Reasonable questions. Are you questioning the ability of a loaded Martlet to turn inside a Seafire? I have no idea, as I said it surprised me. I would have guessed the Martlet would outroll a Spitfire but not outturn it.
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
You should pick up a copy of Terrence Kelley's "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War". As a Hurricane pilot who combated both Zero's and KI 43's , he has some interesting thoughts on the matter of the quality of these fighters.
The Hurricane II easily out dives a Zero, has a better operational ceiling, better high speed handling and is a much tougher and better protected fighter. Twelve .303s is almost the perfect armament to shoot down a Zero. With parity in numbers and radar control for the RAF, its the Zero that is short on cards in an air battle over Britain.
Shortround6
Major General
The trouble is we don't have a lot of information.
We don't know the altitude they were dogfighting at or if they were using combat power or military power (neither plane can really sustain a High G turn for very long without losing altitude).
and yes weight/s can have a lot to do with it, the Seafire may not have been carrying ammo either but the a full load of ammo for the Seafire in question is around 245lbs.
Going by the data cards a Seafire IIC goes 6106lbs light (no fuel, oil ammo or pilot) while a Martlet/Wildcat IV goes 6390lbs, The Martlet will hold 120imp gallons inside vs the Seafires 85 gallons.
data card for the Martlet/Wildcat IV is here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-IV-ads.jpg
unfortunately the data card for the IIC is for the low altitude version with the Merlin 32.
test of the Seafire IIC with the Melrin 46 is here but low altitude data is a bit lacking. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafireIIc.pdf
The "standard" version got the Merlin 46 and unless the Martlet pilot was stupid enough to try to the mock dog fight at over 17,000ft or so the Merlin 46 was going to have a real power problem vs the Wright R-1820. if the Merlin 46 was held to 9lbs boost or less.
We don't know the altitude they were dogfighting at or if they were using combat power or military power (neither plane can really sustain a High G turn for very long without losing altitude).
and yes weight/s can have a lot to do with it, the Seafire may not have been carrying ammo either but the a full load of ammo for the Seafire in question is around 245lbs.
Going by the data cards a Seafire IIC goes 6106lbs light (no fuel, oil ammo or pilot) while a Martlet/Wildcat IV goes 6390lbs, The Martlet will hold 120imp gallons inside vs the Seafires 85 gallons.
data card for the Martlet/Wildcat IV is here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-IV-ads.jpg
unfortunately the data card for the IIC is for the low altitude version with the Merlin 32.
test of the Seafire IIC with the Melrin 46 is here but low altitude data is a bit lacking. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafireIIc.pdf
The "standard" version got the Merlin 46 and unless the Martlet pilot was stupid enough to try to the mock dog fight at over 17,000ft or so the Merlin 46 was going to have a real power problem vs the Wright R-1820. if the Merlin 46 was held to 9lbs boost or less.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Maybe it comes down to that the Wildcat had one( two if you count toughness) advantage on the Zero that being dive speed, but the Huricane had none. Against the Germans at least the Huricane had a tighter turn.
It seems youve got to have at least one advantage somewhere, otherwise if there's nothing you can do better than your opponent it's going to be tough going.
For whatever it's worth in the few encounters the Wildcat had with German fighters it seems to have done surprisingly well. At least from what I've read.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?
As with all these comparisons, it hinges on which marks of the aircrafts are involved and the circumstances of the comparison. As demonstrated in the A6M3 vs Spit Vc fly off referenced in the link upthread, a plane with a higher terminal dive speed statistic can still be shot down by a pursuer whose initial dive acceleration can nearly match it, even if terminal speed (what you read on the data card) is lower. Data card numbers, being "snapshots" of what is actually dynamic action, can be misleading.
Cheers,
Wes
I would agree on everything you typed except dive speed. Will a Hurricane II outdive a Spitfire V? A Spitfire V will eventually out pace a Zero in a dive but not quickly enough to avoid being shot down. A Hurricane will also have better high speed handling, the problem is trying to stay above 300 mph to out handle a Zero when your absolute top speed in a brand new fighter all cleaned and polished is 335 mph or so. That might be easy to do in a P38, Corsair, Hellcat or Britain based Spitfire with no filter, but much more difficult in a Hurricane, P39 and P40's at altitude, or a Wildcat anywhere but in a dive.
12 303's or 4-6 50's, any of those will do the job if you can hit him, the problem is being able to stay with him long enough to hit him. I can kill a fly with a hammer, IF I can hit him.
I believe the problem is the initial acceleration. The Spitfire accelerated slowly in the dive at the beginning allowing a pursuing Zero to get in a really good burst. Spitfires aren't as durable as many other allied fighters, P39 had the same issue with the rear mounted engine. A P40 has a great roll rate, so a Zero drops on your tail, you can easily out roll him, so in an instant your on your back, it also accelerated quickly in a dive, so by the time the Zero finished its roll and was on its back, the P40 was safely out of range. P40's and Wildcats were also extremely tough, both being able to absorb quite a few hits before they make their escape, the Spitfire, while tougher than a Zero, did not enjoy that reputation.
This is an FM2 Wildcat vs a Zero model 52
Notice the Zero initially outdives the FM2
buffnut453
Captain
Are there any sources to confirm that reputation or is it merely "American aircraft are better" bias?
"American aircraft are better" bias? Oh come on. If you can find some my other posts such as the one pointing out that a bombless B17 or B24 can beat an F4F-4 wildcat, P39 or P40 to 30,000 feet it might answer that question. I had suggested, tongue in cheek, that either of those bombers should have been used over Guadalcanal as interceptors as they were faster at altitude and had better time to climb than any of the mentioned fighters. I like the Spitfire, I'm defending the Zero because it was a worthy adversary and not a piece of junk that got lucky. I also stated in that same paragraph you quoted that P39's did not stand up well to damage due to the rear mounted engine. The P39 was American wasn't it? The P51 did not have a reputation for taking damage either. But, the P40 and the Wildcat do have that reputation. Let's see, the OFFICIAL way to fight a Zero at Guadalcanal in a Wildcat was "fly straight and jink up and down until the Zero ran out of bullets or someone shot him off of you. Don't turn so he can hit you or the engine" That is the official recommendation for what to do in a Wildcat. I also stated in this thread that the Hurricane had a performance advantage over the F4F-4 Wildcat and I can't explain why the Wildcat did better except that maybe it was a bit tougher and maybe the 50 caliber guns were just the right choice. (I should have included that the Wildcat was also setup for deflection shooting which would allow pilots to shoot at Zero's that they never could have got on their 6)
Let's quit looking for bias where there isn't any and discuss the facts we have.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Captain
When the Hurricanes finally began replacing the RAF Buffalo at Singapore and Dutch AF units, was there any noticeable improvement vs. the Buffalo?Funny how the Hurricane is such a deadbeat and yet many threads on this forum cite that the Wildcat was at least on par with the A6M. Clearly, I'm missing something...
Some interesting reading RAAF/NZ/RAF Squadrons in Malaya 1941
Several times in this thread it was stated that Zero was flawed because it lacked self sealing tanks and it didn't get a much more powerful engine later in the war. However, it did received self-sealing tanks with the version 52c, and that was manufactured in decent numbers.
A non-installation of a more powerful engine is not a flaw of the Zero as it was, but it was a fault of the people in charge in the IJN. The Zero received the Kinsei in 1945 in form of two prototypes - too late to matter. Picture of the A6M8 tested by Americans: link
A non-installation of a more powerful engine is not a flaw of the Zero as it was, but it was a fault of the people in charge in the IJN. The Zero received the Kinsei in 1945 in form of two prototypes - too late to matter. Picture of the A6M8 tested by Americans: link
buffnut453
Captain
I was actually more interested in facts than reputations. The latter are too easily influenced by any number of biases, including ignorance. I'm not accusing you of the latter, simply looking for facts that show the Spitfire was not robust.
Kevin J
Banned
As an example. To turn the Hurricane into the Sea Hurricane, you need a conversion kit. To turn the Spitfire into the Seafire, well it's a long list and it takes about 2 years to get a decent Seafire. So yes, the Spitfire was fragile, lots of bent wings and twisted tails in the BoB.
This is post number 12 on this same thread.
I'm not sure what else we have to go on besides reputation. I know from reading about Guadalcanal that those Wildcats were beaten, shot, shelled, put together from multiple wrecks and kept fighting. The 'pincushion' tactic of letting Zeros shoot at you and your armor stopping bullets is a fact as well.
Neither the Spitfire, P39 or P51 has great reputations for taking damage. P38 was either/or with many claiming it burned easily with hits. Wildcats, P40's and P47's had great reputations along with Hellcats and Corsairs.
Kevin J
Banned
These were the Vc and VIII of 1942 +.
buffnut453
Captain
Ability to convert a land-based fighter into a carrier fighter has little to do with ability to survive combat damage. As to bent wings, was that from overstressing the airframe in combat? Perhaps a factor in the number of issues is fact that the BoB was a turning fight while the Pacific theatre wasn't (because Allied airframes typically couldn't turn with their Japanese adversaries)?
Not entirely sure how one would twist the tail of an aircraft except when landing which, again, has nothing to do with the ability of the airframe to sustain combat damage.
Again, can we have numbers and causes rather than unsubstantiated statements. I'm happy to be proven wrong, indeed the comments about the Spitfire's relative weakness may be entirely correct. The problem is that people often overplay relative strengths and weaknesses to justify the point they're making. We see it all the time on this forum. If the Spitfire was substantially less able to survive combat than a P-40 or Wildcat then I'd like to see evidence of that statement. The latter clearly has some advantage because of the radial engine but, even there, I feel the difference in combat survival is sometimes overstated.
Last edited:
Here's a couple of quotes from Eric Brown, source, Armoured Aircraft Carriers in World War II
Sea Hurricane IIC Versus Zeke 22
The Japanese fighter was superior in performance, particularly climbing and a turning circle but the Hurricane, with its better rate of roll and dive acceleration, would still be difficult to bring down. If the British fighter drew a bead on the Zeke – a large if – that would guarantee its powerful four-cannon armament an instant kill.
Verdict: This would be a contest of well-matched opponents, but the Zeke's remarkable agility should ultimately prove lethal.
Sea Hurricane IIC vs F4F-4
Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could out turn the Wildcat, and it could evade a stern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.
Verdict: This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gunshots than the Wildcat, but for neither was this an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat.
No one ever said the Zero was a piece of junk, what everyone has said was it was overrated because improved tactics and continued aircraft development quickly left it behind.
