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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.I like the bit about the stubby little wings on the Martlet, which were 38ft in span or 1ft 2in longer than the Spitfire's wings.
If they were working up with planes that would be used in combat then the martlet model can probably be trimmed down to Martlet IV.
This is because the Martlet II and III (100 and 30 built respectively) would have been almost two years old in 1943.
The Martlet IV started deliveries in the summer of 1942 and 220 were built making a much more likely plane to being used in early 1943.
I would also note that the Martlet IV used a Aright R-1820 engine that was several hundred pounds lighter than the R-1830 used in the F4F-4.
One also wonders about the ammo load on such training flights. A 6 gun Martlet would be carrying 432lbs of ammo if it was carrying ammo.
Zero's would mop the floor with a Hurricane, about the same top speed, Zero had much better acceleration than either the Hurricane or Spitfire, neither could dive well enough to disengage, climb with the Hurricane and Zero should be about the same, Hurricane isn't fast enough to stay above 300 mph to start out turning the Zero. Hurricane has 0 cards to play. Spitfire is about 25 mph faster and will climb faster but the Zero can climb much steeper. Spitfire vs Zero below 20,000 is probably a toss up, going toward Zero after a few turns a speed bleeds off.
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.I completely understand your comment and frankly I can't explain it either. The Hurricane has a performance advantage over the Wildcat but I would say the Wildcat was tougher and I would prefer the 50 caliber machineguns. But there is a world of difference in how they did against the Japanese. I guess there aren't enough stats to know how the Wildcat would have done in Europe.
I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?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.
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.I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?
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.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.
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.I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?
This is an FM2 Wildcat vs a Zero model 52Maybe 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.
The Spitfire, while tougher than a Zero, did not enjoy that reputation.
"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)Are there any sources to confirm that reputation or is it merely "American aircraft are better" bias?
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...
Let's quit looking for bias where there isn't any and discuss the facts we have.
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.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.
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.
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.
I was under the impression the Huricane could not outdive the A6m, at least not by much but perhaps I was wrong about that?
I'm defending the Zero because it was a worthy adversary and not a piece of junk that got lucky.