# Do we have any encounters of P51s with A6Ms?



## VBF-13 (Jan 21, 2014)

I think there were. What would be the "when" and "where" of these? I mean, if there were. Of course, lol.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 21, 2014)

I would think so. drgndg or Syscom might know....


----------



## Milosh (Jan 21, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> I think there were. What would be the "when" and "where" of these? I mean, if there were. Of course, lol.



Check the P-51 Pacific aces for their claims.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2014)

This guy claimed 2 zeros in a Mustang;

506th Fighter Group Captain Abner Aust: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Lawrence Smith 472601

http://www.506thfightergroup.org/cart/captain-abner-aust-no-5-the-last-fighter-ace-of-wwii

He spent time in jail for hiring a hit man to kill his ex wife!


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 21, 2014)

so thinking outside the box put him in it instead...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 21, 2014)

I occasionally had the same thought, but never proceeded with it.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 21, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This guy claimed 2 zeros in a Mustang;
> 
> 506th Fighter Group Captain Abner Aust: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Lawrence Smith 472601
> 
> 506th Fighter Group Shopping Cart| Captain Abner Aust No 5: The Last Fighter Ace of WWII


Thanks. From the second link, it looks like they dove on them. I guess I'd have expected that.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2014)

The IJN was using Zero's right to the end of the war.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 21, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This guy claimed 2 zeros in a Mustang;
> 
> 506th Fighter Group Captain Abner Aust: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Lawrence Smith 472601
> 
> ...



Pity, really.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 21, 2014)

Lumping the Ki-43 in as a "zero" 9something it was frequently mistaken for) there were encounters in Burma 1944-5, over Thailand 1945, in China 1944-5 and over japan (1945). There was one encounter in China, early 1945, allegedly against Zekes, in which 10 zekes were claimed for no loss. 

Over Burma, the Ki 43 was not able to damage the P-51 much, but then the P-51, ranged against surviving veteran pilots of the JAAF, had a surpisingly hard time bringing many Oscars down

P-51s over thailand 

On November 11, 1944 , nine P-51 Mustangs from the 25 th FS and eight P-38 Lightnings flew an offensive reconnaissance mission over northern Thailand . Their targets included the railway line between Chiang Mai and the Ban Dara bridge, as well as the airfields in the area. A locomotive was attacked, and damaged, and the American fighters also attacked Lampang airfield, destroying a single-engined aircraft on the runway.

The Thai defences had been alerted to the raid, and scrambled five Ki-27bs from Foong Bin 16. After the Lightnings and Mustangs had completed their strafing run, the RTAF fighters were bounced by the US pilots. Although the Otas were more nimble than the P-38s and P-51s, they could not match the speed and arnament of the US fighters. During the rather one-sided melee, the Thais claimed one P-38 as shot down, but in turn lost all of their Ki-27bs. The five RTAF fighters split into two sections, with Pilot Officer Kamrop Bleangkam and Chief Warrant Officer Chuladit Detkanchorn attacking the Lightnings. P/O Kamrop claimed one P-38 before his own aircraft was badly hit, and he was forced to crash land. The P-38s shot down Chief W/O Chuladit as well. As the other three Thai pilots tried to fend off the P-51s, all of them were shot down. Flight Lieutenant Chalermkiats Ota was hit in the engine. He made a forced landing, after which his Ki-27b was strafed and destroyed by one of the Mustangs. Of the other two Thai pilots, Chief W/O Nat Thara Kaimuk crashed nine miles from Lampang, while Chief W/O Nat Sunthorn was the only Thai pilot killed. All the other Thai pilots were injured, though. The USAAF lost one aircraft, most probably the P-38 claimed by P/O Kamrop. According to Thai sources, three Mustangs were damaged during the dogfight, two of which crashed in northern Thailand and the last in the Shan states.

Againt Ki43s, there were numerous clashes between RTAF Ki-43s and P-51s, as well as IJAAF Ki43s, and in some reports A6mS. In one such raid, on April 7, 1945 , Don Muang was attacked by USAAF P-51 Mustangs. In this attack alone, the RTAF lost seven aircraft destroyed and seven personnel killed. During another raid on Don Muang two days later, two RTAF Ki-43s attempted to intercept about 40 USAAF P-51 Mustangs. Both Ki-43s were damaged, and the Thai pilots had to force land their Hayabusas. The strafing attack cost the RTAF yet another four aircraft, including one Ki-30. Several IJAAF aircraft were claimed as destroyed or damaged as well.

I might say that the records of encounters between the RTAF and US forces in SE Asia are incomplete.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 22, 2014)

Thanks, Parsifal. I guess my main takeaway from this is these were very lopsided encounters and certainly not what one would call a fair fight.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2014)

definately not a fair fight. however in the hands of a good pilot, a Ki43 or an A6M could present itself as a hard target. It was similar to the TAFs experiences in the desert in 1940, against the RAs CR 42s and CR32s. these aircraft were dangerously manouverable, but underarmed and slow. They had no chance of achieving air superiority let alone air supremacy because of that. Nevertheless, the RAF had a very hard time with them, as the RA pilots were all very well trained and extracted the very best out of their mounts


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 22, 2014)

parsifal said:


> definately not a fair fight. however in the hands of a good pilot, a Ki43 or an A6M could present itself as a hard target. It was similar to the TAFs experiences in the desert in 1940, against the RAs CR 42s and CR32s. these aircraft were dangerously manouverable, but underarmed and slow. They had no chance of achieving air superiority let alone air supremacy because of that. Nevertheless, the RAF had a very hard time with them, as the RA pilots were all very well trained and extracted the very best out of their mounts


That's actually what kind of led me to ask the question. The P51s had a lot on these flyweight A6Ms. But how well did that translate into P51 victories in an even square-off? It's too bad the disparity in pilot skills at that late stage in the War is a factor that can't be ignored, but that's just how it is. Still, I'd think, under 30,000 feet, these A6Ms are going to be trouble for these bigger and badder machines, if only because, they're going to turn inside them, virtually at will, and virtually every time. The same goes as regards the F6Fs and F4Us. Neither could those dogfight these A6Ms. An N2S would have a better chance. Well, maybe that's pushing it a little, lol.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2014)

The later model Zero's had increased weight which negated some of their vaunted maneuverability. Regardless, the Zero was lacking in top speed at any altitude, dive capability and armourment. And it still burned rather easily.

The only time a Zero could get a kill was if the allied pilot made a huge mistake.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2014)

There will be people in this place that know this better than me, and to which i will defer in an instant, but my understanding that the first units in the pacific to receive p-51s in a combat area were the 47FS of the 15 FG of the VII Fighter Command. 82 P-51s for this FS (including spares and reserves) arrived on the CVE aircraft trasport Sitkoh Bay November 1944. the three squadrons of this group were probably amongst the most experienced in the AAF, being formed initially over Hawaii, with contingents having fought at Tarawa, and the Marianas. it was pretty standard for AAF fighters to trasport with the MAF and get a strip up and running as soon as was practical. Land based air could offer more direct and immediate support than assets that were carrier based. Extraordinary efforts by the Navy minimised this disadvantage, but carrier based support always had that millstone of being primarily concerned with fleet protection over CAS.

During 1943-4, the 15th had operated a number of different types, P-39, P-40, P-38 and then, from early 1944, P-47D. From late 1944 it began to re-equip with P-51D. Froom early March 1945, the 47th FS began to deploy to the newly occupied base at Iwo Juma, More units were to follow. 21FG, the other main combat element of VII fighter command was a few weeks behind the 15th, its 46th FS began receiving P-51 from late November, and the 46th tansferred to the Iwo Base on or about the 22 March . The first Long Range missions to japan commenced 7 April, with a total of 108 P-51s sent to escort just over 103 B-29s of the 73BW. There is an account from maj Tapps section of a particulalr combat in that raid, that left one B-29 burning and going down (shared kill with Japanese flak), in exchange Tapp is credited with four kills, though one is really just a probabl. A Ki45, Ki61 and Ki43 were all observed to go down, whilst a fourth, an A6M was a tleast damaged, but listed as a kill for some reason. I get the distinct impression the Americans were in a hurry to get some of their people now flying the AAFs premier fighter to ace status as quickly as they could. Five days later Tapp was credited with another zeke, though this one is even more problematic, But the 15th had their first Mustang ace....


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2014)

The F6F could turn with and even out-turn an A6M at anything above 250 mph or so. The A6M was slightly quicker in roll, but the F6F only had to avoid a turning fight at slow speeds. Most Zero pilots, when asked about the F6F after the was, including Saburo Sakai, remarked on how fast the F6F was in both speed and acceleration versus the A6M. So if the F6F pilot DID get a bit slow, all he had to do was unload, accelerate, and he could thenh turn back into the fight.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 23, 2014)

I thought I might have been a little careless in that statement, Greg, so I just did a little checking. Ya got me, pal, ya got me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2014)

I'll guess with "great certainness" that P-51s encountered and destroyed Zeros, especially during fighter sweeps during the last weeks of the war.

506th Fighter Group Home: 506th Fighter Group, 457 Fighter Squadron, 458 Fighter Squadron, 462 Fighter Squadron Iwo To Japan


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2014)

I'm sure there were some P-51 - A6M encounters, too. Unliked the ETO, most of the combats in the PTO were with small numbers of planes, with the great majority being of the 4 - 8 Allied versus 4 - 8 Japanese ... with some being essentially 1 on 1 and 2 on 2. So we would not have seen the same degree of overclaiming, and the mistakes would be there but should be fewer. The P-51 routinely cruised at about 260 - 280 mph and no doubt would have had time to accelerate to 320 - 340 mph by the time combat was joined, putting the P-51 in the driver's seat as far as being in the combat envelope.

I'd expect the great majority of such cases to be decided in favor of the P-51's given the disparity in training late in the war coupled with knowledge of how NOT to fight a Zero plus the advantage the P-51 had over the Zero. It would be interesting to see some actual statistics on P-51 versus A6M combats, but I'm not even sure where to LOOK for it since the P-51's would not show up in Naval data and the USAAF data doesn't seem to break out the data into anything that has fields for what type aircraft was flown and what type aircraft was attacked or got attacked.

If anyone knows where to find it, please tell us! Thanks!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2014)

I found this on that site I posted.

Aug. 3, 1945

_"The 15th 506th Group was assigned the area east and northeast of Tokyo and was briefed to sweep the area northwest of Tokyo for worthwhile targets, three specific airfields in the area being singled out for special attention. Ishioka East airfield was strafed by two squadrons and three enemy aircraft were destroyed. Hyakurigahara airfield was next attacked with rockets and strafed with resultant heavy damage in the hangar and building area. Rocket and strafing attacks were also marshalling yards, railroad shops, etc.... at Kawagoc, Omiya, Hashimoto and Numozu. *Four aircraft of this group, while covering a submarine which was heading into Sagami Bay to pick up a survivor (Captain Ed H Mikes Jr, story below), were attacked by an estimated six Zekes from up sun. The enemy had altitude and speed advantage and shot down one P-51 which crashed with its pilot. Two Zekes are claimed as probably destroyed and one damaged. Aircraft escorting the photo planes completed the mission without incident."*_

More...

http://www.506thfightergroup.org/missionaug3mikes.asp


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2014)

I think we'd need confirmation from Japanese sources that these really were Zekes and not Ki-43s or other Army types. Not trying to be pedantic but aircraft recognition in the heat of battle is infamously inaccurate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> I think we'd need confirmation from Japanese sources that these really were Zekes and not Ki-43s or other Army types. Not trying to be pedantic but aircraft recognition in the heat of battle is infamously inaccurate.



They were definetly Zeros...
_
"Lieutenant Yutaka Morioka led a flight of Zeke 62s from Atsugi to counter the rescue effort. Morioka was another of Japan's disabled veterans, compelled to continue flying because of high attrition among experienced pilots. He had previously lost his left hand to the tail stinger of a B-29.

Gaining altitude advantage, and with midday sun behind them, the Japanese fell on the Mustang CAP flying at just 3,500 feet. Morioka downed Lieutenant John Coneff's P-51 on the initial pass."_


Lt Yutaka Morioka flew with the 302 Kōkūtai IJN. Here's a story about him and some of his squadron mates attacking a Catalina.

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/oa-10/44-34080.html


----------



## ccheese (Jan 25, 2014)

Good info, Joe.

Charles

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2014)

A quote from Bob Mikesh in his book Zero Fighter. This comparison came from tests carried out at NAS North Island at San Diego of the Aleutian Zero against examples of both AAC and USN fighters in 1942:

"P-51 Mustang Vs Zero 21
The P-51 was drawing 3,000 rpm and 43 in manifold pressure for its take off and climb to 5,000 ft. The low manifold pressure was due to the setting on the automatic manifold pressure regulator. (This was the early Allison powered Mustang). The Zero left the ground and reached its best climb speed approximately 6 sec before the P-51. It also reached 5,000 ft approximately 6 sec before the Mustang. However, the P-51 accelerated sharply away from the Zero at 5,000 ft from a cruising speed of 250 mph (217 kts) IAS.

The climb from 5,000 to 10,000 and from 10,000 to 15,000 ft produced the same results, having the Zero accelerate away from the P-51 in rate of climb. At 10,000 ft from a cruising speed of 250 mph (217 kts) IAS, the Mustang again moved sharply away from the Zero and at 15,000 ft from a cruising speed of 240 mph (208 kts) IAS the P-51 had the advantage over the Zero, but slightly slower than at 5,000 and 10,000 ft. The P-51 could dive away from the Zero at any time. During the test, the P-51's powerplant failed to operate properly above 15,000 ft, so the comparison was not continued above this altitude.

Japanese pilots had their tactics well planned. Mustang pilots accepted that head-on attacks became a game of 'chicken'. Should the Japanese pilot have an altitude advantage in this type of encounter, he would level off just out of firing range of both aircraft. At that point he would split-S and generally end up on the tail of the Mustang pilot who often thought that the Zero was breaking off its attack. Should close-in manoeuvring be the option selected by the Mustang pilot at this point in the encounter, the Japanese pilot immediately had the advantage because of the difference in manoeuvrability between the two fighters."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2014)

Hi VBF,

I know you said "you got me there ..." but I wasn't aiming anything at you at all, just stating an opinion. Personally, I like both planes. Then again, I am partial to radial fighters, especially in Naval aviation.

I think most of the time we aren't too far apart in our opinions, and I sometimes step on my toes with a post, too. Been trying to halt that or at least slow it down for the last year or so. Cheers to you.

I've heard the Allied WWII propaganda that the Zero was not well built, but now that I see one really close up and personal (we are overhauling our Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 at this time), I have to say, it is as well built as any Allied aircraft I have also seen close up (we have a great cross section of them). The engine in particular has given very little trouble over a lot of years, Ours has been flying since 1976 up to about 3 months ago. Actually it spent 9 months in Japan and was only run up while there since it wasn't at an airport ... but the engine will go back into the air after overhaul of the airframe just as it sits right now. There's still nothing wrong with it or the prop. Altogether a very well bult and tough aircraft.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 27, 2014)

Greg, no problem. Fact is, I was a little overbroad.

By the way, how is that A6M project going? I think that's a thread that can use an update.


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2014)

Tell you what, I'll get some pics next Saturday. It looks somewhat forlorn since it is in the process of being disassembled inside. In the center section, the steel bits are rusty, but that is mere surfacer rust caused when we steam-cleaned the inside with high-presure boiling water. ll the rust will soom come off when the various bits get cleaned, primed, and repainted with new pulleys and cables, etc. We have also removed some of the old Aluminym patches that were installed years ago to repair cracks or holes, and will do a thorough job of the restoration and repatching. The "we" in this case does not mean me. It is mostly John Maloney and whoever he wants to get help from.

I'll be helping cover the ailerons with new fabric (Stitts Polyfiber) next Saturday and will get pics of that, too. I did radio control models for 15+ years, but this will be my first fabric covering job on a full scale aircraft. The process is remarkably similar to building a big RC. Once the center section (firewall to rear of cockpit, plus wings) is done, we start on the tail cone, then the horizontal stabs. So the work is proceeding at a pace that should see it all done in time for our airshow the first weekend in May. The Zero has been flying since 1976, so an overhaul is simply due.

Meanwhile, the Yak-3's Allison has been checked and it is ready to be reassembled and test flown. We discovered oil in the coolant and removed the Allison cylinder banks to see if we had a cracked liner. That was likely since the Yak's Allison was running the JRS piston mod whereby you remove the bottom oil ring and move it up to the bottom compression ring, thereby leaving about the bottom 4 inches or more of the piston without a ring. That renders it so you can chage a cylinder bank without removing the oil pan ... but also usually results in a cracked liner within 250 - 400 hours of operation due to piston slap at idle.

We found no cracks in the liners, reinstalled the banks with normal Allison piston configuration, and then removed the water pump. We found a nicked shaft seal. It has been repalced and it is ready to go when they get around to putting it back together.

Ed Maloney's P-51 (Spam Can, now with "Dolly" on one side) is having the tail repaired for the first time since being built. An inspection found a couple of cracked bulkheads and Steve Hinton Jr. drilled the tail off and has been cleaning and repairing the damage with new bulkheads. While the tail is off, we are taking the opportunity to clean up the sheet metal on the elevators. This aircraft has been in continuous operation alomst every week since 1950, and has accumulated a few dents and some hangar rash along the way. Someone drove a golf cart into on elevator trailing edge and that kink sported was fairly evident even after being straightened. Since the tail is off anyway, Stevo figured they might as well take the time to cherry out the stabs and elevators along with the tail cone. Once it is all cherry, it gets riveted back togetehr, and is ready to go again after repainting. Meanwhile we have three visiting P-51's along with Steve Hinton's "Wee Willy," so we are "Mustang rich" for the time being. Nice seeing them all. Two are the personal mounts of the two wingmen on the "The Horsemen" P-51 team. Steve Hinton Sr. flies lead, so they have been getting in some practice in sunny California while the weather in Texas was so lousy.

The ailerons for the Bell YP-59A Airacomet are finally being finished (had to reskin them 3 times! ... long story) and that project should proceed fairly rapidly when they get done. Maybe then I can get back to work on it since it is ostensibly my primary project that I haven't worked on for a few months while the trialing edges get done. It is mostly down to systems checkout after that except that a new instrument panel must be made.

Another volunteer (John Peterson) and I finished a section of trailing edge built from scratch for our North American O-47 and it is now mounted on the plane with clecos. We won't rivet it until the rest of the starboard stub wing has been skinned back to the trailing edge or we will lose access to the rear of the wing forward of the trailing edge. We need that acces to rivet on the stub wing skins. It's a puzzle, but if you get it wrong, you just have to drill out the newly-installed rivets and get it right the next time. The objective is to get the thing on its landing gear which are attached to the stub wings, so it can be moved around when required. It has been on jack stands ever since we moved it into the retoration hangar and it is time to make it actually mobile.

I'm having a break from working on an F-86 restoration since we have not located some of the parts for the leading edges that I was doing. They are ready to paint, but we don't have a good set of bearings for the slats yet. This particular F-86 started out as a Canadair Sabre Mk 6, but the new owner wants slatted leading edges. So we located a set of slatted leading edges on a Sabre on a pole in a park, found the owner, and traded leading edges with him. Now we have to put the US slatted leading edges on the Canadian Sabre. The Mk 6 is essentially an F-86E, so the auxilliary tanks are located about 2 feet inboard of where they are on an F-86F. So ... we had to drill off the bottom inside leding edge skins and make new skins with the hardware for the aux tanks cut in the right places. It was a job, but the leading sdges are ready to go when we find new slat track bearings.

As you can tell, it has been interesting! Some pics next weekend ...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> A quote from Bob Mikesh in his book Zero Fighter. This comparison came from tests carried out at NAS North Island at San Diego of the Aleutian Zero against examples of both AAC and USN fighters in 1942:
> 
> "P-51 Mustang Vs Zero 21
> The P-51 was drawing 3,000 rpm and 43 in manifold pressure for its take off and climb to 5,000 ft. The low manifold pressure was due to the setting on the automatic manifold pressure regulator. (This was the early Allison powered Mustang). The Zero left the ground and reached its best climb speed approximately 6 sec before the P-51. It also reached 5,000 ft approximately 6 sec before the Mustang. However, the P-51 accelerated sharply away from the Zero at 5,000 ft from a cruising speed of 250 mph (217 kts) IAS.
> ...



nice information. I wonder how the Mustang performed in trials against performed against the zero when powered by the merlin. From memory so too was the Spit, and from memory, when the odds were not so stacked against the zero by numbers and poor pilots the spit had rather a hard time containing the zeke.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2014)

This is an account from an RAAF test pilot, on flight trials conducted in 1943 between a Spitfire V and an A6M3. given a pilot of reasonable ability, the zeke remained a very dangerous opponent, and well able to deal with even superior aircraft such as the hellcat, as Sakais experience over Iwo shows. 

"_WINGS March 20, 1945 
SPITFIRE VIEW OF A ZERO 
By F’Lt C.N. 'Bardie' WAWN DFC.

Anyone who has flown against a Zero in combat is impressed mainly by one thing – its amazing manoeuvrability – and Allied fighter pilots base their tactics accordingly on that factor. No sane pilot would attempt to stay and manoeuvre with a Zero in a dogfight; he relies on surprise and speed to“bowl ‘em over.” 

Nearly two years ago a captured Zero and a RAAF Spitfire, flown by myself, went up together for some very interesting trials. The story could not be told until now for security reasons. That these tactics are good is proved at a glance at the squadron scoreboards in NE and NW areas. 

It is pretty hard to analyse accurately the fighting qualities of a plane when you are fighting with it – you’ve got so many other things to think about, and you rarely have an open go at one because one of your cobbers butts in to help you or one of the other fellow’s cobbers does the same for him. For that reason I found the trials we carried out between a Spitfire and Hap very interesting and very informative. We had the whole sky to ourselves, and, what’s more, we used a fair bit of it. 

When all is said and done, a fighter is only a flying gun platform, and in that respect the Zeke or Hap isn’t so hot. Its armament sounds quite impressive on paper, but it is a little misleading, because neither its cannon nor machineguns have the same hitting power as our equivalent calibres. However, there are a few pilots around who will tell you it was good enough on certain occasions. 

You don’t want to run away with the idea that the Zero is manufactured in the same factories as the Made in Japan goods you used to see in the two and sixpenny stores. It isn’t. Although lightly constructed, it is strongly made and well designed. 

There is a well-known story about the Kittyhawk pilot who looked around and saw a Zero chasing him. “So I dived her to 300 knots,” said the pilot, “and there he was, still following me. Then I dived her to 400 knots, looked around and he was still following me. So then I dived her up to 450 knots and looked around. He was still following me, but didn’t have any wings.” I think that is a pretty good story. 

“But the Zero hasn’t got any armour plating,” everyone has either heard or said that at some time. The Japs rightly reason that the best defence is manoeuvrability. In other words, if you can’t get a shot at another plane, you can’t shoot it down. 

It was quite warm at 27,000 feet, and the nearness of that Hap – complete with markings – made me perspire anyhow. We broke off right and left, counted four, turned towards each other, and it was on.

Hap on my tail. Just to reassure myself, although I knew the inevitable result, I used the tactic we employed with success against ME109’s and FW190’s in Europe – that is, a climbing right or left hand turn at slow speed on the stall all the time. No good. In less than twenty seconds the Hap was on my tail, turning inside me, while the Spit was ruddering and flicking and doing its best to fall out of the sky. So down I went, straight for the earth, with the Hap after me. As my speed built up I turned on a few aileron rolls to make it tough for him. He followed me around the first couple, but as our speed approached the 400 mark I noticed he was having trouble in following them around. So when I had gained half a turn on him I sneaked out the side and lost him temporarily. 

At high speed the ailerons of a Hap are inclined to freeze, causing a loss of manoeuvrability in the rolling plane. They do in most aeroplanes, for that matter, but more so in the Hap than our best fighters. 

We tried loops, one after the other, and although he could not get much of a shot at me, he could stay on my tail all right. Rolls off the top – same results. These manoeuvres are never used in dogfights, anyway, but we tried them for fun. With the Spit on the Hap’s tail, it was quite east to stay there as long as speeds were not allowed to drop too low. If they did, then the superior manoeuvrability of the Hap at slow speeds showed up again. 

Straight and level, flat out, the Hap would only run into a place, especially if the race was a long one. Whereas a Spit will take full bore for as long as your petrol will last. I think the Jap fitters would have a lot of extra work if little Yum Yum, or whatever his name may be, came in after flying around the skies for hours with the teat pressed. That is, if he got home at all. 

It is quite a good motor, for all that, and the Jap pilot seems to have plenty of faith in it, because at times, he crosses large expanses of water to escort his bombers. 

Japs don’t like head-on attacks in Haps or Zekes. The reasons are, firstly, their firepower is not as good as ours, and secondly, they have no protection in the shape of bullet-proof glass in the windscreen. 

They are not, in my opinion, very good pilots. They don’t seem to get the best out of their machines and do silly things at times, such as leaving a perfectly good position behind an Allied fighter to skid out and up to the side to make a deflection shot out of it. That doesn’t make it any easier. Although they vary a good deal, the Army pilots in particular don’t seem to be very good shots. 

I’m glad the ex-Kittyhawk pilot who flew the Hap was not flying it in New Guinea on the side of the Japs … (W/Cdr Les Jackson, DFC … Ed.) 

All of which boils down to the fact that you can’t dogfight with a Hap at slow speed. No aeroplane can. Keep your speed up, though, and you have several advantages. Manoeuvrability is about equal, and you have better fire power and armour and speed. 

Six second delay 

The last war axiom of get above him before you attack, applies to the Hap too. We tried it with the Spitfire at 19,000 feet and the Hap at 15,000 feet. The Spitfire could dive down, have a squirt, and be back at 19,000 feet before the Hap knew what had happened. And there was nothing he could do about it. Incidentally, quite a few Jap pilots seem to suffer from what we call a six second delay. It was noticed in New Guinea on several occasions. Zeros flying along unconcernedly with tracer from our Kittyhawks whistling around them, even under their noses. But they still continued to fly along straight and level. Suddenly they would realise all was not well and they would take the most evasive action, sometimes in the wrong direction. 

Those were Army pilots. Apparently the Navy pilots are 100 per cent on those chaps, and some of them seemed to be quite good. 

Summing up, the Japs have a good aeroplane in the Hap. But all round the Spitfire is better, especially at height. As for the pilots who fly them … the Japs aren’t in the race. The Spitfire in this trial was found after landing to have a 15 degree bend in the tail section due to the excessive 'Gs' placed on it."_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPUJJcl7Oc_


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2014)

And this is a Japanese view of the effectiveness of the zeke. i dont agree with its contents, but then, neither do i agree that the zeke, in the hands of a good pilot was still hopelessly outclassed. neither claim is true


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz6f1BEWgzU_


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 28, 2014)

parsifal said:


> This is an account from an RAAF test pilot, on flight trials conducted in 1943 between a Spitfire V and an A6M3. given a pilot of reasonable ability, the zeke remained a very dangerous opponent, and well able to deal with even superior aircraft such as the hellcat, as Sakais experience over Iwo shows.


It's a flyweight, that's why. It's like trying to swat a fly. Get "upstairs" on it, it's nothing. I don't care who's driving it.



parsifal said:


> "_WINGS March 20, 1945
> SPITFIRE VIEW OF A ZERO
> By F’Lt C.N. 'Bardie' WAWN DFC.
> 
> Anyone who has flown against a Zero in combat is impressed mainly by one thing – its amazing manoeuvrability – and Allied fighter pilots base their tactics accordingly on that factor. No sane pilot would attempt to stay and manoeuvre with a Zero in a dogfight; he relies on surprise and speed to “bowl ‘em over.”_


_
This is true, and why it came down to tactics. A little bit of luck didn't hurt much, either._


----------



## parsifal (Jan 28, 2014)

> It's a flyweight, that's why. It's like trying to swat a fly. Get "upstairs" on it, it's nothing. I don't care who's driving it.



This does not explain how Sakai could go against 15 hellcats with no support and survive without a scratch. There were others who had similar experiences.

It also does not explain how the Zekes over Darwin were able to do so well against an aircraft that, as a fighter excluding range was the equal of the P-51. One can argue that over darwin the wrong tactics were used, however the quality of the japanese pilots also had a lot to do with it as well


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2014)

parsifal said:


> This does not explain how Sakai could go against 15 hellcats with no support and survive without a scratch. There were others who had similar experiences.
> 
> It also does not explain how the Zekes over Darwin were able to do so well against an aircraft that, as a fighter excluding range was the equal of the P-51. One can argue that over darwin the wrong tactics were used, however the quality of the japanese pilots also had a lot to do with it as well



Sakai was a great pilot and knew how to place his aircraft at an advantage, he also knew when to run when he can. It was all about tactics. Had CW Spit pilots used the right tactics, they should have been able to cut the Zero to ribbons.

Bottom line, the Zero, be it flown by Sakai or a rookie was not going to do well in a traditional dogfight at speeds close to Vmax. One also has to factor in the element of surprise and tactical advantage as shown in my earlier post.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 28, 2014)

Each aircraft has it's strengths / weaknesses as compared to another aircraft. The best drivers could consistently use their aircrafts strenghts against anothers weaknesses. 

As for Sakai holding off 15 Hellcats, I salute him for a job well done! Remember though, that only one or two guys max at a time could be in a gun employment zone, and if all players keep doing the same thing, over and over, the results should continue to be the same. He could have had 4, or he could have had 30 Hellcats behind him and the results would not have changed. What's phenominal about this is that one guy in 15 couldn't figure out how to nail him.

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 28, 2014)

parsifal said:


> It also does not explain how the Zekes over Darwin were able to do so well against an aircraft that, as a fighter excluding range was the equal of the P-51. One can argue that over darwin the wrong tactics were used, however the quality of the japanese pilots also had a lot to do with it as well



Darwin was a combination of things:
Poor Allied training
Worse Allied tactics 
Good positioning by the Japanese
Poor reliability of the Spitfire V, notably prop overspeeding and unervicable/jammed cannons
Very poor Allied gunnery

The Japanese used classic 'bounce' tactics - gain altitude, go sun up, dive, attack, recover, repeat - to great effect on the Darwin Wing.

Anthony Cooper, in his very thorough Spitfires over Darwin, found that a minimum of five and a maximum of seven Spitfires were lost to Zeros while engaged in classic dogfighting, compared to a minimum of 19, maximum of 23 that were shot down in bounces or while disengaging. In maneouvering combats over Darwin, the Spitfire probably only just lost out in terms of actual kills/losses.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> As for Sakai holding off 15 Hellcats, I salute him for a job well done! Remember though, that only one or two guys max at a time could be in a gun employment zone, and if all players keep doing the same thing, over and over, the results should continue to be the same. He could have had 4, or he could have had 30 Hellcats behind him and the results would not have changed. What's phenominal about this is that one guy in 15 couldn't figure out how to nail him.



Agree 100% As the old saying goes - "Like a pack of monkeys all trying to screw a football at the same time."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 28, 2014)

Nice Joe! I need to use that in a business meeting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 28, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> What's phenominal about this is that one guy in 15 couldn't figure out how to nail him.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



could it have been strict flight discipline...not breaking formation to take a pot shot...or was it over confidence that they had overwhelming odds??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 28, 2014)

I agree with most of what has been said after my post 32. But what was being developed before that point, as a developing self edifying argument was that the zero had no hope, be it rookie or ace. Whatever the reasons, whatever the circumstances, the experiences of Sakai, the Darwin Wing and the flight test of 1943 clearly show that there were significant exceptions to those claims. that, by definition, makes the claims completely bogus. if people want to deal in absolutes, and establish a general rule, they need to make a case where there are no exceptions. in this case there are so many exceptions, the original supposition (the zero was not at all competitive in 1945 against the Mustang) looks like a swiss cheese. Its an accurate generalization, because of other circumstances as much as the aircraft itself, but it is not a general rule, or blanket rule that can be applied. 

I agree completely the zero was outclasssed, but there is a difference between being outclassed and being obsolete. The zero went down in flames 1943-5 for a number of reasons. I dont know which was more important than another, but the mix includes the quality of the aircraft, the increasing skills of the allied pilots, the decreaing skills of the Japanese pilots, growing obsolescence of the Japanese mounts (obsolescence is different to obsolete). Japan's fate was sealed by mid 1943, with her effectively having lost the air war to types like the F4F that were decidely inferior to the Zeke in many respects. These mid war efforts made it possible for types like the Hellcat and P-51 to effectively come in and "clean up" with relative ease. if somehow the Japanese had won those mid war campaigns, and the allies forced to fight with inferior numbers and pilots, I doubt the new types like the P-51 and Hellcat would have much difference until the other problems were addressed.

Maybe express the issue in these terms......if the Americans were using the zeke instead of the Hellcat/P-51, but had all their other advantages (numbers, logistics, pilots) and the Japanese the hellcat and P-51, but were burdened with their other constraints 9poor pilots, limited numbers, attrocious logistics), would the outcomes have been any different? my opinio...to a minor extent yes, but for the main, not much difference at all. The allies could win with the A6M, or their own mounts, given everrything else remains the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 29, 2014)

I think you are right there, Parsifal.

The nut behind the stick was the main factor, especially if he had his lucky rabbit's foot with him (meaining he had his head screwed on straight when combat was joined and didn't simply luck out by being taken out with a lucky shot). If you're 200 miles from home over water and a lucky shot hits an oil line, you aren't going to have a dry immediate future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 29, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> could it have been strict flight discipline...not breaking formation to take a pot shot...or was it over confidence that they had overwhelming odds??



BobbySocks,

If the odds were 15 to 1 in an ally knife fight, I would be confident of winning it HOWEVER I would respect the singletons knife. Also, in this case it was a narrow ally and only 1-2 guys at a time could take a run at him.

As for flight discipline they succeeded in not hitting each other (rule number one being don't hit the ground, or anything that will take off or land on said ground, or anything attached to it), they succeeded in rule number two, maintain the offensive, however they came up short on the effective employment of weapons objective. I read the book but it's been many years ago, however IIRC the Hellcats kept attempting the same tactic repeatedly with the same (non-successful) results. 

Many moons ago I fought a F-18F Super Hornet with no external stores (drag devices) in a F-15A with two external wing tanks. We accomplished two fights and I cleaned his clock on both due to his tactics. In the debrief I asked him why he did what he did to which he replied it was USN Tactics right out of their book. Then I asked him the clencher, "Your tactics didn't work today, if you went out tomorrow what would you do different?" I'm hoping the Hellcat guys asked the same question in their debrief...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 29, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sakai was a great pilot and knew how to place his aircraft at an advantage, he also knew when to run when he can. It was all about tactics. Had CW Spit pilots used the right tactics, they should have been able to cut the Zero to ribbons.
> 
> Bottom line, the Zero, be it flown by Sakai or a rookie was not going to do well in a traditional dogfight at speeds close to Vmax. One also has to factor in the element of surprise and tactical advantage as shown in my earlier post.


This is in a footnote in Wikipedia on the F6F:

“On the previous day, while receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, O'Hare was asked by the President what was needed in a new naval fighter; O'Hare's response was "something that would go upstairs faster."[15]”

15. Ewing and Lundstrom 2004, pp. 155–156.


----------



## Balljoint (Jan 29, 2014)

parsifal said:


> This does not explain how Sakai could go against 15 hellcats with no support and survive without a scratch.



Pilot skill, pilot skill, pilot skill. One on one and with an initial advantage over Pug Southerland, in a Wildcat no more, Sakai suffered a reversal and would have been cashiered but for jammed guns on the Grumman.

It’s also a bit unfair to compare a fighter in the interceptor mode, i.e. avid the escort and get to the bomber, with heads up combat between fighters, it would seem.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> This is in a footnote in Wikipedia on the F6F:
> 
> “On the previous day, while receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, O'Hare was asked by the President what was needed in a new naval fighter; O'Hare's response was "something that would go upstairs faster."[15]”
> Ewing and Lundstrom 2004, pp. 155–156.



O'Hare received the MOH on April 21, 1942. The first F6F flew June 1942 and the first deliveries were made in January 1943. I think someone else also had the same feelings.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 29, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> O'Hare received the MOH on April 21, 1942. The first F6F flew June 1942 and the first deliveries were made in January 1943. I think someone else also had the same feelings.


They all knew it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2014)

One of the things better fighters do is allow green pilots a better _chance_ (but by no means 100% guarantee) to gain experience. They may allow green pilots to inflict more damage on the enemy for the same amount of losses. 

A lot of WW II air combat over long periods of time (months long campaigns) came down to averages and statistical probabilities. Loss rated per 1000 missions and "victories" ( or bombs dropped) per 1000 missions. 
Better aircraft could 'tip' the balance a bit but not guarantee total dominance without a number of other factors. On the other hand using inferior aircraft _while_ having a number of advantages may very well work but at a large cost. 

While the thirsty American planes needed more fuel brought to them and the Better trained American pilots used up more fuel and and aircraft (crashes) in training _every_ American fighter had to brought into the theater by ship. Replacement pilots could be flown in by air transport ( but even trans-pacific air transport seats were limited). Trying to overwhelm an enemy with larger numbers of inferior planes also means more ground crewmen and support personnel ( and neither carriers nor most Pacific Island can grow enough food to feed the occupying air forces). The US may have had enough men and shipping to pull off a win using poorer planes but having better ones made things a _lot_ easier. 

_IF_ the better planes needed 10-15% fewer aircraft to get the same results or needed 10-15% fewer replacements in a six month period that can be an advantage that does not show up in simple kill/loss ratios. 

And how many hours/mission/engagements does it take to go from "green" (even if well trained) to "experienced" pilot? Even in the BoB not every flight ( or even every 3rd flight) resulted in an air combat but in the Pacific a number of hours on every flight could be spent just flying over water with little or no chance of engagement. 

Not all pilots even with the same number of hours of training are equal combat pilots. Leaving out the 'aces' better planes allow a better percentage of the "green" pilots a chance to either make a difference or to survive until they get enough experience to make a difference. And some, due entirely to luck and statistical chance, can fly dozens of missions and never get an enemy plane in their gun sight. They _all_ can be lost due to mechanical failure, weather change (head wind and run out of gas) or other accident regardless of plane used.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 29, 2014)

> Pilot skill, pilot skill, pilot skill. One on one and with an initial advantage over Pug Southerland, in a Wildcat no more, Sakai suffered a reversal and would have been cashiered but for jammed guns on the Grumman.




This was certainly southerlands day, he shot down two G4Ms I believe, before being engaged by at least 3 Zekes, not including Sakai. Sakai in his memoirs claims that he thought Southerland was attacking Sakai s comrades (including his wingman), however i personally find that hard to accept. i think it more likely he observed the fight, realized his guys were getting nowhere shooting the US pilot down, also realized the US pilot was not firing even though he was given several opportunities to do so, and decided to exploit that by finishing him off quickly. I think, but cannot prove, that sakai was prepred to take risks to bring down this lone pesky American, hence his mistake of allowing his plane to be in the firing line.

I also dont accept Southerlands account in its entirety. after the war, Southerland claimed all he was trying to do was get back to the American "Red Beach" area so that he could bail. And yet, other accounts have him frantically either attempting to unjam his guns, or reload them . Why would you do that if you are intending to run? I think both men are embellishing their stories. i think Sakai was intending to kill an American whom he observed was not firing, and i think Southerland was running, he was also trying to get nback into the fight. 

Saying also that it was a "wildcat, no more" is also misleading. Wilkdcat it was, yet these same aircraft, along with P-29s, P-40s and Fother mid war aircraft had by June 1943 detroyed 6500 Japanese aircraft and torn the heart out of the Japanese war machine. they had, effectively, won the war, and continued to make significant contribution to the Allied war efforts well into 1944. 

Saying it was all about pilot skill is also misleading. of course pilot skill was very important, crucial, in fact, but if the zeke was hopeless, it would not matter how good its pilot was. Good pilots can only do so much. it was in fact (in the overall sense) a question of pilot skill, tactics, logistical support and numbers that won the air war in the Pacific. Any other permutation from that, that tries to say it was just this, or just that is an absolute, that clearly defies the historical truths. 




> It’s also a bit unfair to compare a fighter in the interceptor mode, i.e. avid the escort and get to the bomber, with heads up combat between fighters, it would seem


.

Maybe, but during its career, the zeke was called upon to do both, and in both roles had its sucesses and its failures. over Darwin, it was operating offensively, and essentially won. over Iwo it was operating defensively, and whilst not winning, did come out the clear winner/survivor. if the aircraft was so deficient, it could not have won in either case, despite the "other factors" at work in each case.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 29, 2014)

_And how many hours/mission/engagements does it take to go from "green" (even if well trained) to "experienced" pilot? Even in the BoB not every flight ( or even every 3rd flight) resulted in an air combat but in the Pacific a number of hours on every flight could be spent just flying over water with little or no chance of engagement_

Very good post SR, in relation to the above extract, it rather depends on the quality of your opposition

At the beginning of the PW, average flying hours for the Japanese pilots on the carriers was in excess of 700 hours. Thats combat hours incidentally, not training times. At that time Japanese pilots were training for about 400 hours to get their carrier wings, so these guys probably had about 1200 hours flying time. It was reflected in a number of ways, including the bombing accuracy. over the Dorsetshire and Cornwall, the D3As were achieving about 80% hit rates against a seagoing target. nobody could match that. 

by 1945, there were virtually no carrier trained pilots left. at Phil Sea, the Japanese Carrier pilots left had averages of 150, 100 and 50 hours, depending on which cardiv you want to look at. by the second day, the Mob fleet was down to less than 50 planes left, but of these, there were high numbers of very experienced aircrew....the last of the best. When called upon to fight the US carrier air strikes that evening, these guys in the alleged obsolete zekes, did very well, though outnumbered by at least 6:1. A strike in excess of 200 bomber aircraft, escorted by swarms of F6Fs did manage to sink the Hiyo. If the defending CAP was not up to it, they should have wiped out the Mob fleet. They failed in that. 

Against the rookies that made up the majority of the japanese FAA at that time, the average flight time of the USN was about 500 hours, including their training. These US guys easily got the better of those IJN rookies, tearing them out of the sky. i have often woncered how these guys, in hellcats, might have fared against the Combined fleet in 1941, when the Japanese were at the peak of their game. Thats what the victory at midway can lay claim to being the most amazing victory , and Phil sea, to me, is just another garden variety massacre.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 30, 2014)

parsifal said:


> At the beginning of the PW, average flying hours for the Japanese pilots on the carriers was in excess of 700 hours. Thats combat hours incidentally, not training times. At that time Japanese pilots were training for about 400 hours to get their carrier wings, so these guys probably had about 1200 hours flying time. It was reflected in a number of ways, including the bombing accuracy. over the Dorsetshire and Cornwall, the D3As were achieving about 80% hit rates against a seagoing target. nobody could match that.
> 
> by 1945, there were virtually no carrier trained pilots left. at Phil Sea, the Japanese Carrier pilots left had averages of 150, 100 and 50 hours, depending on which cardiv you want to look at. by the second day, the Mob fleet was down to less than 50 planes left, but of these, there were high numbers of very experienced aircrew....the last of the best. When called upon to fight the US carrier air strikes that evening, these guys in the alleged obsolete zekes, did very well, though outnumbered by at least 6:1. A strike in excess of 200 bomber aircraft, escorted by swarms of F6Fs did manage to sink the Hiyo. If the defending CAP was not up to it, they should have wiped out the Mob fleet. They failed in that.
> 
> Against the rookies that made up the majority of the japanese FAA at that time, the average flight time of the USN was about 500 hours, including their training. These US guys easily got the better of those IJN rookies, tearing them out of the sky. i have often woncered how these guys, in hellcats, might have fared against the Combined fleet in 1941, when the Japanese were at the peak of their game. Thats what the victory at midway can lay claim to being the most amazing victory, and Phil sea, to me, is just another garden variety massacre.


OK, what do you say we get this thread back on track? I believe we covered this ground, before. I'll tell you what, if you hadn't had enough, start a new thread on this digression you're taking, and we'll go over it, all, again, I really don't mind. Just don't name it, "Do we have any encounters of P51s with A6Ms?," as that might be a tad misleading.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2014)

we are on track. The supposition you make is that the zeke was obsolete, and had no chance against a mustang is the the broken bit of this discussion. There are problems with the starting supposition that you cant resolve. Thats because your starting point is cracked and broken, not that we are off topic. The only thing off topic is that we are talking Hellcat and Zero, not p-51 and zero. nuuman posted a report on the allison powered p-51 versus the zeke. im not aware of any merlion powered mustang comparison, but I am aware of merlin powered spit comparison to the zeke. The spit comparison shows the spit to be superior, but the zeke was not totally outclassed.

what defeated the zeke, wasnt just that it was moving towards obsolescence. It was defeated by a whole range of factors. im not denying that it was pasted toward the end, but I am challenging that this was all to do with the deficiencies of the aircraft. Japans (and the zeros) defeat was far more comprehensive than that. 

Technology, be it a hellcat, a zero, or a mustang is but one factor in the victory equation, and guess what, its a relatively minor factor. Far more important are numbers, the manpower and the supply situation. Tactics and strategy are also big factors.

If you want to get this back on topic, get the question right first.


----------



## eagledad (Jan 30, 2014)

Greetings parsifal, 

For comparison between the P-51D and the A6M5, please see the file found at:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf

Mike Williams and Neil Stirling fine web site.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2014)

Thankyou, very much apreciated. it confirms what has already been said....Zeke has the turning advantage up to 250mph against most, is slightly better up to about 280mph, and then falls away sharply from that point on. Generally has the roll rate advantage up to 280mph as well. in dive, level speed and high speed climb, is at a disadvantage. not shown is that at low level its rate of climb was closer to being competitive. 

Smart Zeke pilots when confronted with boom and zoom tactics , such as Sakai, would generally use a half roll and flick turnat the last moment . it needed nerves of steel, some dumb luck and precise timing to pull it off, but could generally work, if the pilot had the skill to do it. problem was, at the end of the war, skilled pilots in the IJN were virtually non-existent.

Zeke was armed for a close in turning fight. if it could get you in its sights and pump even a few of its 20mm (and in the case of the later Zekes, it HMGs as well) it could pretty much open any US fighter up like a can opener. Problem was, getting the opportunity to make that burst. they seldom got the opportunity later in the war. And that was a product of the war as a whole. most Zekes were simply shot up on the deck, or were flown by sheer cannon fodder. 

but obsolete it aint, as the report clearly shows. It simply had the wrong atributes for the pilots and the numbers at the dispposal of the IJN at the end. Its lack of armour and flame suppression was another glaring weakness


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2014)

The thing is that this comparison uses the A6M5 which is probably the _best_ performing Zero fighter (even if this example may not having been performing up to par). From the A6M5a,b, c and on the plane increased weight by adding armament ( or just better ammo feeds), protection and heavier wing skinning without gaining much more (if any) power, hopes were high for the water injected version of the Sakae engine but apparently it didn't live up to expectations. So while the better armament and protection _should_
have held off obsolescence a bit longer the slower and slower climbing models may have found it even harder to get their guns on target, or to evade being targets. (adding two 13.2 MG in the wings with just 200rpg each is around 250lbs of added weight, may be over 300lbs with mounts ammo boxes, heaters,etc) 

The Zero, as a design, may have had life left in it (A6M8 ?) but the failure to increase power after 1943 to any appreciable extent rather doomed the service models and the what remained of the JNAF. Being able to _avoid_ being shot down by better enemy fighters given a decent pilot (not great) and favorable circumstances is not really disputing control of the air. It is not protecting your own bombers/torpedo planes the way they need to be protected to do their jobs and it is _not_ shooting down the enemy bombers/torpedo planes in the way that is needed to safe guard your own fleet. 

I am not talking about 100% shoot downs, just enough to tip things a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 31, 2014)

I think I hear you saying that without more horsepower these improvements weighting them down actually disadvantaged them. Were the P51s that much more powerful under the hood? I know they were twice as heavy, give or take a little.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2014)

They added firepower and protection in the later models but the engine stayed pretty much at 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 2850 meters( 9,350ft) and 980hp at 6000 meters ( 19,685 ft), the water injection system didn't seem to do what was hoped for according to most accounts ( they could be wrong?) and the Mustang was nowhere near twice as heavy in combat mode, Max take-off is different. The P-51 max take-off weight include a pair of 1000lb bombs or some really big drop tanks. Combat weight of a P-51 is going to be somewhere between 9000 and 10,000lbs depending on how much fuel in in the internal tanks. A P-51D went about 9643lbs with racks and _full_ internal fuel (1080lbs of fuel) without rear tank. With rear tank it went 10208lbs with 1590lbs of fuel. Internal fuel (but not rear tank) was used for starting, warm up, initial take-off and climb out and rear tank was burned down to a certain percentage before drop tanks were used normally. 
Even a A6M3 was NOT a 5000lb machine even with the "drop" tank empty or gone.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 31, 2014)

I didn't understand what I read on the weights, then. OK, give the A6M5 the bigger engine. Does that do the trick? Is that where that fighter needed to go to remain competitive?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2014)

The Zero was bigger than, say, Fw-190. It was aproximately as big as Ki-84. So I'd say that, for the Zero to remain competitive beyond 1943, it will need the Ha-41, Ha-109, or Ha-45 installed. Ha-41 and 109 were installed in Ki-44 Shoki, Ha-45 is the renown Homare.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> I didn't understand what I read on the weights, then. OK, give the A6M5 the bigger engine. Does that do the trick? Is that where that fighter needed to go to remain competitive?



Yes but they waited too long. 

A A6M5c was about 600lbs heavier than a A6M5 due to the guns, ammo, armor and protected fuel tanks. On a Zero that is about 10%. Due to weight _and drag_ it was about 13kts slower. No figures on climb but adding 500lbs to a P-39Q could knock about 500fpm off it's climb.

In late 1944 the Navy finally gave permission to fit the Kinsei engine to the Zero and 2 prototypes (A6M8 )were finished in the summer of 1945. 1560hp for take-off, 1340hp at 2100 meters (6890ft) and 1180hp at 5800 meters ( 19,030ft). Pretty much the same engine used the Ki 100.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> The Zero was bigger than, say, Fw-190. It was aproximately as big as Ki-84. So I'd say that, for the Zero to remain competitive beyond 1943, it will need the Ha-41, Ha-109, or Ha-45 installed. Ha-41 and 109 were installed in Ki-44 Shoki, Ha-45 is the renown Homare.



You might need a whole new plane for those engines. Just fitting the Ha-112 ( Kinsei 62) required deleting the cowl gun/s. 

The Ha-41 was the earliest but used a single speed supercharger. the Ha-109 was probably the best bet after the Kinsei engine. It was only 4 in (110mm) bigger in diameter than the Sakae and 130 kg heavier than a Sakae 21 (which was 60kg heavier than a Sakae 11/12) and the Zero had been originally designed around the Mitsubishi Zuisei engine which was slightly smaller and lighter than the Sakae. 

Problem for the Japanese was ANY engine change would cut into the range/radius of the Zero. Could a bigger engine allow enough fuel to make up for the increased consumption? A number of Zeros were lost when they changed form the Sakae 11/12 to the 21 due to smaller fuselage tank and increase fuel consumption. 

Once the Japanese are on the defense it doesn't matter quite as much.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2014)

Japan had desperately sought major qualitative improvements in the A6M4. A6M3 had appeared before the end of the guadacanal campaign, and the Japanese deluded themselves into thinking it could solve the ever increasing superiority held by the Allies. The model 32 itself was delayed by Mitsubishis divided attentions between the J2M, the Zeke and the A7M. Design work on a replacement for the A6M2 began well before Midway, but the A6M3 was a watered down interpretartion of that new mark. 

The a^M3 was meant to be a lightweight version of the J2M, and the J2M aimed to boost speed, climb firepower, dive and protection to the same level as allied fighters, whilst retaining the unmatched horizontal manouverability of most Japanese aircraft. The A6M3 incorporated some changes to boost zeke capabiliies, but really, fell short of the mark. the main differences was a switch to belt fed cannons, with ammunition increased from 60 to 105 rounds per gun. Ammunition counters were also fitted, and the radio installatioon improved. Engine power was significantly increased, to 1130hp, with a two stage blower also fitted. great things were expected in the performce increases arising from this new engine, but the increase in performance was really very modest. Top speed of the model 32 was 345mph @ 20K ft, an increase of 14mph over the A6M2, and slightly more over the model 11. The Model 32 was slightly less manouverable, with a smaller wing area, and slight increase in weight, and it was the model 32 that initially faced up to the hellcat. There were compensations for this however. Mitsubishis nearly doubled the number of skin fasterners in the wing, and the wing skins were increased in thickness. this increased sustained dive speed to over 410 mph, which was still a lot less than its American counterparts, but significantly better than the old model 21. Roll rate was superior to the hellcat, its chief adversary. 

in one aspect, the model 32 was inferior to thge model 21. The larger engine fit and supercharger increased fuel consumption, and also necessitate3d shifting the firewall 8in back which further reduced fuel capacity. This of course affected its effective range, though in this area it remained superior to the hellcat. However the P-51 easily outclassed it. The model 32 had 24% less range compared to the Model 21. At a range of 650 miles, its typical operating range in the Solomons, it had just over an hours endurance over the target. Often model 32s operating over Guadacanal or goergia carried two 45 liter drop tanks under the wings.

The Jpanese did not produce the fighter they needed in late 1942 until late 1944, and by then it was far too late. After the a6M, as suggested above they had intended to improve Zero performance in a major way with the A6M4 

Full details of the A6M4 are still not known, even today, but very recently, acclaimed aviation historian Jim Long has discovered some translated Japanese documentation that supports the turbosupercharger theory by referencing an intercooler, a device commonly used with a turbocharger that works like a radiator to cool hot compressed air. However, as he points out, it's not a lock, and questions remain as to the layout.

Tracking down the A6M4 is frustrating, elusive and often contradictory 

Here are some comments thaqt i am aware of

The Mitsubishi A6m3 Zero-Sen ("Hamp"), by René J. Francillon, Aircraft In Profile No. 190 , ©1967

"THE TURBO-SUPERCHARGED SAKAE 

"_The A6M4 version of the Reisen has long been conspicuously missing from the various historical studies yet published on this aircraft and even the designer of the Reisen, Mr. Jiro Horikoshi, could not remember what the A6M4 was! However, Mr. Horikoshi had the kindness to inquire among his friends of the former Imperial Japanese Navy and, recently, was able to confirm to the present writer that the A6M4 designation was applied to two A6M2s fitted with an experimental turbo-supercharged Sakae engine. The design, modification and testing of these two prototypes was the responsibility of the Dai-Ichi Kaigun Gijitshusho (First Naval Air Technical Arsenal) at Yokosuka and took place in 1943. Lack of suitable alloys for use in the manufacture of the turbo-supercharger and its related ducting resulted in poor operation marred by numerous ruptures of the ducting, and fires. Consequently further development of the A6M4 was cancelled, the aircraft still providing useful data for further aircraft, and the manufacture of the more conventional A6M5, already under development by Mitsubishi Jukogyo K.K. was accelerated_." 

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, by René J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-313-X, ©1970. Pages 369-371 have a couple of paragraphs that say:

"_In Japan at that time Mitsubishi and the Navy were attempting to improve the Reisen. At low altitude it could still hold its own against Allied aircraft, but at medium and high altitude it was hopelessly outclassed by the Lightnings and Corsairs. In an attempt to correct this situation two A6M2s were modified by Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho at Yokosuka and, designated A6M4s, were powered by an experimental turbosupercharged Sakae engine. Major teething troubles with the experimental engine precluded the placing of a production order and the Navy had to settle for an interim version of the aircraft, the A6M5, pending availability of the new Mitsubishi A7M Reppu... To improve diving speed Mitsubishi modified the 904th A6M3 in August 1943 by fitting a new set of wings with heavier gauge skin and with redesigned non-folding rounded wingtips..._" 

Zero Fighter, by Martin Caidin, Ballantine weapons book #9 ©1970. Page 158-159 shows a table that says:

"_Experimental version with turbo-supercharger. Only two built. Basically an A6M2_. 

A6M1-2-2N Zero-Sen by Richard Bueschel, Schiffer, ISBN 0-88740-754-4, ©1995 (This book is a reprint with some minor updating from the original ©1970 Osprey and ARCO-AIRCAM publication). Pages 62-63 have a chart that shows the A6M4 and a footnote that says: 

"_Model 21 with turbosupercharger_" 

Zero: Japan's Legendary Fighter, by Robert C. Mikesh, Motorbooks, ISBN 0-87938-915-X, ©1994. Page 89 has a paragraph of text that says:

"_The assignment of this designation to a Zero model has been in question for a long time, since no authoritative records have ever been found to prove its use. The designation may have been set aside for a proposed model that never materialized. Some think that it was associated with an A6M3 that was to be equipped with a turbo-supercharged engine, as suggested in 1968 by the Zero's designer Jiro Horikoshi. But the reason is not really known._" 

Famous Airplanes of the World - A6M models 22-63, #56, 1996. Page 14 has a brief paragraph, basically translated, that the A6M4 design has not been adequately researched. 

Interestingly, there are virtually NO references to the A6M4 in Japanese texts. 

At www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html 

"_By late 1942 and early 1943, the Zero Fighter was beginning to be confronted with newer, more-capable Allied fighters. At high altitude, the A6M2 and A6M3 were hopelessly outclassed by newer Allied fighters such as the P-38 Lightning and the F4U Corsair. In an attempt to correct this deficiency, two A6M2s were modified by Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho at Yokosuka to take an experimental turbosupercharged Sakae engine. The short designation A6M4 was assigned to this project. 

"However, major teething troubles were encountered with the A6M4, and no production order was placed. As a substitute, the A6M5 interim version was introduced pending availability of the A7M Reppu." _At A6M Zero 

"A6M4 (2 modified A6M2's as prototypes) Turbosuper charged Sakae engine " 

The most relaible source i know of on this subject is from a recognized expert who has corresponded as follows: 

Jim Long of AIR'TELL Publications Research Service, 

"_At the time that I first read this explanation, I was skeptical of its validity, and as the years passed and no proof was forthcoming, I became even more uncertain. But after all of these years, I finally found a scrap of evidence to support René Francillon's pronouncement. It is fragmentary, but I think it is enough to make us all believe that there was something to the report of the A6M4. But what I've found is small and only gives evidence of the A6M4 designation in connection with an aircraft that had an intercooler, and which probably means that it had a turbosupercharged engine. There are no other details of that sort, however. We'll all be left with questions, I'm afraid. 

"What I've found comes from microfilm reel JP-26 which contains images of Bulletins 67-45 through 78-45. These documents are CINCPAC-CINCPOA or JICPOA intelligence bulletins issued by the Intelligence Center, Pacific Ocean Area, or the Joint Intelligence Center, Pacific Ocean Area, or the Commander in Chief Pacific and Pacific Ocean Area. They are available to the public on microfilm from the Department of the Navy, Naval Historical Center, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D. C. 20374-0571. 

"I have excerpted the material of interest to you, and it runs as follows: 

"Excerpt from CINCPAC-CINCPOA BULLETIN NO. 67-45, 30 MARCH 1945 QUARTERLY REPORT ON RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS VOLUME 1 SPECIAL TRANSLATION NUMBER 52 

"QUARTERLY REPORT ON RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS 

(Naval Air Technical Depot); dated 1 October 1942, Captured on SAIPAN_. 

whatever the truth about the A6M4, what we do know is that it never materialised. The Japanese were forced by that failure to try and extract as much as they could from an already proven failure....the A6M3

more to follow


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 1, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> You might need a whole new plane for those engines. Just fitting the Ha-112 ( Kinsei 62) required deleting the cowl gun/s.
> 
> The Ha-41 was the earliest but used a single speed supercharger. the Ha-109 was probably the best bet after the Kinsei engine. It was only 4 in (110mm) bigger in diameter than the Sakae and 130 kg heavier than a Sakae 21 (which was 60kg heavier than a Sakae 11/12) and the Zero had been originally designed around the Mitsubishi Zuisei engine which was slightly smaller and lighter than the Sakae.
> 
> ...



I see. These mechanics are well-beyond the scope for me. I wonder if I can infer this much on where they really needed to go. There are some who still think the F6F was just a souped-up F4F. I'm not saying, here, but I think you know what I mean. The fact is, the F6F was a radically-different machine. I hear you saying, outfitting these A6M5s, was like trying to outfit the F4Fs. I hear you saying, the Japanese Navy really needed a radically-different machine. 

Of course, neither Japan, nor anybody, really, had the capacity to go there, as the U.S. had. I'm just saying, that's what they needed. They needed that new-generation fighter. I understand, now, also, why Mitsubishi didn't just throw bigger engines into these airframes. It tried, as you pointed out, in the A6M8, but it knew that was easier said than done. Had Japan not been going down at the time, I'm thinking it could easily have measured-up to the challenge.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2014)

The A6M5 is often referred to as an A6M3 with strengthened wings to permit faster diving. This isin fact is quite untrue. The later versions of the A6M3 were the first types with the wing strengthening and in fact th later A6M3s and A6M5s had the same dive capabilities. moreover, the Mark 5 retained same engine, but nevertheless had some improvement in aircraft speed and performance 

This aircraft was a development of a proven failure and was a far more modest update compared to the ambitious A6M4, the "A6M5" or "Model 52", featured a thicker skin and rounded, non-folding wingtips, as well as a new exhaust system that provided a slight amount of additional speed from exhaust thrust. The A6M5, or "Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52", went into production in the fall of 1943, and demonstrated a noticeable improvement in performance. Its top speed of 351mph made it competitive to the 360 mph (or so in the tropics) of the earlier F6fs (that invariably were pretty badly worn and therefore unable to reach full design speeds) 

Two sub-variants followed. The "A6M5a", or "Model 52a", had even thicker wing skinning, and cannon with belt feed instead of drum feed in the wings. The belt feed allowed the ammunition for the cannons to be increased from 100 to 125 RPG. 

The "A6M5b", or "Model 52b", incorporated an armor glass windscreen and a fuel-tank fire extinguisher to reduce the aircraft's inclination to immediately burst into flames when hit. The A6M5b also replaced one of the 7.7 millimeter guns in the cowling with a 13.2 millimeter Type 3 machine gun, a license-built Browning. 

The "A6M5C" or "Model 52c" added armor plate and larger fuel tanks with self-sealing, and featured one 13.2 millimeter gun in the cowling, plus a 20 millimeter and 13.2 millimeter gun in each wing, for a total of five guns. The A6M5c first flew in September 1944. The A6M5 series machines were the most heavily produced Zero variants, with at least 5,000 built. 

The A6M5c was just an interim fit until the more powerful Sakae 31A engine, which featured water-methanol power boost, was ready for service. The first Zero with such an uprated engine, the "A6M6c" or "Model 53c", performed its initial flight in November 1944. It was similar to the A6M5c except for the new engine and self-sealing wing tanks. Production was performed by Nakajima. The Sakae 31A engine provided noticeably improved performance, when it worked properly, but under the pressures of war Japanese manufacturing quality was in steep decline. 

in late 1944, the Imperial navy finally gave approval to use the powerful Kinsei engine in place of the Sakae. The result was the A6M8, which offers an interesting comparison to the Hellcat, but by the time of its introduction there were simply so few good pilots left, and the USN heavily outnumbered the Japanese. The A6M8 was a redesigned and enlarged Zeke that showed some rather impressive design elements. 

The Kinsei offered 1,340 HP (another source says they were 1560hp), giving it a top speed of almost 360 MPH. All fuel tanks were self sealing, and it also carried on board automatic extinguishers as well. The two wing mounted drop tanks developed for the A6M7 were enlarged to 360 litres it had a As stated, Horikoshi had wanted to use the Kinsei engine from the beginning, but the IJN had regarded it as too powerful. The larger engine dictated elimination of the 13.2 millimeter gun mounted in the cowling, with the four guns in the wings retained, and an improved fuel-tank fire extinguishing system was fitted. The A6m8 was armoured to withstand 0.5in MG fire. It could carry 1102 lb of bombs or 8 rockets. The A6M8 carried as standard eight 10kg anti-air rockets, that had been found useful againts the B-29s. 

Time to 20K was 6min 50 secs, which is not bad. It had a good dive speed as well, ive read around 460mph

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 1, 2014)

Parsifal, if I don't get back to you it's because my head exploded after reading your last two posts. Really, this is fascinating detail. I'm definitely going to have to give these re-reads. Well done.


----------



## cherry blossom (Feb 1, 2014)

I think that Mitsubishi wanted to install the Kinsei in the Zero as soon as they realized that it was possible. However, possibly they only realized that this was an option after examining a Fw 190 in 1942 or even 1943. This is separate from the issue that they had proposed a Kinsei powered aircraft in response to the original 12-shi requirement before designing the A6M1. The Kinsei 60 series of engines was first run and flown in 1942. The Ki-46 III was powered by such engines but production was very slow and the Ki-46 II and III were both produced in 1943. I have a dim memory of hearing that the problem was that the fuel injection equipment for the Ha 112-II ( Kinsei 60 series) was produced by hand craftsmanship rather than a mass production process. The first navy application of the Kinsei 60 series was the D4Y3, which entered service in early 1944 (?). Again, the Fw 190 was important in showing that a radial could replace the inline engine of the D4Y2.

q‹ó‹@ƒGƒ“ƒWƒ“ˆê——E“ú–{ŒR has some details on various engines. It suggests that the 1560 hp was a take off rating with the 1340 hp being a military power at 2100 metres. At least the take off rating required methanol water injection. 

Using that data, we can compare various possible power plants: 

Sakae-21, Length 1630 mm, Diameter 1150 mm, Dry weight 590 kg
Kinsei-62 Length 1660 mm, Diameter 1218 mm, Dry weight 675 kg 
Homare-11 Length 1690 mm, Diameter 1180 mm, Dry weight 830 kg
Ha 109 (Ha 34-11) Length 1575 mm, Diameter 1263 mm, Dry weight 720 kg. 

Apart from its weight, the Homare was unreliable in early 1944 and Mitsubishi claimed that a Homare 22 only gave 1,300 hp at altitude in the A7M1 compared to the specification of 1750 hp at 6450 metres. There is some independent support for Mitsubishi as the P1Y2 was fitted with theoretically lower powered Kasei 25 engines because of problems with the Homare. Knowing the history of bitter competition between Mitsubishi and Nakajima, it is not surprising that Mitsubishi did not propose using the Homare.

Was the Ha 109 the best answer? With 37.5 litres displacement against 32.3 litres, it was slightly more powerful than the Kinsei 62 at altitude, did not use water/methanol injection or fuel injection and thus could presumably have been produced in quantity. It might have allowed mass production of a Zero with A6M8 like performance from the middle of 1943. However, we can guess that a larger displacement and lower compression ratio engine would use more fuel than the Kinsei even before calculating the effects of it being wider and heavier.


----------



## GregP (Feb 2, 2014)

You can ignore Martin Caidin except for the entertainment aspect. He is notoriously inccurate.

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


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 2, 2014)

cherry blossom said:


> I think that Mitsubishi wanted to install the Kinsei in the Zero as soon as they realized that it was possible. However, possibly they only realized that this was an option after examining a Fw 190 in 1942 or even 1943. This is separate from the issue that they had proposed a Kinsei powered aircraft in response to the original 12-shi requirement before designing the A6M1. The Kinsei 60 series of engines was first run and flown in 1942. The Ki-46 III was powered by such engines but production was very slow and the Ki-46 II and III were both produced in 1943. I have a dim memory of hearing that the problem was that the fuel injection equipment for the Ha 112-II ( Kinsei 60 series) was produced by hand craftsmanship rather than a mass production process. The first navy application of the Kinsei 60 series was the D4Y3, which entered service in early 1944 (?). Again, the Fw 190 was important in showing that a radial could replace the inline engine of the D4Y2.
> 
> q‹ó‹@ƒGƒ“ƒWƒ“ˆê——E“ú–{ŒR has some details on various engines. It suggests that the 1560 hp was a take off rating with the 1340 hp being a military power at 2100 metres. At least the take off rating required methanol water injection.
> 
> ...


I'm looking into this A6M8. This is awesome. My takeaway is they had the right fit in this hopped-up A6M. Just, by that time, the show was over. Too little, too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2014)

Pretty much. They needed the A6M8 in 1943 not 1945. 

It wouldn't have changed the outcome, just the timing and the cost.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 3, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Pretty much. They needed the A6M8 in 1943 not 1945.
> 
> It wouldn't have changed the outcome, just the timing and the cost.


It looks to me like they’d have pretty much been a wash up against our F6Fs and F4Us. I heard what you suggested earlier in that these pilots didn’t really require miles and miles of experience in these aircraft to put on a good fight in them. I was told by guys who flew the F6Fs, in particular, one who was at Saipan, that combat “experience” only frightens you more. The thing is, get the tactical training in. On that requisite, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the Navy had a rule, you don’t goof off in these aircraft. Still, that’s all they did. It kept them sharp, right on the edge, and that’s where the Navy wanted them. I heard quite a few stories on that, from a Marine F4U making an emergency landing at the wrong base with telephone wires wrapped around a wing and the Hawaiian police hot on its tail, to Navy FM2s diving on Hawaiian sailboats and rolling them over with the propwash. The hot-dogging was never officially endorsed. This was the United States Navy Department, after all. But everybody knew the score. They’re in the moment of truth, they peel off and make their dives, you throw out the book. This is no practice drill. You want them on that edge, loose, unabashed, ready to take the risks, unafraid to push their aircraft to the limits, and then some. Call it the unofficial rule.


----------



## Balljoint (Feb 3, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> It looks to me like they’d have pretty much been a wash up against our F6Fs and F4Us. I heard what you suggested earlier in that these pilots didn’t really require miles and miles of experience in these aircraft to put on a good fight in them. I was told by guys who flew the F6Fs, in particular, one who was at Saipan, that combat “experience” only frightens you more. The thing is, get the tactical training in. On that requisite, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the Navy had a rule, you don’t goof off in these aircraft. Still, that’s all they did. It kept them sharp, right on the edge, and that’s where the Navy wanted them. I heard quite a few stories on that, from a Marine F4U making an emergency landing at the wrong base with telephone wires wrapped around a wing and the Hawaiian police hot on its tail, to Navy FM2s diving on Hawaiian sailboats and rolling them over with the propwash. The hot-dogging was never officially endorsed. This was the United States Navy Department, after all. But everybody knew the score. They’re in the moment of truth, they peel off and make their dives, you throw out the book. This is no practice drill. You want them on that edge, loose, unabashed, ready to take the risks, unafraid to push to their aircraft to the limits, and then some. Call it the unofficial rule.




My recollection of the guys who stayed in after the war fits this description. During Soldier Field flybys from the upper seats I could see down in the cockpit including the lighted instruments while they were flying towards the closed end of the bowl. Also, at the dedication of O’Hare –it was a grass AAF field- they trenched the field with their prop wash during high speed runs. 

They hosted some of our model plane meets at Glenview Naval Air station. Great guys. They showed us their planes and explained and flew demonstration of combat tactics.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 3, 2014)

That's getting down pretty low, Balljoint, if you could see that. Fantastic. But that's how it was. My dad was in the reserves after the war and he had to check out F6Fs periodically out of Glenview. Where would they go in them? Who knows? I never got around to finding that out. I know he buzzed his block and did a little performance once to a standing ovation out there, they lived in Cicero. Mostly, he said, there wouldn't be any complaints.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2014)

Zeke was a great plane, until it met the hellcat. kinda says volumes about just how good the hellcat was. 

The A6M8 would have evened up the playing field, but the hellcat would still hold some advantages. Peformance at altitude, dive speed, overall airframe strength, would have to go in favour of the F6F. Goes double for the P-51. im not saying the Zeke was obsolete, just outclassed. Once the yanks got into their stride, this was never going to change


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 5, 2014)

McGuire , 2nd highest scoring US pilot died after his plane stalled when he and 3 others attacked a lone Zero. 1945. Out of the encounter - two lightnings downed and the zero flew off. In the right hands, even then, a potentially very dangerous plane. Know your enemy!.

Low speed dogfight - Zero. High speed Corsair or Tempest.

Interestingly - Adding more power to an air-frame doesn't necessarily guarantee more speed or performance. Loads of factors in play of course - but a more modern air-frame with a more powerful engine would normally prove a better alternative. KI84 and Kawanishi N1K. Both superb planes and still maneuverable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 5, 2014)

SgtLeeHead,

I thought McGuire stalled and spun it in from failure to jettison his external fuel tanks? While the Zero pilot could claim that as a kill, it's more an example of pilot error. 

I was also under the impression that the 38 with maneuvering flaps down at low airspeed could turn almost as well as a Zero in part due to it's symetrical torque (of the motors). Anyone else have any info or opine on this?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Garyt (Feb 5, 2014)

> Goes double for the P-51. im not saying the Zeke was obsolete, just outclassed. Once the yanks got into their stride, this was never going to change



I'd think the KI-84 is a good argument against this statement.

Climb and speed roughly equivalent to the top end US fighters - and it could not turn with a Zeke, but it was not bad. And this was accomplished with struggles for quality control in the manufacturing (bombing had a fair amount to do with this, as well as of course shortages due to the sub attacks on the merchant marine), and with less than high quality fuel. Had armor for the pilot, self sealing fuel tanks and heavy armnament.

I've read when tested after the war with high octane fuel, US pilots could get to 426mph in level flight.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> SgtLeeHead,
> 
> I thought McGuire stalled and spun it in from failure to jettison his external fuel tanks? While the Zero pilot could claim that as a kill, it's more an example of pilot error.
> 
> ...



The P-38 entry in the 'US hundred thousand' book pretty much agrees re. bolded part.



Garyt said:


> I'd think the KI-84 is a good argument against this statement.
> 
> Climb and speed roughly equivalent to the top end US fighters - and it could not turn with a Zeke, but it was not bad. And this was accomplished with struggles for quality control in the manufacturing (bombing had a fair amount to do with this, as well as of course shortages due to the sub attacks on the merchant marine), and with less than high quality fuel. Had armor for the pilot, self sealing fuel tanks and heavy armnament.
> 
> I've read when tested after the war with high octane fuel, US pilots could get to 426mph in level flight.



US ground crew was fueling up the Japanese aircraft with 91 oct fuel. Such fuel was used mostly on trainers and transport aircraft. Quirk was to acquire the Ki-84 with it's engine in good, let alone excellent condition. US wartime reports credit the Ki-84 with 420+ mph. Here, Japanese aircraft section.
More about the Ha-45 here.


----------



## eagledad (Feb 5, 2014)

Gentlemen,

According to the book, Possum, Clover Hades, The 475th Fighter Group in World War II by John Stanaway, McGuire and his flight actually engaged a Ki-43 Oscar and not an A6M. However, initially the flight identified the Japanese aircraft as an A6M5.

The Ki-43 was flown by A/O Akira Sugimoto of the 54th Sentai. McGuire stalled his Lightning trying to get the Oscar off the tail of Capt Ed Weaver’s P-38. McGuire’s aircraft crashed with his drop tanks still attached.

Eagledad


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2014)

This is one of the entries in that book that i find very hard to accept. 

At 250 mph the A6M2 Zero 21 did a 1118' radius 180 degree turn was done in 5.62 seconds. For slower turns the radius was 612'. Normal positive g-load factor was 7g, safety limit was 8.8g; and normal negative was 3.5g with a safety factor of another 1.8g or 5.3g limit. Wing loading was 22 lb/sq. ft. Stability was neutral around all three axis, controls were light and beautifully harmonized. Stall was gentle and complemented it's slow speed dogfighting prowess. However as speed and altitude increased this diminished especially above 26,000'. Initial climb rate was 4517 fpm, not bad for 940-950 hp 19,685' was reached in 7 min. 27 sec. Power loading was 5.59 lb/hp.

Not as sure of the p-38, but it is generally regarded as a poor dogfighter, except by its zealot supporters. According to Chuck Hawks and another warbirds forum "Without employing the MANEUVER flaps, the P-38 did not turn as well as most other US planes. It had the largest minimum turning radius of all fighters. For comparison, it's minimum turning radius was about twice that of the FM-2 Wildcat. The flaps helped decrease turning radius at the expense of speed. The MANUEVER flaps helped, but still did not make the P-38 into legendary dogfighter"

"Regarding the turn radius of the Lightning in a dogfight, the P-38 had a trick up its sleeve that the others did not. It was the "cloverleaf" (no, not the same as used by the RAF bombers to avoid nightfighters) maneuver.

The P-38 had wonderful slow-speed stalling characteristics. It could be stalled and recovered losing almost no altitude and not entering a spin as so many single-engined fighters did. In a steep-banked, turning fight, the pilot could actually pull the Lightning into a momentary stall which resulted in a tightening of the turn radius for a short interval. Then, he would recover whereupon the greater turn radius would be re-established. It was during those short intervals that he could pull inside his adversary and give him a burst of those concentrated guns.

Viewed from above, if a complete circle was flown during which this stalling tactic was performed several times, the track of the aircraft through the air resembled a "cloverleaf," hence the name of the maneuver".


The trouble with this later quote is that to get to that magical situation, the P-38 had to be below 180mph. At that speed, the Zeke would complete its turn in a 612feet, and did it in about 3.5 seconds. In the time it took for the P-38 to complete its "magical manouver", the Zeke would be inside its turn, allover it like a dog on heat, and the P-38 in a world of trouble. Ther was only one manouver that virtually guranteed a kill....Keep the speed up, get the height, dive and use speed to get the hell out of dodge. any other claim about the zeke should be treated with the disdain it deserves. Never, repeat never, try and dogfight with a zero. The Hellcat was the best US type to attempt this, and even then, a pilot was giving away a lot by trying to turn with a zeke at low speed.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 5, 2014)

> US ground crew was fueling up the Japanese aircraft with 91 oct fuel. Such fuel was used mostly on trainers and transport aircraft. Quirk was to acquire the Ki-84 with it's engine in good, let alone excellent condition. US wartime reports credit the Ki-84 with 420+ mph. Here, Japanese aircraft section.
> More about the Ha-45 here (Nakajama HA-45 Hamore engine).



Interesting, also the link to the Hamore discussion.

Looks like the Ki-84 made 426mph with lower level octane fuel that it was designed for.

I wonder what it would have done on the 100 octane it was designed for...............


----------



## GregP (Feb 5, 2014)

Parsifal,

Either somebody's pulling your leg or you made a math error.

180 mph is 264 feet per second (Actually 236.989 feet per second, but you get the idea).

A circle with a diameter of 612 feet has a circumference of 3,845.3 feet, so the distance around 180° is 1,922.7 feet.

At 264 feet per second, and assuming he doesn't decelerate at all, it takes 7.28 seconds to cover the distance and complete the turn.

Besides that, VERY few aircraft could exceed 20° per second turn rate, and 180° divided by 3.5 seocnds is more than 51° per second, which has NEVER been done in a fixed wing aircraft in a level unstalled turn, even by a Harrier using VIFFing.

The math says your above figures are a tall tale that sounds good but doesn't wash. Physics doesn't lie. I'm assuming a typo in your figures since you are usually spot on. This is NOT an attack. Just trying to get it straight.

About the P-38, since maneuvering flaps aided the turn. they were routinely used by P-38 pilots in combat once fitted. Another trick they could use was asymmetric thrust to help the turn rate. It works in a P-38. Didn't turn it into a world-class dogfighter, either, but did surprise many Japanese pilots.

As far as being all over a P-38 like a dog in heat goes, it was quite the reverse in the real war. P-38's shot down 1,700 Japanese aircraft with very few losses in the PTO. That tells P-38's they didn't dogfight with Zero at 180 - 250 mph or the results would have been quite dfferent.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Interesting, also the link to the Hamore discussion.
> 
> Looks like the Ki-84 made 426mph with lower level octane fuel that it was designed for.
> 
> I wonder what it would have done on the 100 octane it was designed for...............



I'm not sure that it was designed for 100 oct fuel, standard Japanese fuel was 91 (or 92) octane. The lack of better fuel was to be circumvented via using water injection, in order to delay the onset of detonation.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2014)

> Either somebody's pulling your leg or you made a math error.
> 
> 180 mph is 264 feet per second (Actually 236.989 feet per second, but you get the idea).
> 
> A circle with a diameter of 612 feet has a circumference of 3,845.3 feet, so the distance around 180° is 1,922.7 feet.



My maths, and it is wrong, but so too is your calculation, i would respectfully submit, because, as is often the case, diameter and radius are mixed up. The circumference is 3.142 x diameter, or 6.284 x radius. If the figure given for the zeke is indeed a radius, then your figures are correct. if however the figure is a diameter and this circle being described by the zeke is a diameter of 612feet, not a radius, that means the full circle being described by the zeke is 1922.5 feet. A semicircle is half that or 961 feet. At 180mph is 264 feet per second as you point oput, but the distance to cover is a lot less than your calculations (except if its a radii). To cover that 961 feet, it would take the Zeke 3.6 seconds to complete. So, depending on whether the turn radius is a radius, or a diameter, you get 3.6 or 7.2 seconds. 



> At 264 feet per second, and assuming he doesn't decelerate at all, it takes 7.28 seconds to cover the distance and complete the turn.



Your calculation is wrong because youve mixed up radius and diameter. 



> Besides that, VERY few aircraft could exceed 20° per second turn rate, and 180° divided by 3.5 seocnds is more than 51° per second, which has NEVER been done in a fixed wing aircraft in a level unstalled turn, even by a Harrier using VIFFing.



There are plenty of accounts during the war of zekes being able to turn inside allied fighters and be on their tail in less than 5 seconsds. thats why all the tactical instructions given during the war say never get into a slow turning fight with a zeke. the RAAF trials between a Spit and a Zeke, undertaken in 1943, starting with the two aircraft at 180 degrees from each other, had the zeke on the tail of the spit, inside of 8 secs. and thats with the spit turning as fast as he can. And the spit was known for its turning ability. 



> The math says your above figures are a tall tale that sounds good but doesn't wash. Physics doesn't lie. I'm assuming a typo in your figures since you are usually spot on. This is NOT an attack. Just trying to get it straight.



I stand by those figures, more or less, on the basis that the turn radius is in fact a diameter. if not, it is 7.2 secs as you say. 



> About the P-38, since maneuvering flaps aided the turn. they were routinely used by P-38 pilots in combat once fitted. Another trick they could use was asymmetric thrust to help the turn rate. It works in a P-38. Didn't turn it into a world-class dogfighter, either, but did surprise many Japanese pilots.




P-38 was an outstanding fighter, but it was never a fantastic dogfighter. Using the right tactics, it had it allover the Zeke, but this was not the right tactic to use. 



> As far as being all over a P-38 like a dog in heat goes, it was quite the reverse in the real war. P-38's shot down 1,700 Japanese aircraft with very few losses in the PTO. That tells P-38's they didn't dogfight with Zero at 180 - 250 mph or the results would have been quite dfferent


.

Could not agree more. Though when the figures for US claimas over sekes are added up, they exceed the actual number of zekes lost by about 2 or 3:1. P-38s achieved their kill rates, not by dogfighting with a zeke, they did by dive, shoot and scoot.


----------



## GregP (Feb 5, 2014)

Sorry Parsifail, I didn't mix up anything.

The P-38J, flaps up, had a power off stall speed of 99 mph and a power-on stall speed of 74 mph. Let’s assume the aircraft would be in a power-on condition in a dogfight. That means that at 180 mph (264 feet per second), the aircraft could just sustain a bank of 80.2° and have the stall speed be right at 180 mph. To be safe, let’s give the pilot a 10 mph cushion in stall speed. That puts his power-on stall speed at 170 mph, where he can sustain a bank angle of 79°.

A level 79° bank produces a g-load of 5.24 g’s which produces a turn radius of 421 feet and time to complete the turn of 5.0 seconds. I doubt the P-38 could do this, meaning it probably could not sustain a 180 mph level turn. After some checking, I found one place where it was stated the P-38’s best level sustained turn was at 165 mph. If we again give the pilot a stall speed cushion, he could sustain a 77° turn (stall speed is 156 mph), resulting in a 77° bank. This produces 4.4-g’s and results in a turn radius of 420 feet with a time to complete the turn of 5.4 seconds, power-on.

That seems altogether unreasonable since it would mean a turn rate of about 33.3° per second and the best I have seen for a P-38 WITH maneuver flaps is about 21.6° per second, and that was at the corner speed of 165 mph At that rate, the turn at 165 mph would take 8.33 seconds, and that IS reasonable or close to it, and in line with the known turn rate for a P-38J with maneuver flaps. That puts the P-38 at 3.01g’s and a turn radius of 642 feet.

I have seen the A6M5 quoted at being very nearly 30° per second at low altitudes, one of the best numbers ever recorded for a fighter of any sort. Assuming a low altitude and 30° per second, this mean the A6M5 might complete the same 180° turn the P-38J did in 8.33 seconds in 6.0 seconds (5.999 actually). Assuming the Zero is also turning at 165 mph, this would mean the Zero is sustaining a 4.06-g turn at a bank angle of 75.7° with a 462 foot turn radius.

So, at 165 mph we have the Zero turning at 72% of the turn radius of a Zero and pulling about 1/3 more g’s. The g’s calculated are well within the Zero’s structural limits and within the stall speed increase of a 75° bank for the Zero. 

That sounds reasonable to me and tells me why the P-38’s didn’t DO that in combat ... they'd be out-maneuvered. Since they avoided this condition like the plague, the Zero were almost never all over the P-38's. Never fight to your opponent's strengths.

Now if we had a P-38 pilot who DID try to maneuver with a Zero at low speed, he'd probably be toast as you stated. But no Zero EVER turned at over 50° per second. Nothing else did either except maybe a bulldozer at full power.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2014)

According to the aircraft performance trials (Mike Williams' site), a zeke 52 could circle an F4U within 3.5 turns (that is, starting parallel). A Hellcat is not stated but ive read elsewhere it would take 4 turns for the zeke to "circle' the hellcat. FM-2 needed 8 circuits to be "lapped", and the P-38 was more than twice the radius of the FM-2. These trials were below 10000 ft and at airspeeds of around 175 knots

Flight test repots for the P-38G make the following recommendations/observations (WAR DEPARTMENT AIR CORPS, MATERIEL DIVISION Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio) 


"_Inasmuch as the general maneuverability of this aircraft is probably the lowest of any type of current fighter aircraft, and in view of the competition facing the P-38G in the European Theatre, all possible effort should be made to improve its rate of climb and high speed. 

c. The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180° in 360° circle) due to maneuver flaps. 

d. Buffeting was noticeable but at higher speeds and accelerations than in the P-38F. 

e. The P-38G will outzoom the P-38F. 

f. The P-38G will hold its altitude in turns at thirty-five-thousand (35,000) feet, whereas the P-38F loses altitude. 

g. The P-38G holds its advantages over the P-38F at all altitudes. 

h. The lack of sufficient intercooling holds down the performance of the P-38G as well as the P-38F"_


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2014)

So, if the p-38 had a turn radius of about twice that of an FM-2, and the turn radius of the FM-2 is about 1/8 worse than the Zeke, very roughly (because i dont know the turn radius for a P-38), we can estimate the P-38 as having a turn radius at 250mph and 10000 feet of about 2500feet. Compare that to 1118feet for the zeke. if these figures are anywhere near right, the Zeke will travel 7025 feet @250 mph to describe a full circle, whilst the Lightning will need to move 15807 feet. The problem is, we dont know the speeds of the two aircraft...optimum turning sppeed i believe will be higher for the P-38. but if they do travel at the same speed, the Zeke will do 2 turns for every one turn done by the P-38. Thats roughly twice as sluggish as an F6f


----------



## GregP (Feb 5, 2014)

C'mon Parsifal, get ressonable/ Your number is about right above, but you fail to state the F4U was turning about 1260° while the Zero was turning about 900°.

Let's say the Zero turned 3.5 turns (1,260°) at 30° per second (the max turn rate I have EVER seen for a Zero at it's best altitude). That takes 42 seconds. If it circles an F4U in that time, the F4U completes 2.5 turns (900°) in that same time. That is a turn rate of 21.4° per second and is quite in line with the expected value. I believe it.

So what is your point? 

It STILL can't complete a 180 turn in 3.5 seconds. Your statement makes my point almost exactly. I already said that the Zero would out-turn a P-38 at 165 mph since it can make the turn in about 6 seconds to the P-38's 8.22 seconds. That's why the P-38 and all other fighters avioded combat with the Zero at low speeds. It's in the combat reports, too.

I didn't dispute the Zero was more maneuverable; it was ... I disputed the Zero being able to make a 180° turn in 3.5 seconds, and still do say that.

We are BOTH saying the Zero was more maneuverable ... we're disagreeing on the turn rate of the Zero.

Tell you what, if you can get Bill (Drgondog) to go along with a turn rate of 50° per second for the Zero, I'll be really impressed and simultaneously amazed.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2014)

I was using the Mike Williams test results. there are more than one report, but the best is 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

The relevant quote is on Page 2. The important thing that these reports say is that the Zeke at low speed (up to 250 mph) at low to medium altitudes was far superior to any American fighter, under any conditions. provided the fight was 10K and the speed was below 250 mph, the zeke was going to get the better situation


I dont think the zeke can turn 180 degree in 3.5 secs either at 180 mph or 250mph, but 7.22 secs is on the cards at those speeds. Dont know what happens at 150 or 130 mph which is what it has to do to turn at 612 feet.

The last post was about how many turns the zeke could do in comparison to any US fighter you care to nominate. And remember how this discussion started. it was claimed the p-38 was the most manouverable fighter in the US inventory, its wasnt, it was claimed the P-38 under some conditions could out turn a Zeke, it never could, so long as the speed remained below 250mph. Even at speeds of 300mph, against most US aircraft, it was still competitive, if not superior. Given that most dogfights were at speeds below 300mph, this makes the zeke the preferred dogfight sircraft. The US did not win the fighters war using manouvre tactics. they won it using dive, speed, protection flying as you say to their own strengths, and not those of the Zeke

my response was the claim that the p-38 could out turn a Zeke....not your claim, but a claim made close to here.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2014)

The P-38 absolutely CAN out-turn a Zero, but not a low speeds. Put them both at 320 mph and the P-38 will be on the Zero's tail in short order.

And at some speeds, the P-38 will out-turn almost any other US fighter. Conversely, use the other fighter's best turn rate velocity and the situation will be reversed. So if all you wan to do is trash the P-38, you can find conditions where that is the case. If you want to prove the other case, you can ALSO find conditions where that is true.

I cannot agree that the P-38 was a slug of a fighter, and neither would our top two Aces in WWII, both of whom scored their victories in a P-38.

I can admit the Zero was the king of maneuverability at low speeds, though, as any turn graphs will show, and I like the Zero even if it was outclassed by 1944. To me it is the best-looking fighter of WWII. But I like radials.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2014)

P-38 is one of my favourite US aircraft. and that makes it one of my favourite aircraft. 

we are not that far from the same page in this. No argument that at higher speeds, the zeke rapidly lost its manouverability. at 320 mph it turned like a number 9 bus. Though Sakai during his fight with the Hellcats in 1945, was travelling and out turning them (actually it was a half roll and pull the stick back turn he used) at speeds just under 351 mph. 

but what i would say is that the curve under which the zeke was most manouverable was the speeds that most dogfights would occur. Most dogfights, i am told tended to happen at speeds below 300 mph. thats arguable, but seems logical to me. If you think about the context of when a Zeke might be used as a fighter, usually to intercept US bomber strikes, against all except the B-29 (and possibly the Mosquito and A-20), most of those raids would occur at speeds of you guessed it, 200-250 mph. Same applies when its employed as an escort itself. Sure as an escort fighter, they would tend to need to fight at the interceptors choice of height, speed etc, but it just shows that fighters dont work in isolation, they are part of a team effort, and the team generally moved at around 200-250 mph.

Even today,, gunnery dogfights tend to be below Mach, and thats in jets

Surely you would agree, the US tactics against the Zeke were not to engage in a turning fight. boom and Zoom are in all the tactical analyses Ive seen, the results (dare i say it) of wargaming and testing of the zeke with the principal mounts ranged against it. 

If the Zekes had been able to maintain some semblance of pilot skill, they would have maintained a better record than they did. But the weakneses of the Zeke and the falling pilot standards fed off each other in an ever worsening power dive. the vulnerability and weakness of the Zeke made it an easy target to shoot down, which increased pilot wastage. increased pilot wastage meant that standards fell quicker. Quicker falls increase the loss rate, and so on. it was a vicious circle, from which there was no escape.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2014)

Yup, agree. I think that even in something like an F-15, a hard-turning dogfight would wind up under Mach 1, as you said.

Actually I'm not too sure what the average speeds for a dogfight would be, but I tend to agree they'd at least start out realtively slow. I assume the fighters would both be at cruise speed when one side saw the other side. They would probably accelerate and initiate an ambush. If the other side saw them, the'd accelerate with somewhat less time to do it and try to counter.

The P-38 was our fastest-accelerating fighter, but I would not be surprised if the initial pass was below 300 mph. The rest of the fray would depend on whether or not they climbed, dived, or stayed level. The P-38's wanted it fast and the Zero wanted it medium to slow. Somebody would get their wish.

About Sakai, I think he was an exceptional pilot and if the planes were reversed, he still might get out of the way and survive.

I'm not a very big fan of the Buffalo but, in the proper hands, it shot down a lot of Russian planes. Didn't exactly do that in US service. Thank the Finns for it.

The P-38 did quite well if not quite at the top of its class. There can only be one validictorian. That went to the P-51 in US service. But the Hellcat, Corsair, and Lightning weren't taken lightly by any opponent unless he was in the middle of a surprise ambush. Even then, the victim's friends might not take that without trying their best to kill him in return for the deed.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 6, 2014)

Tomo Pauk wrote:



> I'm not sure that it was designed for 100 oct fuel, standard Japanese fuel was 91 (or 92) octane. The lack of better fuel was to be circumvented via using water injection, in order to delay the onset of detonation.



This is from the link to the thread on the Homare, which seems to indicate the Homare was indeed designed for 100 octane fuel - apparently the designers were about to optimistic as to what fuel would be available after the start of the war.



> Quote Originally Posted by rinkol View Post
> I have a reference written by the designer, Ryoichi Nakagawa, that I am sure says that the original design was intended for 100 octane fuel, but with the start of the war, the engine had to be modified to run off 92 octane fuel. The low quality of the available oil was another issue. Unfortunately, the document seems to be buried amonst others.






> Robert
> Thank you. Found what is probably the same reference online, for a fee. It appears the Homare was originally designed for 100 octane but had to be modified by IJA decree to take 87-92 octane fuel due to predicted wartime restrictions.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2014)

Thanks for that info.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2014)

Problem is that we really don't know much about Japanese fuels. Maybe somebody does but any reports/analysis seems not to have made it in to most commonly available books/web sites. 

The Japanese would certainly have been _aware_ of 100 octane fuel as it existed in small quantities for a number of years (Howard Hughes used it in 1935) it was certainly no secret in 1940 (Rolls Royce had given out performance figures for Merlins using *A* 100 octane fuel at the Paris Air show of 1938 ). However the actual performance of "100" octane fuel carried quite a bit. Were they measuring lean or rich response? It _might_ be quite possible to make 92/100 fuel given a suitable base stock. Early US 100 octane (1938-40 at least) was 100 octane lean and around 98-103 octane rich mixture (yes, _some_ lots were actually under 100 octane when operated rich but since NO TESTS existed nobody KNEW which lots were which when they were produced and not tests existed for acceptance. 
We do know that Dutch East Indies fuel was rich in aromatics which tend to help rich response but I sure don't know enough about any other characteristics of DEI fuel to even have a guess as to how well ( or badly) it compared to south east Asian fuel. Or what the production break down would be ( how many gallons of which type fuel per barrel of crude oil). 

Japanese 92 octane may or may not have been better than US 91/96 commercial fuel.


----------



## Balljoint (Feb 7, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Problem is that we really don't know much about Japanese fuels. Maybe somebody does but any reports/analysis seems not to have made it in to most commonly available books/web sites.
> 
> The Japanese would certainly have been _aware_ of 100 octane fuel as it existed in small quantities for a number of years (Howard Hughes used it in 1935) it was certainly no secret in 1940 (Rolls Royce had given out performance figures for Merlins using *A* 100 octane fuel at the Paris Air show of 1938 ). However the actual performance of "100" octane fuel carried quite a bit. Were they measuring lean or rich response? It _might_ be quite possible to make 92/100 fuel given a suitable base stock. Early US 100 octane (1938-40 at least) was 100 octane lean and around 98-103 octane rich mixture (yes, _some_ lots were actually under 100 octane when operated rich but since NO TESTS existed nobody KNEW which lots were which when they were produced and not tests existed for acceptance.
> We do know that Dutch East Indies fuel was rich in aromatics which tend to help rich response but I sure don't know enough about any other characteristics of DEI fuel to even have a guess as to how well ( or badly) it compared to south east Asian fuel. Or what the production break down would be ( how many gallons of which type fuel per barrel of crude oil).
> ...



The high octane fuels were the result of reforming feed stocks –cat cracking for the most part I think- rather than the feedstock constituents. Bit of irony that the basic reformation concept is a Russian (pre Bolshevik) invention.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2014)

You could get the high performance fuels from certain feed stocks without cat-cracking, just not anywhere near the the numbers of gallons per barrel that cat cracking delivered, Cat cracking did allow more marginal feed stocks to be used also. Please note that Cat-cracking is different than distilled "straight run" gasoline. Amount of allowable lead also entered the picture. And the same amount of lead added to different "blends" of gasoline gave different peak results even if the "unleaded" but different "base" mixture tested the same. 

91/96 is about as good as gets for gasoline found in the ground as part of the crude oil. You _can_ get up to 125 PN from straight run gasoline. Higher performance requires blending and the use of aromatics ( which can be produced by cat-cracking base stocks)

Lead does have rather diminish returns but tipping the lead "can" a bit more did allow for some significant increase in production at certain times without having to relax the performance of the fuels.


----------



## sgtleehead (Feb 7, 2014)

eagledad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> According to the book, Possum, Clover Hades, The 475th Fighter Group in World War II by John Stanaway, McGuire and his flight actually engaged a Ki-43 Oscar and not an A6M. However, initially the flight identified the Japanese aircraft as an A6M5.
> 
> ...



Your right actually - sorry poor memory. But the point I was trying to make was about the danger factor, because the Zero was more maneuverable then the KI-43. When we look at the ability to maneuver the figures quoted more commonly or compared, are generally based on low combat speeds as already alluded to by GregP. At higher speeds the ability to turn can be completely changed. The Tempest or the corsair were classic examples. The Tempest could still maneuver well at high speeds so it had a consistent threshold of agility throughout the speed envelope. The Zeros flight performance drastically changed as the speeds increased. That's what made the Tempest such a good plane. Some observers would overlook the performance throughout the whole spectrum and just concentrate on say, the maximum turn at low speed. Even the British initially did the same in the initial flight trials of the Tempest.

I have to say - the maths here is confusing!


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 7, 2014)

sgtleehead said:


> Your right actually - sorry poor memory. But the point I was trying to make was about the danger factor, *because the Zero was more maneuverable then the KI-43*.
> ....



Do we know for sure that Zero was more maneuverable than Ki-43?


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2014)

I had always read the opposite, that the Ki-43 was actually more maneuverable than the Zero, but was very lightly armed.

Getting real comparisons is tricky since the Ki-43 was IJA and the Zero was IJN ... and the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy hated each other. The last thing they'd do would be to run trials against each other.

It would have turned into a Kamakaze demonstration of ramming.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 7, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Do we know for sure that Zero was more maneuverable than Ki-43?


I wouldn't know, tomo pauk. But the thing to me is both required tactical thinking "outside the box" to deal with.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2014)

Ki43 was fitted with special manouvre flaps that apparently that gave it greater a tighter turning ability than a Zero, however I think the Zeke was able to compete its turn quicker at certain speeds and heights. The Zeke as statefd previously at 180 mph under 10K was repotedly able too complete a 180 degree turn in about 5.7 seconds. some aources say 7.22 seconds. I suspect the former is a single turn manouvre, whilst the latter is a sustained turn rate.

Converting that to an (estimated) 360, I get 11.4s max turn and 14.4secs sustained turn rate 

The problem with turn rates is that they can be highly variable depending on pilot skill, weather conditions and other variables, so i need to preface this comparsion by stating up fron that they may not be necessarily comparable. i have absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other

Im skeptical, but one source from a magazine that i have gives the following figures for the Ki43

@ entry speed of 300mph 
a 360 deg turn
1,000ft 11.1s
5,000ft 12.4s
10,000ft 12.3s

2 x 360 deg turns 
1,000ft 21.6s 
5,000ft 23.4s
10,000ft 25.0s

@ entry speed 250mph 
One 360 
1,000ft 9.3s 
5,000ft 10.1s
10,000ft 10.8s
15000ft 12.4s
9.3s 10.1s 10.8s 12.4s 

Two 360s 21.1s 22.5s 25.4s 28.9s 
1,000ft 9.3s 
5,000ft 10.1s
10,000ft 10.8s
15000ft 12.4s


Sustained turn rates 
No Flaps 12.6s 13.6s 15.9s 18.9s 
Full Flaps 12.3s 13.6s 15.0s 18.0s 

At the stated altitudes (speeds not specified) 

Best Flap in all situations was to apply full flaps

Stall speeds in these tight tiurns could fall ewell belowe 100mph without risk of a stall 

If those figures are true, and i doubt it, the Ki43 was one hell of a turn fighter


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2014)

As a comparison I looked up the turn characteristics of the Me 109e and Spitfire I from Mike Wiliams. i should preface this by saying apparently the turn radius at best speed and altitude, without significant loss of altitude for the Ki43 was listed in the above used article as 360feet


According to Mike Willams (who quotes the RAE test results), the RAE determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the corresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. Compare that to 360feet and 10.8 secs for the Ki43. This is where my maths is going to go down in a big way, but what the heck....If the Spt and the Ki43 start parrallel and get into a turning fight, the Ki43 should be on the tail of the Spit pretty quickly. In just under 11 secs the Ki43 would have done a full 360, whilst the spit has done a bit over 180 degrees. another 5.4 secs and the Ki43 has done 180 degrees, the Spit about 90 degrees (only doing this roughly). Another 2.7 secs and the Ki43 has done a further 90 degrees, the Spit about 50.....I think by then the Ki43 would well and truly be in a really good firing position. adding that up and the Japanese fighter has gone from parrallel to astern in about 19 secs. if that is even anywhere near right, that is impressive.


----------



## eagledad (Feb 8, 2014)

Greetings

From a captured Oscar II handbook found at J-aircraft.com, one can find the following for the Ki-43:

XI. Turning Performance:

Altitude / Direction / IAS / Radius / Time / RPM / AMP
1969' / Left / 205 m.p.h ./ 307.4’/ 10.8/ 2700 / 37.8
1969’ / Right / 205 m.p.h ./ 301.5’/ 11.0/ 2700 / 37.8

AMP = Engine Manifold Pressure
,
And from the magazine Air Force June, 1945:

“Furthermore, there is the fact that the Oscar Mark 2 is the most maneuverable of all the present Jap fighter planes. American pilots who have tried to turn with the Zeke 52 can attest to its maneuverability. The Oscar Mark 2 can out maneuver the Zeke. The Oscar Mark 2 also has armor plate and leak proof tanks, an indication of the extent to which the Japs (sic) have improved their aircraft.”

I would agree that as long as a P-51, a P-47, or P-38 stayed away from slow speed engagements, they would have their way against either an A6M or Ki-43.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

> I would agree that as long as a P-51, a P-47, or P-38 stayed away from slow speed engagements, they would have their way against either an A6M or Ki-43.



I'd agree to a point, though they really are not going to do well climbing against a Zeke either, their best bet in the vertical is a dive.

But one problem I see is there is not a magical counter on US aircraft that would say whether they were low, medium or high speed. I'm sure some of the times US planes were shot down by Zekes even late war was not an intentional engagement at slow speed. My guess is they would follow the Zeke, initially at high speeds, burn some energy and velocity in a turn or two, and the pilot is thinking "I'm following this Zeke, and in just a few more seconds I'll be on it's 6", and probably in the excitement they have bled enough energy to be now at the Zekes favorite velocity for dog fighting.

I do indeed think as written on another thread here that the specifics of the engagements had a lot to to with Japanese fighter losses, more so than the aircraft itself. Being badly outnumbered, having US planes decide place and altitude of engagement very often, being able to effectively vector planes better against an already outnumbered foe, etc.

Not to mention things such as parts, supplies, and quality of fuel. The US had the best logistics of the war by far, and Japan had re-supply problems that only got worse as the war went on. As someone on another thread pointed out to me, and well maintained vehicle is going to perform far better than one that's close to falling apart!

I'd think given all these problems, It would not really matter what type of plane the Japanese had at their disposal, they would have been at a severe disadvantage.

Now I do think that if the early war Japanese planes would have been a bit more survivable they could have lost less pilots, at least perhaps stopping the bleeding a little bit from the pilot attrition they suffered from.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2014)

Garyt said:


> I'd agree to a point, though they really are not going to do well climbing against a Zeke either.



Depends where (altitude) and at what speed we're talking about...


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

> Depends where (altitude) and at what speed we're talking about...



And of course which variant.

But at about 5,000 meters and below, the A6M3 could pretty well hang with the others mentioned in a climb. And I don't mean be better than the others in a climb - I just mean that neither has a decided advantage in a climb, though the late model P38's pretty well out climb any of the others listed here. what really surprises me is the P-51's rather lethargic climb in relationship to it's top-end speed. I'd also think it's acceleration would be a bit lacking in comparison. I don't expect the P-47 to be a great climber at lower altitudes given it's weight, though it's solid at high altitude.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 7, 2014)

the same arguments.....overwhelmed by numbers.....short of airplanes....inferior aircraft...lack of trained pilots (numberwise )....spare parts...ground crews abilities to bring damaged planes back to servicable condition...etc., etc., could be said about the RAF and USAAC forces in the PTO in 41. could also be said about the polish AF in 39....and VVS in 41. the difference was the axis powers had the advantage in men and machines ( and technology somewhat ) and lost it while the allies started off behind the 8 ball but tooled up and changed that equation. the axis wouldnt or couldnt escalate their manufacturing and training to exploit their advantage and stay ahead whereas the allies were able to pick up the pace and overtake their foes. it seems everyone is quick to point out all those disadvantages the japanese and germans faced late in the war and use that as some sort of excuse whey the allies were able to bully them around. but it was the same scenario in reverse that let them enjoy all their quick gains and easy victories....but you dont really hear that as an excuse why they were that successful early on.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

> it seems everyone is quick to point out all those disadvantages the japanese and germans faced late in the war and use that as some sort of excuse whey the allies were able to bully them around. but it was the same scenario in reverse that let them enjoy all their quick gains and easy victories....but you dont really hear that as an excuse why they were that successful early on.



Well, this is not quite accurate.

The Japanese always had inferior radar and radio communication through out the war. Even at Midway, their planes had been flying for a long time without proper replacement and maintenance, they were even short of their full complement of planes.

I'd say that in the Pacific theatre, the US was in pretty good shape with it's carrier planes at least from the start, and from Mid 42 on I wqould not see any long term logistic problems they had.

Fuel was a major issue for both the Japanese and Germany, for Japan almost from the outset, for Germany by mid 43 I'd think. The US never had fuel shortages,other than perhaps very temporary issue with supply keeping up with the advance.

This fuel issue for Japan and Germany helped create problems for them with training new pilots. and one thing the US never had t worry about was having a war free zone for their pilots to train in - by late 43 in Germany, later in Japan, the skies over their homeland were not safe for training.

The problems Japan and Germany faced vs. the allies are not equivalent to early war allied situations. Now, it may be a bit similar to what minor countries had as disadvantages early in the war, but that's about it. The Allies had a few disadvantages that the Axis did, but certainly not all or even the majority of disadvantages late war Axis powers had. Or, if they did have these problems, like US in the Philipines in the early going, it was a rather isolated and short term issue.



> the axis wouldnt or couldnt escalate their manufacturing and training to exploit their advantage and stay ahead whereas the allies were able to pick up the pace and overtake their foes.



Could not is probably the correct term. The combined Axis powers, including Italy were about neck and neck but still behind US manufacturing from the start of the war til abut 43, with the US going up about 2/1 in 43-44, and even worse for the Axis in 1945. And that's only the US, not counting Russia and Great Britain, and China for that matter where the Japanese invested and lost a lot of their army's energies.

Aircraft production was about 620,000 for the Allies, 210,000 for the Axis.

In crude oil production the Allies had better than a 2-1 advantage.

This production disadvantage IMO is well illustrated in the Navies of the US and Japanese. Japan was fighting WW2 with a navy predominantly from the 1930's, their biggest period of buildup (plus older vessels), will the US fought the war with ships built in the 40's due to their industrial might. This period saw significant advancement in ship design, making the Japanese vessels decidedly old fashioned compared to their US opponents.

It's pretty simple - the Axis powers were pretty well doomed in World War II once the United States entered the war. It would have taken almost a miracle for the Axis to have achieved a victory unless they were able to get the Allied powers to sue for peace early, which I do not believe they ever would have done.

We can speak all we want of heroism - but in the simplest terms, the Axis powers were out produced.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2014)

> It's pretty simple - the Axis powers were pretty well doomed in World War II once the United States entered the war. It would have taken almost a miracle for the Axis to have achieved a victory unless they were able to get the Allied powers to sue for peace early, which I do not believe they ever would have done.




I think its a far more close race than that. this views the whole thing without taking into account the acute manpower issues that the US potentially faced. In overall effect, what you are saying is correct, but the suggestion there is pretty clear, the war was won by US production alone, or at worst, predominantly. in point of fact the US production capability was but one of the factoprs that led to the allied victory. it was a critical factor, but in my opinion was not even the main reason. 

The single most important reason for the Axis defeat was the multiplicity of fronts that they opened up and did not finish. By 1942, the Axis were heavily engaged in the Battle Of the Atlantic, had substantial forces in the Med, had significant garrison duties in Western and Northern Europe. They were already engaged in a hevy level of air activity in western europe. they had an ongoing war against indigenous resistance movements in Europe and partisans in Russia. There was a heavy drain on manpower and machines on the Eastern Front.

In the pacific, the Japanese had large numbers of troops and aircraft locked away facing off the russians, they had large proportions locked in a stalemate in China, other significant forces in the CBI TO, and a lesser number in the SWPAC area. They did not know it, but they had already reached the limits of expansion that their limited shipping capacity would allow, which was the major reason there was no major expansion of their blue water navy after 1942. 

The US contribution until 1944, in all TOs, including the Pacific, was actually fairly secondary, including the vaunted lend lease aid. after 1944 it was decisive, but without these supportinbg elements of Allied victory, an all american victory was a remote possiblity. The biggest single constraint preventing the US from prosecuting the war single handedly was manpower, or more specifically, trained manpower. at no point during the war were they able to train anywhere near enough manpower to support a heavy committment of land forces to a protracted battle in the way the Russians and the Chinese were. if they had tried that, they would have very quickly seen their land forces fall apart in front of their eyes.

at sea, the Americans excelled at what is referred to as blue water naval operations, which later could be expanded also to include undersea operations. But in terms of the grey water operations, needed to just stay alive, the USN came up very shoret, and contributed more to the near defeat of th allies in 1942 than any other single event during all of the war. If the Germans were not distracted by other committments in 1942, they would have unquestionably have won the Battle of the Atlantic, and that would have dragged the US down almost as badly as Britain in terms of economic collapse. 

The US contribution was crucial, and victory without them was just about impossible, but so too was victory without all the others supporting them, and doing the lions share of the fighting until well into 1944. In 1942, the war was definately loseable for the allies.....In 1943 it was still possible to lose to the extent of the axis being able to secure a negotiated peace or truce, but from 1944, the end was inevitable....


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2014)

Before anzone of our friends across the pond steps in, I'd like to add that US contribution was substantial way before 1944. Before 1942 ended, the Kido Butai was a shade of it's former self, with four fleet carriers at the bottom of the sea. Those don't really grow at the trees. The loss of creme de la creme, the trained and experienced air and shiop crews, was mostly a consequence of efforts of US forces. 
We also might recall the efforts of the USN during Battle of Atlantic, and the Wasp CV covering Med conwoys.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 8, 2014)

parsifal said:


> [...]but the suggestion there is pretty clear, the war was won by US production alone, or at worst, predominantly.


As trivial as that might sound, I think it sums it up pretty well. We'll add geography to that. Not only was the mainland producing, it was let alone.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2014)

Dont misquote me. The US made a significant contribution to the war. without their contribution victory was impossible. but equally,without the contribution of all the allies, in particular the russians, it was imppossible for the US to win on its own either.

1942 was perhaps the critical year. in that year the Russians finally defeated the Germans in battle, the British achieved also a decisive vistory on the southern front and another substantial air victory over Germany, as well as several significant victories at sea, for which overall victory was impossible without it. 

In the Pacific the US achieved a great tactical victory at Midway, and lesser less decisive ones at Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons and suffred a tactical defeat at Santa Cruz. They achieved a strategic victory on guadacanal, but along the way suffered numerous tactical defeats. Hand in hand with the allied vistoiries in Papua, the containment of the Japanese was ensured.

Significant as these actions were in the Pacific,, they were not essential to final victory in the Pacific. In hindsight the Allies could simply have pulled back even further and stretched the Japanese even more than they did. Japanese collapse would have been more spectacular than it was, if the allies had not rushed forward to meet them.

Much is made of US production, but in 1942, whilst undeniably significant, was not truly decisive yet. It accounted for about 15% of allied military outputs and weapons usage in 1942. American shipbuilding was a major input, but set against that was the very heavy losses sustained off the US seaboard to German U-Boats, and the almost 1 million tons of shipping lost in the pacific as well. As for the US being a safe arsenal of production, well, to an extent yes, but US production efficiency still relied on foreign imports and seaborne transport for more than 60% of its efficiency, and the mismanagment of the US merchant marine almost wrecked that cosy feeling of security. The Americans managed, in the finish, to only lose about 2 million tons more in shipping than they built, so we ought not be too harsh on them I suppose.

As the war progressed after that time, US contribution increased and they did become the arsenalo of the allied cause, but this is simply untrue in 1942. And whilst they produced vast quantities of material, as I said, their limited amounts of trained manpower always prevented them from meeting the German army head on, until the russians had torn the heart out of the heer for them. Russian blood, over American mateiel, was the most important determinat of Allied victory, but even that is an inadequate claim, in the end, it was an allied victory, in which all players played a part, and no part was completely indispensable

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 8, 2014)

I profusely apologize for that, parsifal. I took it as your position and a clear reading is it wasn't.


----------

