CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Thank you Shortround,
I studied all that info already. I was just on a roll and threw the 45M in on a whim.
I studied all that info already. I was just on a roll and threw the 45M in on a whim.
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
First things first. aircraft claims made on behalf of aircraft like the hellcat and Corsair are just that, claims. joe b has done some pretty detailed studies over the years. he has always shied away from tackling the two sacred cows in the room, namely Hellcat and Corsair, but has shown in a number of isolate-able campaigns such as the spitfires over Darwin, that claims made against Zekes were out by about 3:1.....that's for every claim of a Zeke being shot down, in fact only 1 was lost.
We don't know the exchange rates for later in the war, but it was certainly bad and one sided, just not as one sided as is often claimed.
now turning to Japanese exchange rates during the early campaigns, Japanese records show that combat losses to the end of April 1942, amounted to 250 machines. there were other losses due to non-combat courses, but in comparison, allied combat losses in that same period was well over 1500 a/c. Generally allied aircraft fielded were obsolete, but so too were many of the Japanese types put into the air. aircraft like the Sonia, Claude or Ki-27 were all obsolete, but still able to operate. moreover, the Zekes that proved so devastating at this time were very few in number, just 12 (maybe...probably less?) over Malaya, and 40 against the stronger FEAF in the Philipinnes.
In the SWpac area, until well after WATCHTOWER, Zeke numbers committed to defending Rabaul never exceeded 40. To this should be added the 12 or so aircraft of the elite Lae Wing. Ranged against the Japanese defenders were at least 800 Allied machines, not including the carrier borne aircraft. Worse, by about August the Allied logistics issues were rapidly being solved, whilst the Japanese problems were getting worse.
In comparison the LW over Poland saw in excess of 1500 axis aircraft take on about 700 outdated Polish machines. desp[ite the vaunted superiority of the LW, the PAF was not shot out of the sky on the first day, and in fact it appears that German losses exceeded 500 a/c to combat causes.
Against the French and the other allies in the west, the exchange rate was more in favour of the LW but still quite bad....so much for the vaunted superiority of the LW at this time. LW tactics were not boom and zoom incidentally, it was manoeuvre that was favoured by most of its pilots. How would zekes have faired against Me 109s trying to mix it with them in a manoeuvre battle? pretty well actually, but numbers would be so small as to be meaningless
We don't know the exchange rates for later in the war, but it was certainly bad and one sided, just not as one sided as is often claimed.
now turning to Japanese exchange rates during the early campaigns, Japanese records show that combat losses to the end of April 1942, amounted to 250 machines. there were other losses due to non-combat courses, but in comparison, allied combat losses in that same period was well over 1500 a/c. Generally allied aircraft fielded were obsolete, but so too were many of the Japanese types put into the air. aircraft like the Sonia, Claude or Ki-27 were all obsolete, but still able to operate. moreover, the Zekes that proved so devastating at this time were very few in number, just 12 (maybe...probably less?) over Malaya, and 40 against the stronger FEAF in the Philipinnes.
In the SWpac area, until well after WATCHTOWER, Zeke numbers committed to defending Rabaul never exceeded 40. To this should be added the 12 or so aircraft of the elite Lae Wing. Ranged against the Japanese defenders were at least 800 Allied machines, not including the carrier borne aircraft. Worse, by about August the Allied logistics issues were rapidly being solved, whilst the Japanese problems were getting worse.
In comparison the LW over Poland saw in excess of 1500 axis aircraft take on about 700 outdated Polish machines. desp[ite the vaunted superiority of the LW, the PAF was not shot out of the sky on the first day, and in fact it appears that German losses exceeded 500 a/c to combat causes.
Against the French and the other allies in the west, the exchange rate was more in favour of the LW but still quite bad....so much for the vaunted superiority of the LW at this time. LW tactics were not boom and zoom incidentally, it was manoeuvre that was favoured by most of its pilots. How would zekes have faired against Me 109s trying to mix it with them in a manoeuvre battle? pretty well actually, but numbers would be so small as to be meaningless
Glider
Captain
much is well said about the individual training and skill of the Japanese aircrew what isn't said but which is equally valid is the shocking level of training they had in tactics, plus the lack of radios in these early years.
The best trained sircrew in these times were the Luftwaffe and with the 109F and 190 they would have had a clear advantage against the Japanese.
The Spitfire II and V had the performance to dominate the Japanese Ki 43 and to a lesser degree the Zero, what was lacking in the early days were the tactics which had been learned in Europe and were totally wrong against the Japanese.
The best trained sircrew in these times were the Luftwaffe and with the 109F and 190 they would have had a clear advantage against the Japanese.
The Spitfire II and V had the performance to dominate the Japanese Ki 43 and to a lesser degree the Zero, what was lacking in the early days were the tactics which had been learned in Europe and were totally wrong against the Japanese.
Shortround6
Major General
Well, most of us know that some of the post claims or exchange rates should be taken with a large dose of salt.
Like
Just for the initial investigation.
However trying to separate out even fighter vs fighter combat instead of fighter vs single engine bomber combat (or fighter vs multi engine) requires a lot more digging. Japanese Victories over Vildebeests
don't tell us much about their ability over Allied fighters ( and the reverse is also true, P-40 vs B5M Mabel?)
Throw in pilot experience and maintenance/spare parts and it is very hard to figure out why some planes varied so much in combat performance. I mean we have some reasons by have no idea how much any one reason affected things at a given point in time.
Like
Just for the initial investigation.
However trying to separate out even fighter vs fighter combat instead of fighter vs single engine bomber combat (or fighter vs multi engine) requires a lot more digging. Japanese Victories over Vildebeests
don't tell us much about their ability over Allied fighters ( and the reverse is also true, P-40 vs B5M Mabel?)
Throw in pilot experience and maintenance/spare parts and it is very hard to figure out why some planes varied so much in combat performance. I mean we have some reasons by have no idea how much any one reason affected things at a given point in time.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hi Tomo,
Ram effect is not present unless there is a straight or almost straight shot to the carb. If you have roundabout way to the carb, a FOD separator, and a plenum with exit, ram is not present. The Hellcat was rather well known for NOT having ram effect in the main stage. As a result, it never suffered a carb icing crash in service. The Corsair cannot say the same. The Hellcat DID have higher operational losses when not in combat. Maybe it was a case of being there while the Corsair was not? The Corsair was late to the party. But they both used the same engine and prop until the F4U-4, so reliability would likely be very similar.
If you fly the Hellcat and the Corsair, both in main stage (no S/C) and both with 3-blade props, there is little to no difference in speed at similar power settings. With ram, yes, the Corsair had a better ram setup. The achievements of both types are well known and the Hellcat did better by a long shot. Opportunity due to being there? Maybe.
I am inclined to believe the Corsair was a better fighter, but you certainly can't prove it with actual war record achievements, can you? Good thing they were both on the same side. It would be tough to choose between them for me. Most in here would likely choose the Corsair, probably including you, but I'd likely opt the other way.
Likely as not, we'd both be happy with our choices and also on the same side, and would be almost as happy with the other selection when actually in flight. Very close in the real world. Cheers.
Ram effect is not present unless there is a straight or almost straight shot to the carb. If you have roundabout way to the carb, a FOD separator, and a plenum with exit, ram is not present. The Hellcat was rather well known for NOT having ram effect in the main stage. As a result, it never suffered a carb icing crash in service. The Corsair cannot say the same. The Hellcat DID have higher operational losses when not in combat. Maybe it was a case of being there while the Corsair was not? The Corsair was late to the party. But they both used the same engine and prop until the F4U-4, so reliability would likely be very similar.
If you fly the Hellcat and the Corsair, both in main stage (no S/C) and both with 3-blade props, there is little to no difference in speed at similar power settings. With ram, yes, the Corsair had a better ram setup. The achievements of both types are well known and the Hellcat did better by a long shot. Opportunity due to being there? Maybe.
I am inclined to believe the Corsair was a better fighter, but you certainly can't prove it with actual war record achievements, can you? Good thing they were both on the same side. It would be tough to choose between them for me. Most in here would likely choose the Corsair, probably including you, but I'd likely opt the other way.
Likely as not, we'd both be happy with our choices and also on the same side, and would be almost as happy with the other selection when actually in flight. Very close in the real world. Cheers.
Once the aux stage is on (above 7000-8000 ft), the main stage of the 2-stage R-2800 will start receiving the compressed air, not ram air. The F4U-1 have had especially convoluted ram air intake piping, ie. no construction advantage for it re. ram air usage. Engines were not the same, -8(W) vs. -10(W), granted there was more similarities than differences. F4U also used a bigger prop sometimes.
Hellcat was later to the party than Corsair, by 6 months.
Care to share details on how many Corsairs were lost due to the carb icing?
Main stage = S/C.
With just main stage on, military power setting, F6F was 30 mph slower than F4U-1. Has nothing to do with achievements.
I can prove that F4U-1 was considerably faster than F6F-3 or -5 on same power setting. As above - it has nothing to do with war achivements.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Hi Tomo,
The Corsair was late to the party. But they both used the same engine and prop until the F4U-4, so reliability would likely be very similar.
Greg,
I do not want to take away anything from your Post #186. My purpose here is just
to make a slight correction in one of your statements.
The F4U-1 and F4U-1A used the 13' 4" blade design No.6443A-21 or 6525A-21.
Hamilton hydromatic type 23 E50 hub.
The F6F-3/-5 used a 13' 1" blade design No.6501A-0 AFAIK.
The first Corsair to use the 13' 1" propeller was the USN F4U-1D.
Mike & Neil, If you guys are still watching I thank you both for the excellent
information you have provided to all.
Shortround6
Major General
When trying to use current Warbirds to prove or disprove WW II performance figures we have to know if the current warbirds are in WW II configuration.
As in same weights or ballasted to represent service weights. Guns, ammo etc. Protection? still have armor installed? change in fuel tanks? I would guess that most/all have had the self sealing material removed for safety sake as it deteriorates with age.
Surface finish? a few Warbirds seem to be flying with a higher gloss than most WW II service aircraft?
Are the Warbirds actually using the correct WW II engines? I don't know but more than few were supposed to have been using ex-airliner/transport engines back in the 50s-60s-70s. They were much cheaper at times. Perhaps they have all been fully restored to correct engines?
If comparing cruise speeds at low throttle settings are the cooling flaps opened an equal amount? I am sure the pilots are operating the engines at the proper temperatures but some aircraft may have varied in drag with different flap openings.
Level flight speed tests were pretty much done with the flaps closed while climb tests are done with flaps open (or partial open?)
Cruise for fun is done how?
I am making no claim that all or even any of these conditions apply to the F6Fs or F4Us that are flying next to each other today. Just pointing out possible differences between some of today's aircraft and test results from 70 years ago.
I would also note that while the power to drag ratio might be very close at low or medium airspeeds one aircraft might show a steeper drag rise in the high speed (mach number) range as you get closer to max speed.
As in same weights or ballasted to represent service weights. Guns, ammo etc. Protection? still have armor installed? change in fuel tanks? I would guess that most/all have had the self sealing material removed for safety sake as it deteriorates with age.
Surface finish? a few Warbirds seem to be flying with a higher gloss than most WW II service aircraft?
Are the Warbirds actually using the correct WW II engines? I don't know but more than few were supposed to have been using ex-airliner/transport engines back in the 50s-60s-70s. They were much cheaper at times. Perhaps they have all been fully restored to correct engines?
If comparing cruise speeds at low throttle settings are the cooling flaps opened an equal amount? I am sure the pilots are operating the engines at the proper temperatures but some aircraft may have varied in drag with different flap openings.
Level flight speed tests were pretty much done with the flaps closed while climb tests are done with flaps open (or partial open?)
Cruise for fun is done how?
I am making no claim that all or even any of these conditions apply to the F6Fs or F4Us that are flying next to each other today. Just pointing out possible differences between some of today's aircraft and test results from 70 years ago.
I would also note that while the power to drag ratio might be very close at low or medium airspeeds one aircraft might show a steeper drag rise in the high speed (mach number) range as you get closer to max speed.
Last edited:
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Did the Japanese every receive any 190's or 109's from Germany for testing? As allies I wondered if there was any sharing?
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Thanks Steve,
I wondered and my Google Fu was feeling weak this morning! Appreciate the info. I recall seeing a photograph of an A6M with Nazi markings so I assume some degree of reciprocity existed but was not sure.
I wondered and my Google Fu was feeling weak this morning! Appreciate the info. I recall seeing a photograph of an A6M with Nazi markings so I assume some degree of reciprocity existed but was not sure.
drgondog
Major
For the record, the P&W R-2800-18W used in both the F4U-4 and F6F-6, results in same HP at Combat Power. That said, the F4U is ~ 40mph faster at 24,000 feet.and 35+mph faster at SL.
Nothing in warbird community is being driven above MP, all are much lighter with no guns, no full combat load out of fuel, etc. So there is nothing to talk about as far as modern day comparisons to fighters being hammered at 80" boost and 150 octane fuel compared to 57-61" and 100LL
Nothing in warbird community is being driven above MP, all are much lighter with no guns, no full combat load out of fuel, etc. So there is nothing to talk about as far as modern day comparisons to fighters being hammered at 80" boost and 150 octane fuel compared to 57-61" and 100LL
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
The one thing about the Japanese Bf 109E that always impressed me
was the Ki.61-I was as fast or even much faster than the 109 powered
by the DB 601. 342-354 mph. vs. 348-361 mph.
was the Ki.61-I was as fast or even much faster than the 109 powered
by the DB 601. 342-354 mph. vs. 348-361 mph.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Wow Bill, if that isn't a mouthful I don't know what is.
pinsog said: ↑
The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire,
Pinsog,
Do you have documents proving this? And where can they be viewed?
COMBAT COMPARISONS
Adlam described in his book a personal test flight between himself, in a Wildcat, and a friend, in a Seafire. Both were serving aboard HMS Illustrious in 1943 and were undergoing working-up exercises in Scotland.
The unscientific comparison involved a race and a mock dogfight. Nor is the model of the Martlet recorded, though he lists the Seafire as being a "IIC":
For the race, we flew alongside and level at a steady 130 knots and then, at a signal , we both opened the throttles wide. As expected the Seafire was faster and gradually moved ahead but not all that swiftly. We reckoned and agreed afterwards that the Seafire was no more than 7 or 9 knots faster than the Wildcat.
The combat, Adlam records, was something more of an eye-opener:
For the dog-fight, my Wildcat and I were at a disadvantage because Bruce was an exceptional pilot and always had been even while training, whereas I was never in that category. It was interesting to find that the Seafire had a much better rate of climb but the Wildcat was steady and gained speed faster in a steep dive. It was surprising to find that the Wildcat with its stubby little wings could sustain a steep turn inside the Seafire and this was all the more surprising and gratifying too bearing in mind that Bruce was by far the better pilot.
Here is the link:
Grumman F4F Martlet: Variants
The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire,
Pinsog,
Do you have documents proving this? And where can they be viewed?
COMBAT COMPARISONS
Adlam described in his book a personal test flight between himself, in a Wildcat, and a friend, in a Seafire. Both were serving aboard HMS Illustrious in 1943 and were undergoing working-up exercises in Scotland.
The unscientific comparison involved a race and a mock dogfight. Nor is the model of the Martlet recorded, though he lists the Seafire as being a "IIC":
For the race, we flew alongside and level at a steady 130 knots and then, at a signal , we both opened the throttles wide. As expected the Seafire was faster and gradually moved ahead but not all that swiftly. We reckoned and agreed afterwards that the Seafire was no more than 7 or 9 knots faster than the Wildcat.
The combat, Adlam records, was something more of an eye-opener:
For the dog-fight, my Wildcat and I were at a disadvantage because Bruce was an exceptional pilot and always had been even while training, whereas I was never in that category. It was interesting to find that the Seafire had a much better rate of climb but the Wildcat was steady and gained speed faster in a steep dive. It was surprising to find that the Wildcat with its stubby little wings could sustain a steep turn inside the Seafire and this was all the more surprising and gratifying too bearing in mind that Bruce was by far the better pilot.
Here is the link:
Grumman F4F Martlet: Variants
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
You guys never cease to amaze me.
I had no idea, I just stumbled into that one night. I wouldn't have believed it myself but that is from the Wildcat/Martlet pilot himself, who also says the Spitfire guy is a better pilot.
