricane itself was generally well-liked.



The aircraft itself was well liked. It's comparatives to the 109E I've found those to be much more mixed depending on what period of 1940 we're talking about.

Hurricane pilots typically wanted to mix it up with 109s. They were generally confident in the ability of their aircraft to win any combat that ended up in a close dogfight. At low to medium altitudes where most combat took place in the Battle of France and early phases of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was felt to be just about as good as the 109E.

At altitudes above roughly 20,000 feet, things were a little different. The 109Es margin of superiority became such that the difference in aircraft performance was telling.

I can recall multiple accounts of BoB Hurricane pilots being frustrated by the 109's ability to outclimb their aircraft at altitude, both in terms of rate of climb and speed of climb. As the BoB wore on and combat altitudes climbed further, some Hurricane pilots lamented the 109's tendency to 'stooge about' at higher altitudes with near impunity, being able to dicatate the terms of the fight due to the higher speeds than their aircraft could manage.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Apr 25, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> Hurricane pilots typically wanted to mix it up with 109s. They were generally confident in the ability of their aircraft to win any combat that ended up in a close dogfight. At low to medium altitudes where most combat took place in the Battle of France and early phases of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was felt to be just about as good as the 109E.
> 
> At altitudes above roughly 20,000 feet, things were a little different. The 109Es margin of superiority became such that the difference in aircraft performance was telling.


I am studying and working out speed charts from the Battle of Britain. 

A Hurricane at 12psi boost could equal the speed of a Bf-109E down below 10,000ft. Once the Hurricane reached its supercharger's critical altitude, the Bf-109E left it sitting. In at least some configurations, the Spitfires were superior at high altitude. You need to distinguish between performance and tactics. The British climbed up into position to attack bombers. The Germans climbed up higher to attack British fighters. When they got down to British altitudes, they would have converted their altitude into speed. 

In testing of captured fighters, the British rated the Bf-109E as inferior to both the Spitfire and Hurricane. They highly rated manoeuvrability. I figure that of fighters that saw significant combat in 1939/40, the Bf-109E was the second least manoeuvrable, and the Bf-110 the worst. They won most of their battles. They were not dog fighting. They were pouncing from high altitude and hitting and running.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 26, 2022)

pbehn said:


> It was taken from wiki, possibly something lost in translation, as per Graugeist and Graeme's posts the number of sorties was higher, maybe it means planned operations not training or "scrambles". But in any case the result is the same, on the few occasions they saw Hurricanes they couldnt catch them.



It's probably just me, but I regard missions as an operation with a particular objective or task involving a certain number of aircraft, i.e. sorties. Thus my surprise at reading G.50 's flying 429 missions.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> It's probably just me, but I regard missions as an operation with a particular objective or task involving a certain number of aircraft, i.e. sorties. Thus my surprise at reading G.50 's flying 429 missions.


Me too but thats what the article said. In terms of the discussion though it is less than the LW managed on some individual days and the effect on the conflict was as close to zero as it is possible to get.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 26, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> At low to medium altitudes where most combat took place in the Battle of France and early phases of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was felt to be just about as good as the 109E.
> 
> At altitudes above roughly 20,000 feet, things were a little different. The 109Es margin of superiority became such that the difference in aircraft performance was telling.



Yup, good analysis. The Germans generally practised diving on their prey from above, the fighter escorts preferring height, while the bombers were being intercepted by the RAF fighters. This of course gave them advantage in that first pass as their unwary and inexperienced prey often never saw them coming. Generally, combat then descended into individual turning melees, where the advantages of the RAF fighters came to the fore. The Hurricane was a good dogfighter, arguably better than the Bf 109. It could out turn the German and at low speed was superior. The Bf 109 could outdive the Hurricane and so could break away, though, and it was faster, not to forget that the Merlins would cut out in a sharp bunting manoeuvre that could spoil the British pilot's chances of catching the German considerably.

The Bf 109 suffered a few small niggles that its pilots learned to compensate for during combat manouevring. In a tight turn, those L/E slats often deployed asymmetrically, which caused the aircraft to jolt and restricted the bank angle in the turn, thus spoiling the pilot's aim and giving the Hurricane and Spitfire the advantage of being able to turn inside the Bf 109.

Another issue was deflection of the control stick, the space between the pilot's legs determined how much movement the pilot had and since the cockpit was quite narrow, there wasn't much. Hurricanes in particular did not have this issue since the cockpit is quite roomy.

Another issue that pertained to early model Bf 109Es was the location of the propeller pitch control in the cockpit. While Bf 109s generally had a sensibly laid out cockpit, with the first VP props fitted to the type the lever was on the instrument panel, not the side console, which meant the pilot's hands had to do a dance to regulate the controls during manoeuvring. This was before VDM fitted C/S prop controls to the type. In the E-3 model the lever was moved to the side console.

Regarding the height that the Germans operated, one RAF pilot, when it was pointed out to him that the Bf 109 had superior altitude, stated "well, they'll have to come down here and get us..." 

Obviously the BoB scenario had the advantage for the home team in that the pilots and aircraft, if shot down and survived could be recovered. A lot of Hurricanes in particular were carted off to Maintenance Units to be overhauled and put into the fight again. Not so the Germans...

(p.s. I may have already posted this stuff, haven't been around for awhile...)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 27, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> In the E-3 model the lever was moved to the side console.



Wasn't it first from the E4 that the lever was moved to the side console?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 4, 2022)

Stig1207 said:


> Wasn't it first from the E4 that the lever was moved to the side console?



Yes, I think you're right. There is an example of a surviving E-3 with the C/S button on the side console power lever but it might have been from a latter subtype. I was also under the impression that the E-3 had a C/S prop, but obviously not.

This is of significance as from a comparison point of view, RAF fighters had C/S props before their German counterparts. The Bf 109E-4 first entered service in autumn 1940 (can someone offer exact date?), whereas by then, Spitfires and Hurricanes in squadron service had C/S field kits installed.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2022)

For the 109s you had the change over from the infinitely adjustable variable pitch propeller (as opposed to a 2 pitch prop) and a true constant speed prop.
You also had a number of 109s rebuilt and/or repowered, some more than once?

For the Spitfire with the variable pitch prop (2 pitch?) there is a pilots manual that describes being able to set up the prop between the forward and back limits. But it may not have responded very quickly? 
In any case from the performance tests on the Spitfires it doesn't seem to to have been used that way. The climb tests never had the engine running much more that 2400rpm and not the 2600rpm climb limit and it didn't even reach 2400rpm until the plane reached 10,000ft?

The speed tests are limited but show the engine running a bit below 3000rpm or close to it at FTH but a down a bit on rpm at lower altitude (a few thousand feet lower) with the rpm dropping back off just over the FTH. Like running at 2930rpm at 16,500ft. 2980rpm at 18,000ft, 3000rpm at 18,600ft and back down to 2980rpm at 20,000ft. 

With constant speed prop the rpm stays constant, if not exactly at 3000rpm the max rpm stays constant over a number of different heights with the variable being the exact tolerance of the constant speed unit. As in if the test engine/prop wants to run at 2990rpm then it runs at 2990 rpm at all heights. 

The British planes did the constant speed props just a few weeks before the Germans but it seems like the British props weren't adjusted between the stops?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 5, 2022)

It was my impression that for the most part the 109 didn't get constant-speed control until the F. This was one of the main features of interest when the first crashed examples were examined by the British.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The British planes did the constant speed props just a few weeks before the Germans but it seems like the British props weren't adjusted between the stops?



The C/S units were fitted to Spitfires sooner than that. The first trials with a Rotol C/S prop fitted to a Spitfire took place in March 1940 and the first bulk conversions at squadron level took place in late June 1940, so by the end of July all in-service Spitfires were entirely fitted out. Hurricanes began with C/S props even sooner, with standardisation of production aircraft beginning in late 1939, the first being fitted in February, January in fact - oops, 1939.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Greyman said:


> It was my impression that for the most part the 109 didn't get constant-speed control until the F.



The E-4 had the lever on the instrument panel supplemented by a button on the end of the power lever, which, when pressed altered the prop pitch automatically, whereas the early Emils only had the lever on the instrument panel, which was for manual setting of the prop pitch. With the E-4, the prop pitch could be done automatically or manually, the pilot having the option of selecting which system he wished to use.


----------



## Greyman (May 5, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The E-4 had the lever on the instrument panel supplemented by a button on the end of the power lever, which, when pressed altered the prop pitch automatically, whereas the early Emils only had the lever on the instrument panel, which was for manual setting of the prop pitch. With the E-4, the prop pitch could be done automatically or manually, the pilot having the option of selecting which system he wished to use.



I'm going off memory here (and zero sources) but I thought that while the Emils had some of the 'plumbing' for constant-speed -- this was wired off until fully functional in the 109 F.

*EDIT*:
Only thing that immediately springs to mind -- BOUNCING CLOUDS — Flying with the Spirit of Erich Hartmann — Vintage Wings of Canada Even if (rightly) no conclusions can be drawn from this, still a great read.

_The propeller control was truly unusual, consisting of a rocker switch mounted on the inside of the throttle lever. The switch manually controlled the pitch of the propeller, via an electric motor mounted on the engine crankcase, and indicated on a clock-like instrument. (Aha! I think I know what "Luftschraube Stellungsanzeige" must mean!) I could hardly believe the implications of this installation: the Bf-109E had only a controllable pitch propeller. It did not have a propeller governor! I would have thought automated propeller speed control essential for an aeroplane with a 400 knot speed range. Indeed, such systems were fitted to later Bf-109 variants. I noticed that this particular aeroplane incorporated a small electrical switch on the floor, marked "Prop: Auto/Manual", but it was wired to the Manual position. I was later told that this aeroplane never flew operationally with the system operative._​


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> For the Spitfire with the variable pitch prop (2 pitch?) there is a pilots manual that describes being able to set up the prop between the forward and back limits. But it may not have responded very quickly?



The two pitch prop was a bracket type that was actuated via the use of counterweights and had a deflection angle of 20 degrees, whereas the de Havilland Hydromatic (a Ham Std patented name) prop, fitted to squadron Spitfires beginning in June 1940 had an angle of 35 degrees. This latter prop was constant speed, while the bracket type was variable pitch. 

With two-position prop when the prop pitch lever brought backwards to the stop, the blade angle was at coarse pitch, while moving it forward took the blade angle to fine pitch. It was counterweight operated so the actuation was done by the weights moving the blade through a cutout in a bracket, hence the name bracket prop. I can't respond to whether it took awhile or not as I have no frame of reference. You have to be able to define how long it might have taken during normal operation to determine that.

Obviously the Hydromatic prop was fully C/S, the speed of which was controlled by a governor turned by the engine, which enabled oil flow to the prop hub, which acted against a piston inside the hub that moved a cam, which acted against teeth on a fitting on the blade butt. This I can confirm how long it took. I worked on this type of prop in a prop overhaul shop once, overhauling 23E50s for a DC-3, which operated in the same fashion as the DH props.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (May 5, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The C/S units were fitted to Spitfires sooner than that. The first trials with a Rotol C/S prop fitted to a Spitfire took place in March 1940 and the first bulk conversions at squadron level took place in late June 1940, so by the end of July all in-service Spitfires were entirely fitted out. Hurricanes began with C/S props even sooner, with standardisation of production aircraft beginning in late 1939, the first being fitted in February 1939.



I've found that Spitfires were being fitted with Rotol constant speed props in late 1939 and Hurricanes with the Rotol props in spring 1940. The De Haviland C/S prop story is better known but just part of the story.

No. 19 Squadron Operations Record Book, 1 November 1939
No. 54 Squadron Operations Record Book, 10 December 1939
Rotol Airscrews for Spitfire, HQ Fighter Command, 16 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
W/C Ian Gleed D.F.C., Arise to Conquer, (Random House, New York 1942) pp. 62-63. 
No. 1 Squadron Operations Record Book, 18 April 1940
Paul Richey DFC, Fighter Pilot (Redwood Press, Wiltshire 1990) p 93.
No. 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, 13 April 1940
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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Greyman said:


> but I thought that while the Emils had some of the 'plumbing' for constant-speed -- this was wired off until fully functional in the 109 F.



I dunno about that, you might have to provide a source for that.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Hurricanes with the Rotol props in spring 1940.



The first Hurricane was fitted with a Rotol C/S prop in January 1939, it was the Hawker test aircraft G-AFKX formerly L1606, with production examples being first fitted in late 1939.

The info you've supplied is fascinating, Mike, and it confirms that the first de Havilland C/S props on Spits entered service in late June 1940.



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/92sqdn-dh-cs-prop.jpg



And it seems that Rotol C/S props were available on Spits sooner, but not to every unit, it seems.


----------



## Mike Williams (May 5, 2022)

This is an interesting page from S/L Desmond Cooke's Pilot's Flying Log Book while with 65 Squadron showing trials with a Rotol prop on a Gladiator in early 1939. Jeremy Kinney, Curator in the Aeronautics Department of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, wrote a tribute to Cooke's contribution to better propellers Here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2022)

The British propeller situation was quite a mess. 
They were working on and experimenting with the better propellers as can be seen by the reports, but just because one (or several) aircraft were tested with propeller X doesn't mean that all production aircraft started to be fitted with them in a few days. Much like the trial taking place in Jan 39 but first production aircraft getting one in late 39 but it doesn't say if production totally switched over. Let alone aircraft already in service. The DH refit program was well known and involved hundreds of aircraft in June of 1940. Perhaps not the few weeks I stated but since the British and Germans can't seem to agree on when it started (July 10th or Aug 13th) it was more a matter of weeks than months. 

I have no figures for Hurricane production as to how many got Rotol props in the winter of 1939/40 and how many got DH 2 pitch props. Were both Hurricane production lines interchanging propellers or was it just one production line? 
Likewise does anybody know what Supermarine was doing? Were there enough Rotol props to switch over at a certain date or were planes built in batches with whatever prop they had available at the time? 

For the Germans you had the 109s slowly being rebuilt with later engines or new 109s (like the 109E-7) showing up with DB601E engines. 
It could well be that the E-7 and the re-engined planes used the old propellers and the new props waited for the 109Fs.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The British propeller situation was quite a mess.
> They were working on and experimenting with the better propellers as can be seen by the reports, but just because one (or several) aircraft were tested with propeller X doesn't mean that all production aircraft started to be fitted with them in a few days. Much like the trial taking place in Jan 39 but first production aircraft getting one in late 39 but it doesn't say if production totally switched over. Let alone aircraft already in service. The DH refit program was well known and involved hundreds of aircraft in June of 1940. Perhaps not the few weeks I stated but since the British and Germans can't seem to agree on when it started (July 10th or Aug 13th) it was more a matter of weeks than months.
> 
> I have no figures for Hurricane production as to how many got Rotol props in the winter of 1939/40 and how many got DH 2 pitch props. Were both Hurricane production lines interchanging propellers or was it just one production line?
> ...


There seems to have been some resistance to CP propellers from the British fighter manufacturers.





This is from Fight magazine in 1935. Unfortunately, I do not have the rest of the article.

Attached is a presentation on the history of variable pitch propellers

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 5, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> There seems to have been some resistance to CP propellers from the British fighter manufacturers.
> This is from Fight magazine in 1935. Unfortunately, I do not have the rest of the article.
> 
> Attached is a presentation on the history of variable pitch propellers


Is it possible to have a hi-res copy of the 'Flight' article somewhere?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Is it possible to have a hi-res copy of the 'Flight' article somewhere?


I lost mine and Flight no longer allows access.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Canada’s contribution to VP propellers


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/wallace-turnbull-centennial-variable-pitch-propeller-1.6339671


----------



## tomo pauk (May 5, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I lost mine and Flight no longer allows access.
> 
> I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Canada’s contribution to VP propellers
> 
> ...



Some Flight magazines from 1935 are posted here, FWIW: link

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2022)

Britain was the last major power do adopt constant speed propellers, and quite a few minor ones beat them to it also. 

Please note that for multi engine aircraft constant speed does not mean fully feathering propellers. That is a separate feature and requires different hubs. 
Nobody has any idea of how many British aircrew on multi-engined aircraft were lost due to crappy propellers. 

British plan was to shut down the malfunctioning/damaged engine and activate a "Brake" fitted to the propeller shaft to stop the propeller from rotating (and further thrash the engine/propeller combination around) but the propeller blades would be in the coarse blade angle causing considerable drag compared to prop blades that were lined up with a the aircraft direction of travel.


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 5, 2022)

I remember reading how Doug Bader crashed trying to take off in the middle of an air raid because his Hurricane was set at the wrong pitch. So the change-over was not complete before the start of BoB.


----------



## SaparotRob (May 5, 2022)

I thought it was a Gloster Gladiator.


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 5, 2022)

No. I think his first crash was a Hawker Fury.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (May 5, 2022)

Hi
The book 'British Commercial Aircraft, Their Evolution, Development and Perfection 1920-1940' by Arthur W J G Ord-Hume, includes short summaries of propeller companies, including the following:
















I believe the priority for VP and CS propellers was originally multi-engine types like the Vickers Wellington, although the pre-war airliner de Havilland DH95 Flamingo also had CS propellers.

Mike

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 5, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> The book 'British Commercial Aircraft, Their Evolution, Development and Perfection 1920-1940' by Arthur W J G Ord-Hume, includes short summaries of propeller companies, including the following:
> View attachment 667054
> 
> ...


The primary reason I gave you a bacon was for “banana cam”.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (May 5, 2022)

Hi
The wartime book 'Aeronautical Engineering' Edited by R A Beaumont, Chapter XIII 'Airscrews, by A V Cleaver contains a fair amount of information on VP mechanisms including the different types in use:





















Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (May 5, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> I believe the priority for VP and CS propellers was originally multi-engine types like the Vickers Wellington, although the pre-war airliner de Havilland DH95 Flamingo also had CS propellers.



That's the way I remembered it: 






Not entirely accurate text but serves the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (May 5, 2022)

Hi
'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price, on pages 81-82 has three tests on Spitfire Is with different propellers. The improvements in take-off runs is significant and probably a good reason for the RAF to prioritise both two-pitch and CS for heavily laden bombers, which would have needed rather longer take-off runs than fighters:








Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> No. I think his first crash was a Hawker Fury.


I don’t know if it was his first crash but he lost his legs in a Bulldog

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


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Greyman said:


> I noticed that this particular aeroplane incorporated a small electrical switch on the floor, marked "Prop: Auto/Manual", but it was wired to the Manual position. I was later told that this aeroplane never flew operationally with the system operative.


I can see how you might interpret that as being "Bf 109s" in general, but my interpretation is that the particular aircraft was not flown operationally owing to the use of the word "this" in the sentence, as opposed to "these" or "this type of"...


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 5, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I don’t know if it was his first crash but he lost his legs in a Bulldog


That's what I get for relying on a 45 year old memory.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The British propeller situation was quite a mess.
> They were working on and experimenting with the better propellers as can be seen by the reports, but just because one (or several) aircraft were tested with propeller X doesn't mean that all production aircraft started to be fitted with them in a few days. Much like the trial taking place in Jan 39 but first production aircraft getting one in late 39 but it doesn't say if production totally switched over. Let alone aircraft already in service. The DH refit program was well known and involved hundreds of aircraft in June of 1940. Perhaps not the few weeks I stated but since the British and Germans can't seem to agree on when it started (July 10th or Aug 13th) it was more a matter of weeks than months.



No, things didn't move very swiftly and for the Hurricane in general it was dependent on when the C/S props were put on production aircraft on different production lines. I've seen reference to Gloster aircraft reaching the squadrons so fitted with Rotol props in March 1940, so it does depend on when changes get made on production lines. Remember, the Hurricane was a major production effort and was at the time the recipient of the largest single order for an individual aeroplane type, 600 examples, which meant satellite factories had to be built. 

This was at a time when production was not particularly fast because it was peacetime and the concept of satellite factories building other people's aircraft was not widespread. Getting production to keep up with sudden demand because of war had quite an impact on the industry, some firms workers refused to work harder and went on strike - Avro was one firm where industrial action was prevalent because the workers were driven quite hard.

Things took time to implement and whilst it is easy to criticise, the German system was just as disorganised, but we don't hear that much about it. Bf 109s were certainly not standardised across factories and the same issues with production aircraft occurred across different factories with different manufacturers.

According the the records and the Big Book of Spitfires, the DH C/S prop refit drive took part from late June to late July 1940, after which at the end of July, (according to the book) every in-service Spitfire had a C/S prop. The refit didn't take long to do and it was a matter of supplying the equipment for the fit to be done at aerodrome around the country. Remember, there was a war on...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Britain was the last major power do adopt constant speed propellers, and quite a few minor ones beat them to it also.



It was a British manufacturer that designed and produced the first C/S prop though. Hele-Shaw Beacham prop of the mid 20s, which from the sections Mike produced tells a little about the prop, although they don't mention exactly why it wasn't adopted wholesale. Also, can you justify that? The Germans fitted their C/S prop to their fighters _after_ the RAF. The reality was that there were not many C/S props fitted to frontline fighters and bombers at the outbreak of WW2. VP props, yes, but not C/S.

As far as VP props are concerned, Armstrong Whitworth Whitleys, Bristol Blenheims and Fairey Battles entered service with VP props in 1937, the Short Empire Class civilian boats had them in 1936. As I've mentioned, of the RAF's frontline aircraft, only its fighters had those big wooden club propellers by the outbreak of WW2.



MikeMeech said:


> The book 'British Commercial Aircraft, Their Evolution, Development and Perfection 1920-1940' by Arthur W J G Ord-Hume, includes short summaries of propeller companies, including the following:



Thanks for posting, Mike, the Hele-Shaw Beacham (HSB shortened so I don't have to write it in full everytime) prop was originally developed because Hugh Burrows of Gloster approached the two gents with the idea of building a hydraulically actuated propeller in 1925. Gloster acquired the design rights in 1926 and had the type fitted to Gamecock aeroplanes, which proved that the idea worked. HSB couldn't interest engine manufacturers because they argued that increased power could do the job, apparently and the Air Ministry was luke-warm to the proposal because of the extra weight and the complexity for the pilot during operation of the prop in-flight. Gloster remained a supporter, but the firm was small potatoes at the time. In 1929 Gloster marketed the idea at the International Aero Exhibition at Olympia, where, a certain Mr Tom Hamilton saw it... It is worth noting that the first HS two-position prop did not come out until 1930. The Bristol connection didn't occur until Gloster sold the propeller concern to it and Rolls-Royce in 1936, the two firms creating Rotol...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 5, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I don’t know if it was his first crash but he lost his legs in a Bulldog


I thought it was a Bristol something.


----------



## Greyman (May 5, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> I can see how you might interpret that as being "Bf 109s" in general, but my interpretation is that the particular aircraft was not flown operationally owing to the use of the word "this" in the sentence, as opposed to "these" or "this type of"...



Entirely possible, but I'm given pause by the fact I've never run into an anecdote, crash examination, flight test, etc. that notes a working constant-speed control on a 109E -- while this was instantly seized upon with regards to the 109F. 

Again, not saying much ... my ineptitude re: German aircraft being quite remarkable.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> It was a British manufacturer that designed and produced the first C/S prop though. Hele-Shaw Beacham prop of the mid 20s, which from the sections Mike produced tells a little about the prop, although they don't mention exactly why it wasn't adopted wholesale. Also, can you justify that? The Germans fitted their C/S prop to their fighters _after_ the RAF. The reality was that there were not many C/S props fitted to frontline fighters and bombers at the outbreak of WW2. VP props, yes, but not C/S.
> 
> As far as VP props are concerned, Armstrong Whitworth Whitleys, Bristol Blenheims and Fairey Battles entered service with VP props in 1937, the Short Empire Class civilian boats had them in 1936. As I've mentioned, of the RAF's frontline aircraft, only its fighters had those big wooden club propellers by the outbreak of WW2.


It doesn't matter how many designs or prototypes you have having sitting in draws or hanging on walls if you don't fit them to aircraft and use them. For all I know HS was guilty of violating patent rights, although one would think that would have come out by now. 

HS was awarded the Collier Trophy in May of 1934 for it's achievement in 1933 of introducing the controllable pitch propeller (2 pitch). 
In 1936 HS introduced the constant speed propeller.
In April 1938 HS was demonstrating the fully feathering propeller over New York city. 
By the end of 1938 21 air lines were using fully feathering propellers on their in service aircraft. 

Sorry, putting 1932-33 propellers on 1937-38 bombers should not be cause for pats on the back. 






Vought SBU-1 in 1935 with a controllable (2 pitch) propeller. Also used on Grumman F3F-1 

Keeping 1933 propellers on 1939-41 combat planes should have been near treason.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (May 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I thought it was a Bristol something.


It was a Bristol Bulldog.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> It doesn't matter how many designs or prototypes you have having sitting in draws or hanging on walls if you don't fit them to aircraft and use them.



Well, as mentioned, VP props were fitted all British frontline aircraft by the war's outbreak, with at least three types entering squadron service in 1937 already fitted with VP props. Britain was no less behind than any other country, with the possible exception of the USA in the provision of C/S as opposed to VP props. C/S props, which you mentioned were far less common, in fact, only the USAAC had fighters with C/S props by the war's outbreak. Neither the Luftwaffe, the RAF, the Regia Aeronautica, the IJN nor Soviet AF had fighters with C/S props in service in 1939 that were not US designs. VP props? Yes, common, C/S props, not so.

I know you like to make a big deal out of Britain lagging behind in prop development, but your presumptions thus far are simply not true in stating that Britain was behind. Britain was no further back than what was the global trend at the time in introducing VP and C/S props. Yes, the inexplicable decision to fit wooden blocks as props to the fighters that probably should have had VP props instead was in hindsight a bit crazy, but across the board, Britain had frontline aircraft fitted with VP props at around the same time that the rest of the world was standardising on them, and, as demonstrated, the RAF's foe during the Battle of Britain was even slower in introducing C/S props on its frontline fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (May 6, 2022)

Greyman said:


> It was my impression that for the most part the 109 didn't get constant-speed control until the F. This was one of the main features of interest when the first crashed examples were examined by the British.



Interesting subject. For what they are worth:

Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper of III/JG 52 - late September 1940:

We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail. Eventually, about half way across the Channel at 4,000 metres Kühle told him to leave the formation and return to base. 
Ulrich Steinhilper & Peter Osbourne, Spitfire on my Tail, (Independent Books, Bromley, 1990), p.303.

Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 - 18 September 1940: 

I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier, I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it. That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a pregnant duck.
It was fine weather with clouds at an altitude of about 8,300m and out of this swung the RAF fighters when we were at 8,000m. They were obviously directed by radar but just missed us as they came out of clouds about a kilometre to the right of us. The Gruppen Kommandeur, Hpt von Maltzahn, did the best he could by climbing and trying to hide in the clouds. Everybody succeeded but me, thanks to my excellent propeller. My aircraft could not climb like the others had and therefore all the RAF fighters turned on me and I had no chance of escaping by diving as that wonderful propeller would ensure that I would travel at just 300 to 350kmh. Therefore I decided to fly straight ahead trying to gain altitude a metre at at time, perhaps reaching cloud without being shot down. I saw the Spitfires flying around me and shooting and my plane was hit several times... He then hit my my fuel tank which caught fire immediately. Within a second, my cabin was full of smoke and fire and I had to get out. 
Chris Goss, The Luftwaffe Fighters' Battle of Britain, (Crecy, Manchester, 2000), p. 155.

From Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests, September 1940





From Flight, October 24, 1940:

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


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (May 6, 2022)

Douglas Bader lost his legs in an accident flying a Bulldog, then in probably March 1940 he tried to take off (his first scramble order) in a Spitfire with the propeller in coarse pitch and crashed, the damage his artificial legs took made him wonder whether any real legs might have needed amputation. A little while later they made him a flight commander. In June he crashed another Spitfire overshooting a night landing, next day they made him a Squadron Leader of a Hurricane squadron.

The first 363 Hurricanes had Merlin II, change over in April 1939 at L1909, the first variable pitch propeller production aircraft was number 435, L1980, in June 1939. Hurricane L2026, from around July 1939 was AMDP at Hawkers, Metal Wing, Rotol Airscrew. In June 1940 P3265 was similar. N2426 was the last fabric covered wing aircraft from Brooklands in November 1939, except for a group in mid 1940. Langley started production in October, Gloster in November 1939, both using metal wings. P2681 First TR1133 fitted to Gloster Hurricane as built and P2682 was the First Rotol airscrew, 27 February 1940. All subsequent Gloster aircraft with Rotol airscrews.

No mention of the change over to Rotol at Brooklands or Langley, beyond the batch originally meant for Iran, built in mid June 1940, are marked as fitted with DH 2 pitch propellers, the then standard for overseas service. Hurricane P3975 first aircraft of 200? to be delivered with Jablo blades S48834 (July 1940)

The RAF contract cards say 174 Spitfires from the first order had Merlin II, with Merlin III from K9961, aircraft number 175 of the order, which would mean a change over in May 1939, the online Spitfire histories say the first 194 had Merlin II, which would mean a change over at K9980 in June. Contract card notes against individual aircraft at times have the words wooden airscrew while the first variable pitch notation is K9855 (aircraft 69) but that is over written by wood airscrew, K9860 is the first with an uncorrected note saying V.P. (aircraft 74) Alfred Price thinks the change over was at aircraft 78, K9864. Initially it appeared that for a time wooden airscrews were fitted to aircraft meant as replacements for squadrons still using wooden propeller versions, via "repl wood" notes but it seems more likely they were replacing wooden propeller aircraft (however K9987 and 8 have the note provide wooden airscrew a/c for 41 Sqn). The June 1939 publicity photographs at Hornchurch all show 3 bladed two pitch propellers, with the two identified serials delivered in March 1939, K9910 and K9912, aircraft 126 and 128 of the order. 

N serial Spitfires with "Rotol Aircrew" in their contract cards remarks section, with added details from the online Spitfire histories, to N3111 they were delivered in October 1939, the rest by 20 November.

N3030 [to 19 Sqn 3/10/39, then to 54 10/1/40], delivered on 5 October 1939, around a fortnight after the serials around it. 19S 3-10-39 54S 10-1-40
N3096 note says contract B10983/39 or B10783/39, 54S 1-3-40
N3097 note says contract B10983/39 or B10783/39, 54S 17-12-39
N3103, 54S 10-12-39
N3104, 54S 10-12-39
N3110, 54S 14-12-39
N3111, 54S 13-12-39
N3122, 54S 17-12-39
N3124, 54S 21-12-39
N3130, 54S 10-12-39 
N3160, 54S 10-12-39
N3171, [to AMDP charge 16 Nov 1939, to Boscombe 19/3/40 for comparative trials], sent to C.F.S. Upavon. 30 March 1940.
N3172, 54S 12-12-39
N3173, 54S 9-3-40
N3174, 54S 12-12-39
N3176, 54S 12-12-39
N3180, 54S 16-1-40,
N3183, 54S 10-12-39
N3184, 54S 22-1-40
N3185, 54S 10-12-39
N3187, 54S 16-12-39
N3188, 54S 21-12-39

The Defiant Contract Cards make no mention of propeller fit.

Interesting about the CS propeller early production and use given the story that was reported by Wood and Dempster in the Narrow Margin, 9 June 1940 F/Lt McGrath at Hornchurch asked DH for a CS propeller, it was fitted on 14 June to an aircraft of 65 Squadron, then on the 22nd came the verbal order to convert all the Merlin fighters to CS.

Stating the obvious changes like gearing, two pitch then constant speed all required the need to outweigh the cost (weight and money) and complexity, like everything else. The US having higher altitude airfields was one driver, rising speed ranges and altitude performance others. Agreed in the late 1930's the RAF gave the bombers priority for the better propellers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (May 6, 2022)

From Baubeschreibung für das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit Daimler-Benz-Motor 601:






Propeller
The Me 109 is equipped with an in-flight adjustable three-blade VDM propeller of 3100 mm diameter. The propeller, which is equipped with an adjusting gear, has a hollow flanged shaft, which is fastened to the hollow propeller shaft with eight hexagonal screws. The blade discs are adjusted with an adjusting motor. The actuator is operated by a switch on the instrument panel. The hub of the adjusting screw is covered by a hood.






Propeller adjustment angle
Adjustment of the air screw by adjustment gear. Adjusting gear with reduction gear attached to the propeller and placed on the flange hub. Reduction gear driven by flexible shaft from variable displacement motor. Actuator hooked up to right side of engine, controlled by adjustment screw switch on instrument panel. The adjustment range of the propeller is limited by a limit switch on the right side of the motor. Drive of limit switch by means of flexible shaft through reduction gear on flanged hub. End limit switch controls mechanical incline indicator.

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


----------



## Mike Williams (May 6, 2022)

Similar excerpt from BF 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, 16 December 1939:





Propeller
The aircraft is equipped with a three-blade VDM metal propeller with a diameter of 3100 mm, which is constantly adjustable in flight. The propeller is mounted with the adjusting gear on the hollow flanged shaft, which is attached to the hollow propeller shaft by means of eight hexagon bolts.
The adjustment of the blade pitch is carried out by the adjustment motor mounted on the right side of the motor and controlled by means of the adjustment screw switch located on the instrument panel.
It is intended to install a throttle thumb switch instead of the adjusting screw switch. The handle of the variable pitch propeller is covered by a hood. The installation of an Elt-automatic adjustment is planned.

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


----------



## John Vasco (May 13, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The Bf 109E-4 first entered service in autumn 1940 (can someone offer exact date?), whereas by then, Spitfires and Hurricanes in squadron service had C/S field kits installed.


The E-4 was in service from early July 1940, probably with units before then:
4th July 1940. I./JG1 Messerschmitt Bf109E-4. Returned damaged during escort sortie for III./StG51 attack on shipping off Portland and crashed on landing at Théville 9.00 a.m. Pilot unhurt.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2022)

John Vasco said:


> The E-4 was in service from early July 1940, probably with units before then



Ah good, that gives us a date at least, thanks John. It seems the type entered service around the time the Spits were receiving the DH C/S mods, but of course the Rotol C/S propped Hurris and Spits had already entered squadron service.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 16, 2022)

An excerpt from an article from the South African Military History Society (South African Military History Society - Journal page). Lots of interesting articles.






The article is here


Myths of the Battle of Britain - South African Military History Society - Journal

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 16, 2022)

Good*, but "After Dunkirk in May 1941..."


* but see my #698

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 16, 2022)

Vincenzo said:


> Good, but "After Dunkirk in May 1941..."


Written in 1980 when word processers barely existed. If you tried to correct every error, you would never publish


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 16, 2022)

I'm enough old to remember pre personal computer world, and 1941 is not a error for a word processor

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2022)

Sloppy proof-reading is what it boils down to.

A small error like moving a timeline up a year skews the historical timeline, enda up being quoted as gospel and then becomes a point of heated debates later on down the road.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jul 17, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> An excerpt from an article from the South African Military History Society (South African Military History Society - Journal page). Lots of interesting articles.
> 
> View attachment 677898
> 
> ...


'...*The twin-engined Bf 110*, with a longer range (the Zerstorer, destroyer) was less manoeuvrable than the Spitfire I and Hurricane I and *soon needed protection by Bf 109s for itself*...' Oh dear! But then it was written in 1980. But such an incorrect view still persists up to present...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 17, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> An excerpt from an article from the South African Military History Society (South African Military History Society - Journal page). Lots of interesting articles.
> 
> View attachment 677898
> 
> ...


It would be more true to say that the ROTOL company was formed by RR and Bristol and a propeller was designed to go on a Spitfire and others. Th Spitfire first flew in 1936 but the ROTOL company wasnt formed until 1937. The Merlin Mk III was the first to be made with a standardised prop shaft to take CS props.

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 18, 2022)

So the article is not good


----------

