Do we have any encounters of P51s with A6Ms?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Good info, Joe.

Charles

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."

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

BiffF15 said:

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

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

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??

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.

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.