Best fighter in the world in 1940? Spitfire, 109, Zero, or something else

[parsifal]

guys


Thanks for the information but it is not my point that the me 109 was not mass produceable. Rather, i was pointing out that the spitfire also was produceable. Some people have suggested that the spitfire was difficult to produce, and whilst there was some evidence of production difficulties due mainly to the specialised skills needed to build the airframe, in 1940 there is no evidence that added complexity had any noticeable effect on output. in that year, with less resources dedicated to the production of the spitfire than were being devoted by the germans to 109 production, the British outproduced the germans 2:1 roughly speaking. That does not support the notion that the spitfire was hard to build

 

[Markus]

Hmmm:
F2A-3 (Brewster Model B-439): Third production model. ...


So not a landplane for the DEI (that was the 339C/D), ...

Almost, the model 339-23 or 439 was the second batch for the DEI. None of the planes made it to that place, they were send to Australia in 1942. Compared to the eariler models it´s engine was more powerful at altitude.

I don't understand the negativity about the Zero, especially in 1940. I believe the knowledge about 1944/45 colours this view. Estimated 99% of the fighters at that time (1940) hardly had any armour/self sealing tanks, so almost all fighters in the world were 'flying gas tanks'. But the Zero did that while being very competitive to all fighters at that time. It wasn't slow by 1940'ies standard had more range than any of his competitors and a big punch with it's 20mm canons. I think it's a contender indeed. Would like to see the Bf109e or spit mk.I duel with the Zero in 1940. The outcome might not be so obvious as many think.

When in 1940? By May the Me109E-3 had armour, by the time of the BoB the LW had the E-7 with SS-tanks. And the Zero was only competitive because it´s opponents frankly sucked! The RAF in Malaya bore very little resemblemce to the force that won the BoB or held on to Malta. The only "professionals" in the area were the fighter pilots of the USN and they were not outfought by the Japanese.

 

[Glider]

guys


Thanks for the information but it is not my point that the me 109 was not mass produceable. Rather, i was pointing out that the spitfire also was produceable. Some people have suggested that the spitfire was difficult to produce, and whilst there was some evidence of production difficulties due mainly to the specialised skills needed to build the airframe, in 1940 there is no evidence that added complexity had any noticeable effect on output. in that year, with less resources dedicated to the production of the spitfire than were being devoted by the germans to 109 production, the British outproduced the germans 2:1 roughly speaking. That does not support the notion that the spitfire was hard to build

When looking at numbers it might help to remember other considerations. In this context the most important one being that the UK economy was on a war footing more or less from the moment the war started. Germany wasn't on a full war footing until I think 1942. Factories were not working around the clock and women were not allowed in the factories for what were considered jobs for men.

Its always been my belief that the 109 and Hurricanes were a lot easier to build than the Spitfire but I will have to dig around to see what I can find.

 

[davebender]

Land Based - Bf 109 with the Spit 1a in a very close second
Carrier Based - Zero

I agree with this.

As for the range issue in the BoB, for some reason the Luftwaffe chose not to stockpile drop tanks at the start of the war. Nor did the German Navy choose to stockpile anywhere near enough aerial mines. Those two logistical decisions made life a lot easier for Britain during 1940 but they are not aircraft flaws.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks a few points...

The Bf 109 had some features that would outwardly make it an easier aircraft to build. With that said, the point about the Spitfire's elliptical wing might have been an issue if you were to continually hand build each aircraft. Once mass quantities of these aircraft were ordered there was production tooling made to not only facilitate ease of construction, but to allow semi skilled and unskilled labor to assemble the aircraft. This was basically true with regards to all WW2 aircraft manufacturers, allied or axis. Parsifal brings out some excellent points with regards to factory floor space and manhours.

As far as the Hurricane being easier to construct - true to a point but once construction methodologies were developed for the Spitfire, I'm not too sure that was true. Application of dope can sometimes be tedious and time consuming and is also affected by temperature and humidity. Assembling wood sub-assemblies are also time consuming and require skilled workers as opposed to some components that can be "stamped" or drop hammer formed. In the end aluminum is a lot more resilient to the elements than fabric and wood.

 

[fastmongrel]

I think a lot of the initial problems with Spitfire construction were caused by the simple fact that Supermarines were a relatively small flying boat and seaplane manufacturer. The largest order that Supermarine had before the initial order for 310 Spits was for the Supermarine Walrus. I cant find the numbers for the initial order for Walruses but I imagine it was in the tens not the hundreds. Converting the works and retraining the workforce from a handbuilt batch operation to a proper construction line wouldnt have been a quick or easy task.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think a lot of the initial problems with Spitfire construction were caused by the simple fact that Supermarines were a relatively small flying boat and seaplane manufacturer. The largest order that Supermarine had before the initial order for 310 Spits was for the Supermarine Walrus. I cant find the numbers for the initial order for Walruses but I imagine it was in the tens not the hundreds. Converting the works and retraining the workforce from a handbuilt batch operation to a proper construction line wouldnt have been a quick or easy task.

Exactly - many other companies were in the "same boat" to coin a phrase!

 

[fastmongrel]

Exactly - many other companies were in the "same boat" to coin a phrase!

I quite agree all aircraft factories had survived on small runs of essentially handbuilt aircraft since 1919. However Supermarines even though they were owned by a large conglomerate Vickers were still small even by the standards of British aviation. The big beasts of British fighter manufacturers were Hawkers who had bought out there main rivals Glosters in 1936 iirc. Other factories like Fairey, Bristol and De havilland were bigger than Supermarines. If we include the heavy manufacturers like Avro, Handley Page, Vickers and Shorts it is possible that Supermarine werent even the tenth largest aircraft manufacturers in Britain.

It would be interesting to compare how big Supermarine were to Bayerische Flugzeugwerke ( or were they Messerschmitt AG by then I am not sure on the dates ) when both companies started production of the respective aircraft. I would do some research on it but unfortunately my German is of the " zwie grossen bier bitte " standard

 

[stona]

Fuel injection is a must imo.

But look at all the aircraft powered throughout the war by the Merlin engine.I can't imagine many Spitfire or Mustang or Mosquito or Lancaster pilots saying "this would be a great aircraft if only it had fuel injection"
I happen to agree about the Spitfire MkI and Bf109E,nothing in it. I don't know enough about the Zero to have an informed opinion.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Marcel]

Almost, the model 339-23 or 439 was the second batch for the DEI. None of the planes made it to that place, they were send to Australia in 1942. Compared to the eariler models it´s engine was more powerful at altitude.

Ah, didn't know the B339-23 was also designated B439, but now found more about that designation on the net, thanks

Well, actually the B339-23 sucked big time (BTW it was actually the 3rd batch, preceded by the B339C and D). The B339-23 had a G5B engine (all ex-KLM DC3 engines) of around 1000hp, while the B339D had a G-205A engine of 1200 hp. The 23 model was based on the F2A-3, with the same weight penalty, so it was heavier than the D version, while having 200hp less.
Climb-rate dropped from D- to 23-version from 4700ft/min to 3100ft/min. Top-speed dropped from 307 to 264 ft/min. The KNIL only thought the B339-23 version capable for the training role and didn't intend to use them for the fighter role. They probably would have ended up in the fighter role anyway, but they would likely have been just some more turkeys to shoot for the Japanese (be it slightly easier than the others )

 

[Colin1]

Bf 109. Fuel injection is a must imo and apart from that there is overall little difference. The A6M may have actually helped as a long range escort in the BoB. But it would've only prolonged the battle by maybe a few weeks.

I'd agree
fuel injection was a critical difference once the RAF was engaged, the Bf109 just couldn't stick around long enough to make the difference count. I think the Luftwaffe should have studied the mission requirements a little more closely too; a standardised armament of 2 x wing-mounted MG131s and 2 x engine-mounted MG131s would easily have sufficed against early-war RAF fighters in the specific role that was being asked of the Luftwaffe during the Battle - dispense with the cannon options.

The point of the A6M is an interesting one, it could have provided long-range escort, certainly but also improved loiter over the areas that the Bf109 was already covering. With longer time over target to grind the RAF down and none of the stock RAF tactics working against the Japanese fighter, Fighter Command may well have bled to death.

For those A6Ms inevitably shot down, these would no doubt be rushed to the RAE for evaluation and in realising what it was that made the A6M so dangerous, the Air Ministry could be faced with a dilemma; do we take the retrograde step of stripping weight from the existing front-line fighters to achieve some sort of short-term parity, or do we plug on with the path Allied fighter design generally took until we have a fighter that achieves air superiority over our own territory?

The Hurricane is pretty much dead in the water but would the Spitfire be good enough in time?

 

[pinsog]

Colin1: You hit the nail on the head with what I believe the Zero could have accomplished in the BoB. Instead of a 109 staying with the bombers, fighting 10 minutes max and barely making it home, imagine a gaggle of Zero's going out in front of the bombers on a fighter sweep, engaging the British aircraft well ahead of the bombers. In fact, they could probably loiter over the British airfields for the entire battle and then follow the bombers home. I think it would have been a disaster for the British. If you don't like the Zero's armament, replace the cannon in each wing with 2 machine guns and a good supply of ammo. Should be more than sufficient for Spitfires and Hurricanes. Zero could do anything better than a Hurricane, and only gave up speed to the Spitfire. British pilots, trained to dogfight not in energy tactics, would have been decimated, in my opinion.

 

[RCAFson]

The Hurricane is pretty much dead in the water but would the Spitfire be good enough in time?

Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire had a significant performance edge over the early A6M. Remember that these are BoB aircraft flying over the UK, with 100 octane fuel, and no tropical filters.

The early A6M only had 780hp:

The Mitsubishi prototype was the A6M1, retractable gear, all metal, low-wing monoplane, powered with a 780 hp Mitsubishi Zuisei 13 engine. During flight testing, the two-bladed prop variable-pitch propeller was replaced with a three-bladed variable pitch propeller. Apart from maximum speed, all requirements were met or exceeded.5 The Navy had authorized the production of an initial batch of A6M2s and military trials progressed rapidly. While flight testing the A6M1, a new power plant passed its Navy acceptance tests, and the 925 hp Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12, which was slightly larger than the Zuisei, was installed in the third A6M2 prototype. The initial trials were completed in July 1940 and the navy assigned fifteen A6M2s to combat trials in China.

Mitsubishi A6M Zero-Sen - Japan

By the time the A6M2-21 showed up the Hurricane IIa was also ready, and the IIa is not inferior to the A6M2-21 in performance.

 

[Colin1]

Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire had a significant performance edge over the early A6M. Remember that these are BoB aircraft flying over the UK, with 100 octane fuel, and no tropical filters.

The early A6M only had 780hp

Try 950hp
The A6M2 was ready early 1940 with a max speed of 335mph
Show me the Hurricane I's 'significant performance edge' - take as much time as you need.

The Spitfire Ia was some 30mph faster but it still had to get to the bombers and in that scenario I couldn't give a fly's eye about max speed; it's combat acceleration that wins knife-fights.

 

[pinsog]

Colin1: Stop it. Your typing MY answer before I can! 100% agree with you. I think the A6M could fly over the British airfields and loiter until the Brits run out of gas!!

 

[RCAFson]

Try 950hp
The A6M2 was ready early 1940 with a max speed of 335mph
Show me the Hurricane I's 'significant performance edge' - take as much time as you need.

The Spitfire Ia was some 30mph faster but it still had to get to the bombers and in that scenario I couldn't give a fly's eye about max speed; it's combat acceleration that wins knife-fights.

I just gave you a quote showing that the A6M2 with a 925hp engine did not pass its acceptance trials until July 1940, July is the 7th month in the year, so I don't think it qualifies as "early 1940":

Acceleration, and climb, is a function of power to weight ratio so why would the Spitfire or Hurricane with up to 1300hp available be out accelerated by the even the A6M2-21? Under 10k ft the Spit and Hurricane have a better power to weight ratio. At 15k ft, a Spitfire has 1050hp available versus about 900hp, giving both aircraft the same power to weight ratio.

 

[pinsog]

What are the climb rates for the 3 aircraft?

 

[davebender]

imagine a gaggle of Zero's going out in front of the bombers on a fighter sweep, engaging the British aircraft well ahead of the bombers.

That doesn't work when the defender has as many fighter aircraft as the attacker plus the advantage of ground control radar. Your fighter sweep is likely to be ambushed by a defending fighter force at least as numerous and in a superior tactical position.

 

[pinsog]

So they orbit out over the channel until the Brits run out of fuel and then go in. The allies did the same thing to the Germans later in the war by zigzagging bomber formations so the Germans wouldn't know which target was going to be hit. Interceptors with such short range were launched, bombers zigged, fighters landed for fuel, bombers zagged, interceptors were caught on the ground. Zero's orbit over channel, will they attack? Launch fighters, wait Zero's leaving, wait there back, wait there leaving. Hurricanes and Spits run out of fuel, land, here come Zero's in strafing field. 4 times the range gives you lots of options.

 

[davebender]

After June 1941 the Allies always had a large numerical superiority of fighter aircraft. This was made much worse during the last year of the war as Germany did not have enough aviation gasoline for the fighter aircraft they did have.

Britain did not have these problems during the summer of 1940. They always had enough fuel and they were not outnumbered.