The data for the RAAF Spitfire performance @ 16lb boost, in Greyman's chart, came from RAAF test flights.
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
The data for the RAAF Spitfire performance @ 16lb boost, in Greyman's chart, came from RAAF test flights.
Wonder why they didn't turn up the boost? Worried about engine wear at the end of a long supply line? Seems like not getting them shot down would be a priority as well but military chain of command can be pretty stupid: Germans, we don't need winter clothes. Americans: torpedoes cost too much to test etc
I don't know and it is a bit of a mystery. It maybe that the pilot didn't have approval in that test to use 16lb boost. Here's a memo from the RAAF showing speeds at 16lb boost:
I think a lot of times, disagreements on here wouldn't happen in real life because people would flesh out a real conversation more than they will type. The performance of a Spitfire V in Europe was much better and should have given a Zero, pilots being equal, a lot of trouble.
But first the Spit has to attain high speed without being shot down by the faster accelerating Zero.
Only if commenced with both aircraft already at high speed. If at "dogfight speed" (Zero bounces Spit) Zero's superior acceleration and initial climb allow it a lethal burst before the Spit can climb away.
Gotcha coming and going.
Cheers,
Wes
Less than optimum fuel? Primitive maintenance conditions? Hot, humid, dusty operating conditions? Tired airframes and engines? Poor parts availability? Any one of these would suffice, though I suspect all were present to a greater or lesser extent.
Cheers,
Wes
Like maybe a bombing raid on the home islands in April, 1942? Or the foiling of their Port Moresby invasion in May, with the loss of a carrier, and two more rendered inoperative at an especially awkward time?
They seemed to be impervious to lessons of that nature. Kind of like trying to bomb away Londoners' distaste for Naziism.
Cheers,
Wes
Look at post #432
buffnut453
Captain
The crux of the problem here is that we don't know the engagement parameters. At what speeds are the aircraft flying, and are those speeds realistic? Is either aircraft defensive or is it a neutral (ie head-on) engagement? Does either aircraft have an altitude advantage? What is the role of the Zero in the engagement: is it an escort or is it offensive counter-air (because escort missions usually involve flying a little slower so the fighter can keep pace with the bomber its supposed to be escorting)? What about the aircraft formation, because you seldom fly in formation at max speed for very long....it's an impossibility due to different performance characteristics of individual airframes within the squadron. These, and other factors, have a major impact on the outcome of the engagement.
Acceleration happens BEFORE the aircraft get within weapons range. He who spots the adversary first will accelerate first and, therefore usually, enters the engagement with more energy. This is Combat Manoeuvering 1-01 - gain all the energy you can before committing. I believe the Darwin Spits were vectored by ground-based early warning, which would suggest they have the edge in the "who spots the enemy first" race.
If the trial involved putting the 2 aircraft in close proximity and then saying "go for it", I'm afraid that's just not a realistic test. They may have been trying to replicate conditions after the merge but, even then, entry speed, altitude and the geometry of the engagement massively impact the outcome.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 515
- Apr 23, 2007
The Zeros may have seen the Spitfires first because Caldwell was a supporter of the "Big Wing" as mentioned in a blog Blog - The Battle for the Skies of Darwin - Osprey Publishing or in Anthony Cooper's book Darwin Spitfires. It must be easier to see three squadrons of Spitfires than three Zeros.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
That might be the case if Caldwell was tactically naive and simply flew directly towards the attacking formation. However, if he was more tactically astute and manoeuvered the Spitfire formation to come from an unexpected direction, then the odds are firmly on the side of the defenders. The sky is a big place to search with just 3 pairs of eyes, and even at 15 miles it would be hard to pick out a big wing formation. Radar would put the defenders at a significant tactical advantage knowing where the enemy is coming from, and at what altitude they are flying, to cue the Mk1 eyeballs of the pilots towards the attacking formation. It would also give the defending formation leader better situational awareness so he can place his formation in the optimal position to execute an attack.
Bullpucky! Post #432 is a direct quote of the source document which was referenced by link several pages earlier upthread. I followed the link and read it. Did you? It was a generally acknowledged fact that the Spit V suffered an acceleration deficit relative to other fighters of its time. Speedmongers of the armchair dogfighter variety often discount the importance of acceleration in ACM, as it's not an easily accessible statistic like top speed.
And the dynamic nature of an air combat engagement makes acceleration crucial, even if all parties engage at a high energy state to begin with, as all high G maneuvers are energy bleeders. Restoking that energy is time critical.
Cheers,
Wes
When you've burned most of your fuel getting your formation assembled you don't have much choice than to follow the advice of Lord Nelson: "Never mind maneuvers, go straight at 'em!".
Cheers,
Wes
buffnut453
Captain
That's absolutely true. Again, that comes down to a tactical decision about how to employ the defensive fighters. However, it doesn't change the fundamental facts regarding the relative merits of the types under discussion. The best fighter in the world employed stupidly won't win any battles.
Last edited:
I did read it ( http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero ).
All references to superior acceleration in the Zero look to be the words of the website author. I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.
At low altitudes especially, the Zero was close on hp and weighed over a 1000 pounds less, so it would makes sense that it also had much better acceleration than that model Spitfire
You're right, they are, but they're a direct paraphrase of the words of the pilots that flew the trials and regularly flew against the Zero in combat. Are you insinuating the author is cooking up a nonexistent shortcoming of the Almighty Spitfire? Does that shake the foundations of your temple? That happens to temples built on sand.
Cheers,
Wes
