FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yep - the Isrealis operated them in the late 40s and early 50s. Had tons of problems with them,
How good was Japanese aviation?
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep - the Isrealis operated them in the late 40s and early 50s. Had tons of problems with them,
Lets compare Spitfire with Zero
A6M2:
performed its first war mission on Augut 19, 1940
Wing load: 107 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 1 680 kg
Weight loaded: 2 410 kg
Specific power: 384 HP / tonne
Maximum speed: 533 kph
Initial climb: 1377 m/min.
Service ceiling: 10 300 meters
Range: 1 867 km
2 x 20mm Type 99 guns (120 rounds)
2 x 7.7mm Type 97 (Navy) machine guns (1000 rounds)
Spitfire II-A:
appeared at the end of 1940
Wing load: 117 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 2 182 kg
Weight loaded: 2 624 kg
Specific power: 448 HP / ton
Maximum speed: 580 kph
Initial climb: 770 m/min.
Service ceiling: ???
Range: 637 km
8 .303" Browning M2 machine guns
A6M2 advantages:
better turning ability: 107 kg/sqm vs 117 kg/sqm
much better climb: 1377 m/min vs only 770 m/min
more than trilpe range: 1 867 km vs 637 km
probably better armament: canoons vs rifle caliber MGs
Spitfire II-A advantages:
higher maximum speed: 580 kph vs 533 kph
probably slightly better in dive 2 624 kg vs 2 410 kg
better defensive equipment: self sealing tanks + armored plate vs nothing
From that we can ques that in dogfight Spitfre would be dead meat since Zero outperform it in both vertical and horizontal maneures. Slight advantage of Zero in armament would be negated by lack of protection and it would be vulnerable even to rifle caliber MGs of Spitfre.
Spitfre would be better in level and probably in dive flight too. Zero can escape in climb.
All in all in my eyes comparism is showing planet to be at last equal.
A6M2:
performed its first war mission on Augut 19, 1940
Wing load: 107 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 1 680 kg
Weight loaded: 2 410 kg
Specific power: 384 HP / tonne
Maximum speed: 533 kph
Initial climb: 1377 m/min.
Service ceiling: 10 300 meters
Range: 1 867 km
2 x 20mm Type 99 guns (120 rounds)
2 x 7.7mm Type 97 (Navy) machine guns (1000 rounds)
Spitfire II-A:
appeared at the end of 1940
Wing load: 117 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 2 182 kg
Weight loaded: 2 624 kg
Specific power: 448 HP / ton
Maximum speed: 580 kph
Initial climb: 770 m/min.
Service ceiling: ???
Range: 637 km
8 .303" Browning M2 machine guns
A6M2 advantages:
better turning ability: 107 kg/sqm vs 117 kg/sqm
much better climb: 1377 m/min vs only 770 m/min
more than trilpe range: 1 867 km vs 637 km
probably better armament: canoons vs rifle caliber MGs
Spitfire II-A advantages:
higher maximum speed: 580 kph vs 533 kph
probably slightly better in dive 2 624 kg vs 2 410 kg
better defensive equipment: self sealing tanks + armored plate vs nothing
From that we can ques that in dogfight Spitfre would be dead meat since Zero outperform it in both vertical and horizontal maneures. Slight advantage of Zero in armament would be negated by lack of protection and it would be vulnerable even to rifle caliber MGs of Spitfre.
Spitfre would be better in level and probably in dive flight too. Zero can escape in climb.
All in all in my eyes comparism is showing planet to be at last equal.
The Spitfire IIA being a much faster aircraft in accerlation, speed and dive would enable the Spitfire to easily dictate the fight. The Zero wasn't far superior to the Spitfire in turning - infact, it was only superior up to 275 mph.
The armament of the Spitfire was more than adequete to deal with the weak Zero. Hawk-75s of the Vichy French Air Force managed to down several Wildcats with six .303 cal - imagine what eight Browning .303 cal would do to a Zero!
The Zero had climb and low-speed turning as the advantage. If the Spitfire was used well - using it's energy correctly with speed advantage and dive advantage, it would make easy meat of a Zero.
The Zero would have to keep the fight low and slow when engaged.
The armament of the Spitfire was more than adequete to deal with the weak Zero. Hawk-75s of the Vichy French Air Force managed to down several Wildcats with six .303 cal - imagine what eight Browning .303 cal would do to a Zero!
The Zero had climb and low-speed turning as the advantage. If the Spitfire was used well - using it's energy correctly with speed advantage and dive advantage, it would make easy meat of a Zero.
The Zero would have to keep the fight low and slow when engaged.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Plus the zero did not have self sealing fuel tanks, so .303s would be fine. Line up a bead on the wing and let the fire do the rest. The dive capability on the zero was bad, the wing cord is thick, so there is alot of drag when diving. I got the dive info from the pilot of the zero in our museum.
Glider
Captain
My belief is that the Spit IIa had a ceiling of 37,000ft making that around 11,250m
Also the max climb was around 900m/min still a lot less than the Zero but more than indicated. Interestingly the numbers that I have found for time to 20,000 ft are similar. The Zero taking 7.2mins and the Spit IIa 7.0
Re the Zero ammunition for the A6M2 was 60 rounds for the 20mm which was common for all 20mm at the time with the exception of the USSR. Later versions increased the capacity initially to 100rds with the A6M3 then to 120.
The British also had the Spit IIb with 2 x 20 around the end of 1940 which you may want to include in the debate.
Also the max climb was around 900m/min still a lot less than the Zero but more than indicated. Interestingly the numbers that I have found for time to 20,000 ft are similar. The Zero taking 7.2mins and the Spit IIa 7.0
Re the Zero ammunition for the A6M2 was 60 rounds for the 20mm which was common for all 20mm at the time with the exception of the USSR. Later versions increased the capacity initially to 100rds with the A6M3 then to 120.
The British also had the Spit IIb with 2 x 20 around the end of 1940 which you may want to include in the debate.
Glider
Captain
Don't disagree with you, but extra firepower never hurt anyone (who was firing it)
evangilder
"Shooter"
I can tell you from personal experience, the skin on that Zero is realy thin. A well placed bb that could make a spark could penetrate the wing and set that fuel tank on fire. Exaggeration, maybe, but there are parts of the wing that we are NOT allowed to walk on at all. The areas to step are clearly marked in English and Japanese.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
evangilder said:
The man is correct! I took photos of Evan's Zero in an old post comparing the wing skin thickness to other aircraft (Corsair, Mustang, Hellcat). It's built like a Coke can!
cheddar cheese
Major General
Hell yeah! Saw a program the other night that demostrated the weakness of the Zero's body panels, not good.
-FW-190A-1 apeared in air combat in September 1941
-first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready was P-38F of late 1942
-Typhoon plane became operational only in November of 1942
plan_D wrote:
Its spead advantage is similar to that of Bf-109 over Huricane but Spitfre did not enjoied climbing qualities of Bf.
You are all also totaly omiting Zero superiority in range which would be (was) big tactical and strategical advantage.
Zero was aircraft with advantages and disadvantages as anyother including Spitfre. In my eyes overaly there is no superiority of Spitfre over Zero and I would go for Zero in one to one.
-first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready was P-38F of late 1942
-Typhoon plane became operational only in November of 1942
plan_D wrote:
that is hardly possible, Spitfre would not be able to dogfight and it would have dificulties to use energy tactic because of Zero better climb rate. It can use hit and run tactic but that is hardly useful for building air superiority or escort duties.
Its spead advantage is similar to that of Bf-109 over Huricane but Spitfre did not enjoied climbing qualities of Bf.
You are all also totaly omiting Zero superiority in range which would be (was) big tactical and strategical advantage.
Zero was aircraft with advantages and disadvantages as anyother including Spitfre. In my eyes overaly there is no superiority of Spitfre over Zero and I would go for Zero in one to one.
How do you figure the Spitfire couldn't dictate the fight? If the Spitfire saw the situation as unfavourable he could use his superior speed to get away from the Zero - dictating the combat.
Also, while in combat the energy could be used with a higher speed on entrance to the fight - higher speed during the fight - tighter turn above 275 mph - faster dive and faster acceleration.
As I said before the Zero would need to get the fight slow and low to defeat the Spitfire - something the Spitfire could easily avoid.
The Zero superior climb is only off the exact same start point at the exact same speed. The Spitfire would be entering the climb at a higher speed due to higher dive speed - giving the Spitfire more of a jump into the climb. Which would enable it to use energy tactics anyway it wanted.
The Zero did have superior range - it's range was extremely impressive but the Spitfire was never built for range. It was an interceptor - it was designed as an interceptor. Since Britain was actively on the defensive - range wasn't required. The Zero would be coming to the Spitfire - not the other way around.
When the Spitfire finally did arrive in the CBI - the Spitfire achieved an eight
ne kill ratio over the Japanese. Of course not all against the Zero - but it's something to think about.
Also, while in combat the energy could be used with a higher speed on entrance to the fight - higher speed during the fight - tighter turn above 275 mph - faster dive and faster acceleration.
As I said before the Zero would need to get the fight slow and low to defeat the Spitfire - something the Spitfire could easily avoid.
The Zero superior climb is only off the exact same start point at the exact same speed. The Spitfire would be entering the climb at a higher speed due to higher dive speed - giving the Spitfire more of a jump into the climb. Which would enable it to use energy tactics anyway it wanted.
The Zero did have superior range - it's range was extremely impressive but the Spitfire was never built for range. It was an interceptor - it was designed as an interceptor. Since Britain was actively on the defensive - range wasn't required. The Zero would be coming to the Spitfire - not the other way around.
When the Spitfire finally did arrive in the CBI - the Spitfire achieved an eight
ne kill ratio over the Japanese. Of course not all against the Zero - but it's something to think about.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yes but that extra range has no effect in a dogfight - in effect its probably a disadvantage when dogfighting because of the extra fuel it would be carrying when compared to the short fueled Spitfire (If the Spit was intercepting).
Yes - The Zero can climb away, the Spitfire can accelerate/dive away. If the Spit pilot keeps his speed up he could easily take the Zero out, as plan_D said. Once on the Zero's tail, it wouldnt have to be for long since one short burst of .303 rounds will penetrate the thin skin, set the fuel tanks on fire and the Zero would be History.
I would have the Spitfire in a dogfight.
Yes - The Zero can climb away, the Spitfire can accelerate/dive away. If the Spit pilot keeps his speed up he could easily take the Zero out, as plan_D said. Once on the Zero's tail, it wouldnt have to be for long since one short burst of .303 rounds will penetrate the thin skin, set the fuel tanks on fire and the Zero would be History.
I would have the Spitfire in a dogfight.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
arras said:
The 39th FS of the 35th FG, operating out of Port Moresby, New Guinea began operations in October, 1942, their "F" models were well "combat ready" way before that as they were flown there from Australia.
arras said:
The Zero's range is based on operating at economical cruise power (probably at 55%) 1,200 miles (internal fuel), 1,844 miles with drop tank.
The Spit II had half that range at high cruise, but then again the Spit wasn't designed to fly across oceans.
.arras said:
You're entitled to your opinion but with the speed (especially in the dive) advantage coupled with 8 .303 machine guns of the Spitfire further enhanced with "Flying Tiger type tactics" would of made the Zero a great clay pigeon! Less capable aircraft than the Spitfire (the Wildcat specifically) feasted without mercy on the Zero through out the entire Pacific War!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
in a dogfight i too would say spitfire though, she, that's what she was designed to do, and she was very good at it..........
I personally think the Zero wasn't even good in a dogfight - it was average in a dogfight. All round it was a great plane mixing it's fighting capability with excellent range but it was just a poor plane in combat and only had the 6 months of success against ignorant Western pilots and second-rate Western equipment.
The Gloster designed F.5/34 was a lot like a Zero in a dogfight with just superior speed, it was rejected by the MOD.
The Gloster designed F.5/34 was a lot like a Zero in a dogfight with just superior speed, it was rejected by the MOD.
Attachments
cheddar cheese
Major General
Cool! 8) It looks like an MC.200 or G.50 or similar.
