Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

Clearly any attempt to dogfight a Spit II with a Ki43-I would be foolish but with the early Ki43's having 2 x LMG and the Spit II with a respectable amount of armour there is a decent chance that the Spit would get a second life.
The speed advantage of the Spit II over the Ki43-I was very significant and no doubt the dive speed as well. Clearly the Ki43 would be in serious trouble if hit. With next to no armour the 8 x 303 would be a very effective weapon against the Ki43

As I said on my original posting the tactics would play a major part

Glider said:

Clearly any attempt to dogfight a Spit II with a Ki43-I would be foolish but with the early Ki43's having 2 x LMG and the Spit II with a respectable amount of armour there is a decent chance that the Spit would get a second life.
The speed advantage of the Spit II over the Ki43-I was very significant and no doubt the dive speed as well. Clearly the Ki43 would be in serious trouble if hit. With next to no armour the 8 x 303 would be a very effective weapon against the Ki43

As I said on my original posting the tactics would play a major part

Click to expand...

One thing to consider: The Ki43 was slower than a Zero, but is was also even more maneuverable and the big point, as I understand, the Ki43 did not lose its handling, especially its roll rate at high speed like the Zero did. If that is correct, then the "all you have to do is dive faster than 300 mph and roll to the right to escape a Zero" won't work on a Ki43. Aside from too light of an armament, it could possibly be more dangerous than a Zero.

That being said, I wouldn't want to be in a Ki43 when a Spitfire hits him with a close range burst......but i wouldn't want to get caught at 250 mph in a Spitfire with a Ki43 anywhere near me either.

Actually, you might in a 1 on 1 battle end up with a stalemate like at Guadalcanal when the Wildcats were trying to shoot down the Japanese bi-plane float planes. The Japanese bi-planes had trouble hurting the Wildcats, although they did shoot down one, but the Wildcats had trouble ever hitting them, the bi-planes could just flick out of the way at will, like swatting flies with a hammer

Thank you pinsog. Great stuff.

It may be listed earlier in this thread, I haven't read the whole thing, but have you seen the mock combat between a P40E and Spitfire V with the tropical air filter? This is copied and pasted. Again, if someone told me this I would have not believed it until I read this account.

The tests were conducted over 3rd to 5th of November 1942, at the No.2 Operational Training Unit in Mildura - a very hot dry open locale in western Victoria. Oversighting the tests was Wing Cmdr. Peter Jeffrey; the actual test pilots beng:
Flying the P-40E - Flt. Lt. Arthur and Flt.Lt. Jackson.
Flying the Spitfire Mk.Vc - Flt. Lt. Foster and Flt Lt. Wawn.
All pilots involved were experienced combat pilots, with Arthur, Jeffrey, Foster and Jackson all being aces - Foster (9) flying Spitfires over Europe, Arthur (8) and Jeffrey's (6) flying P-40's in the Western Desert and Jackson (5) flying the P-40 against the Japanese over Port Moresby, New Guinea.

The results of the tests were as follows:

1. The Spitfire was fitted with a Volkes Filter

2. As the Spitfire was fitted with VHF, and the P-40 with HF, no R/T between them could be used.

3. The Spitfire tested suffered from negitive 'G' cutout, a typical Spitfire trait.

4. The Tests were carried out at heights between ground level and 20,000ft.

5. Results:
a) Spitfire had the greater rate of climb at all heights - the difference becoming greater as height increased above 13,000ft.
b) Spitfire is far more manoeuvrable at all heights.
c) Kittyhawk is faster in level speed from 0 to 16,000ft. Above 16,000ft Spitfire is faster and again the difference becomes greater as height increases. Estimated speed advantage of Kittyhawk up to 16,000ft: 0ft - 15mph; 12,000ft - 20 to 25mph; 16,000ft - 5 to 10mph.
d) Kittyhawk accelerates, both in dive and on increase of throttle on the level, far more quickly than the Spitfire.

6) Combat 1 - commenced at 13,000ft (equal height) and lasted for 5 to 7 minutes, in which time the fight was practically a stalemate. At the end of this period height was reduced to 4,000ft when the Kittyhawk pilots decided he had nothing to gain by staying and so broke off by diving away. Thus, in combat up to 16,000ft, the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will. In such a combat the Kittyhawks tactics are to hit and run, and then come again.

7) Combat 2 - commenced at 20,000ft (equal height) and lasted less than 2 minutes. Spitfire quickly gained dominate position on the tail of the Kittyhawk and couldn't be shaken. Kittyhawk pilot broke off by diving away.

8) Combat 3 - Commenced at 16,000ft (height advantage to Kittyhawk) an lasted 14 minutes. Kittyhawk made repeated dive and zoom attacks with the Spitfire alternatively breaking hard to avoid and climbing for advantage where possible. Fight reduced to 9,000ft with neither pilot gaining a decisive advantage.

9) Combat 4 - Commence at 16,000ft (height advantage to Spitfire) and lasted 11 minutes. Spitfire pounced on Kittyhawk and attempted to gain a position on tail. Kittyhawk used speed advantage in first level flight and then shallow dive to gain separation and then climb for advantage. Spitfire countered by climbing hard. Gaining advantage Spitfire used climb and dive tactics to force the Kittyhawk to make repeated diving breaks to avoid. At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire, who countered with steep climb. Kittyhawk then used speed advantage to again gain separation and fight was broken off.

10) Visions - the vision in the Spitfire with the hood closed is better than the Kittyhawk, but it is a definte disadvantage that the hood cannot be opened at speeds above 160mph particulary when searching up-sun.

11) The flying characteristics of the Spitfire make it more suitable for Operations:
a) it is easier to fly.
b) Take-off run is much shorter and so could be operated from smaller landing grounds. Note - ithe Spitfire does not handle hard dirt strips as well as the Kittyhawk.
c) Mixture and boost are automatically controlled.
d) It is not necessary, as it is in the Kittyhawk, to alter rudder and elevator trims over great speed changes.

All these facts greatly reduce the pilot's problems and so increase his fighting efficiency.

The report concluded by recommending that as the large Volkes air filter on the Spitfire cost 20-30mph in top speed, it should be removed inoperational service - or at least an alternative found. Also mentioned was the effect of the Spitfires rough paint finish on performance but the general feeling of the report was that the Spitfire was perahps the better fighter, especially at altitude.

The report also mentioned being surprised at just how well the Kittyhawk managed to hold it's own against the Spitfire in combat, concluding that in combat against an opponet it highlights the importance of using one's aircraft strengths to advantage.

Regarding German assistance to the Japanese, the US intell report does NOT show extensive levels of assistance, with one exception, which came far too late to be of any material assistance (read the article posted by steve and you will see this). As the US intell report states, early models of the standard LW types were acquired mostly out of sheer curiosity and did not lead to any significant changes to the Japanese designs or the structure of their aero industry. Many of the designs showed definite inferiority to the Japanese types entering service and were just not suited to conditions in the pacific. Many of the types, including the bombers, lacked the range to be adopted by the Japanese. Many of the technologies used were not easily translateable to Japanese industry. this was true of the 20mm mauser ammunition and cannon they acquired. the Japanese acquired several copies of the me109e and later subtypes as they became available and always considered them to be inferior in manouverability to their own, inferior in range, and were singularly umimpressed with the technical capabilities of the type overall. I think they were justified to reach that conclusion in the context they were faced with.

Japanese types that faced soviet fighters in 1939 faired as good as the supposedly much superior me 109s in 1941, facing much the same Russian technology. Flying mostly Ki-27s and A5Ms against mostly i-15s and I-16s you will not find a significantly different exchange rate between the two scenarios. Over China, a year later soviet piloted I-16s were shot out of the sky by land based Zeroes.

it is not valid to suggest Germany was ahead of the Japanese in air technology in 1940. Just different. the Japanese were pushing small capacity lightweight construction and were ahead of everyone in the development of certain materials like Duralumin. they lagged in the development of sheer engine power, communications, weapons, self sealing tanks and in the end, with the kind of air warfare that developed, this was to prove vital. at the time of the Zekes inception, no opposing fighter other than a few experimental types were protected by armour. The difference was that the small capacity and light weight of the Zeke, indeed its whole design philosophy prevented it from being stretched in the same way as other types.

Even in the vital areas of jet technologies, German assistance was too late and too little. The U-Boat carrying the plans and examples of the specialised technologies for the Me 262 was sunk enroute, leaving the Japanese with only rough guesses as to how they might work and more importantly how they might build it. The design they finished up with in the Nakajima Kikka actually owed little to the Me 262. The engine, for example, was a wholly Japanese piece of kit, not as good as the german stuff, but certainly not a copy either.

Here is an eye opening test between a Zero and a Spitfire

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

What is a bit weird is that the Spitfire seems to be limited in boost. Performance charts on another page of that site list 9lbs boost as the max for 5 minutes?
Shortage of spare parts or spare engines meant emergency boost could not be used? Test was in August of 1943. so I would assume that similar aircraft in England were allowed 16lbs of boost and could make 1300hp or more at any altitude between 4000ft and about 17,500ft.

For some reason the "poor relations" Australians seem to get versions of the Spitfire about 1 year or more after they were used in combat in Europe or the Med. MK VIII Spits being used in the Invasion of SIcily but don't show up in Australia until well into 1944.

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that Greg.

You will get a degree of ram effect with a forward facing intake.

However, that ram effect will be reduced by losses caused by long ducts, changes in direction and changes in area.

I'm not sure that the F4U could claim to be superior in that regard, since its intake to the engine was through some tight bends.

tomo pauk said:

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. .

Click to expand...

I believe the main difference was that the -8 had a downdraft carburetor and the -10 an updraft carburetor.

Shortround6 said:

What is a bit weird is that the Spitfire seems to be limited in boost. Performance charts on another page of that site list 9lbs boost as the max for 5 minutes?
Shortage of spare parts or spare engines meant emergency boost could not be used? Test was in August of 1943. so I would assume that similar aircraft in England were allowed 16lbs of boost and could make 1300hp or more at any altitude between 4000ft and about 17,500ft.

For some reason the "poor relations" Australians seem to get versions of the Spitfire about 1 year or more after they were used in combat in Europe or the Med. MK VIII Spits being used in the Invasion of SIcily but don't show up in Australia until well into 1944.

Click to expand...

Would the Tropical Filter cause the issues you just listed? Or is the Tropical filter strictly an aerodynamic problem?

As far as shipping old, used Spitfires to Australia, well why bother with new, late model Spitfires? After all the Japanese planes and pilots are second rate at best, certainly not able to compete with any European fighters. Even a Hurricane can totally outperform any Japanese fighter. We don't have to listen to US pilots about how good this Zero is, after all we won the BoB against German planes. A BoB ace can whip any 2nd rate Japanese fighter while still hungover and flying a Sopwith Camel.

European arrogance is your answer. Even after reports back from their own pilots the bosses in England calling the shots still thought the Hurricane was superior to the Zero. At least that's what I have read.

I think the Zero was the equal of anything up to the Fw190. Since they didn't meet I guess we will never know

pinsog said:

Would the Tropical Filter cause the issues you just listed? Or is the Tropical filter strictly an aerodynamic problem?

Click to expand...

I doubt that the filter could reduce the maximum boost available. Though, a very restrictive filter would reduce the mass air flow through the engine, so that could possibly lead to lower FTH - it would, in effect, be like the throttle was part closed. Note that boost was maintained below FTH in Merlins by restricting the mass air flow by using the throttle.

The filter will, most likely, have had an effect on ram air and thus reduced the FTH.

But its main effect, I believe, would still be aerodynamic.

parsifal said:

Regarding German assistance to the Japanese, the US intell report does NOT show extensive levels of assistance, with one exception,

Click to expand...

I was referring to the entire report, not just the aircraft section. There was a substantial transfer of technology to Japan. The report starts by listing the nearly 50 Japanese technical staff attached to their embassy in Berlin.
Radar/radio technology and hardware was transferred, as was optical technology and hardware.The Germans supplied batteries for Japanese torpedoes as well as mines and associated devices, including acoustic and acoustic-magnetic firing devices. On a more general scale the Germans transferred some of their chemical and industrial expertise to Japan, more basically the Japanese Type 98/Type 1 machine gun is described as a direct copy of the MG 15, which is hardly surprising as it was built under licence in Japan.
It is certainly true that the transfer of jet and rocket technology was too late, and in the case of the latter, very incomplete. It is also true that in the latter stages of the war the physical transfer of complete aircraft, vehicles, etc. became almost impossible. The transfer of plans and smaller items continued.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

I'm not sure that the Ki-61 "is clearly an adaptation of the German model [Bf 109]". It clearly shows the influence of German design, in the form of Dr Richard Vogt, on Kawasaki designs. It had an inline liquid cooled 'German' engine for a start!
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

Maybe its just me, but the Ki-61 looks very Italian to me.

Elvis

The Ki 61 had more in common with the He 100 than it did the Bf 109.
However that was more in the line of construction details (like engine mount) than in overall shape or form.

I would also take any wartime or immediate post war intelligence report with a large dose of salt. It maybe that the anti Japanese prejudice was still going on and while it may be true that the Japanese got a look at something it doesn't always mean they copied it.

Elvis said:

Maybe its just me, but the Ki-61 looks very Italian to me.

Elvis

Click to expand...

It's not just you. It's why it got the code name 'Tony'.

Cheers

Steve

Shortround6 said:

I would also take any wartime or immediate post war intelligence report with a large dose of salt. It maybe that the anti Japanese prejudice was still going on and while it may be true that the Japanese got a look at something it doesn't always mean they copied it.

Click to expand...

True enough, but a lot of the sources for that report are German, particularly regarding when German items or plans were given to the Japanese. It doesn't follow that the Japanese automatically copied the German technology, in some instances they would have had no need to, but in others they certainly did.
Nobody should argue that the Japanese were in some way behind the curve generally in matters of technology, but is certain areas, including those I mentioned in a previous post, the Germans had a lead on almost everybody. German chemical engineering would be a case in point and there is evidence that the methods and hardware of some processes were made available to the Japanese.

I have a birdwatcher friend who uses a pair of service binoculars (Dienstglas) manufactured by Hensholdt (bmj) in 1943, and he swears they are superior to most modern binoculars. Optical instruments, not just simple binoculars, is one area where technology was transferred from Germany to Japan.

Cheers

Steve

I read somewhere, probably a website, that the Wildcat had quite good performance at low altitude, better than many Allied fighters.

That said, I think that a lot of the objective aircraft performance data show that there is none of the contemporary P-40, P-39, Spitfire, or Zero which can consistently dominate in air combat, although the Spitfire tested in Australia seems to be badly handicapped by the Vokes filter.

The Vokes filter could be (and maybe has been) the subject of another thread: why was it so bad?

Compared to the US P-39 and P-40 the situation was the reverse. the two stage supercharger in the F4F gave it better performance at high altitude (over 20 thousand ft) than the V-12 powered aircraft.

However compared to other allied aircraft available in China, Burma, Singapore, the Dutch Colonies and the south pacific. Hurricane Is, Buffaloes, assorted Curtiss products with radial engines, P-35s and so on, the WIldcat may very well have been better at low altitudes

swampyankee said:

The Vokes filter could be (and maybe has been) the subject of another thread: why was it so bad?

Click to expand...

It wasn't. The Australians were concerned by the loss of performance incurred with the fitting of the Vokes filter, and there was much debate about alternatives. Eventually they attempted to replace the Vokes filter on their tropicalised Spitfires with a locally produced version of the standard temperate system but couldn't get one to work. The Aussies are a determined lot, and the fact that they couldn't produce a satisfactory alternative is an indicator of just how complicated such a seemingly simple device actually was. In the end they had to send to the UK for plans to enable them to reproduce the Supermarine designed intake.
The tribulations with the local design are reported here:



Even when improvements were made the difference in performance between the locally produced temperate version (prior to the arrival of the Supermarine drawings) and the original Vokes filter were not as great as had been anticipated:






There was an allegedly improved filter produced, in at least two versions, by the MU at Aboukir but I can't find any numbers for Spitfires equipped with an 'Aboukir' filter. They must exist somewhere.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

It wasn't. The Australians were concerned by the loss of performance incurred with the fitting of the Vokes filter, and there was much debate about alternatives.

Click to expand...

You have two basic aspects of the filter to consider.
1, is it actually stopping the dirt from getting into the engine.
2. How much performance loss is there, which can also be broken down into two parts.
A. pressure loss before carburetor .
B. Aerodynamic drag caused by larger intake/fairing.

I have no idea how well the Vokes filter worked at keeping dirt out of the engine.

as far as pressure loss goes, hard to figure but a tropical trials aircraft in England managed to keep 9lbs boost while climbing (2850rpm) to 14,000ft at 196mph TAS and to 17,400ft in level flight at 354mph while an early MK V held 9lbs to 15,000ft while climbing and to 20,100ft without snowguard at 371mph and to 18,800ft with snowguard fitted at 365mph.
Different serial number aircraft with different engines. The engine/s should have been able to provide more boost at less than the full throttle heights. The snow guard only seem to make a difference in speed at over FTH.