Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

PAT303 · Nov 24, 2019

michael rauls said:
With the part about what if the Luftwaffe had A6ms I think you will find a wide range of opinions on weather that would materially affect the outcome of the BOB here.
For whatever its worth I tend to be of the opinion that while unlikely to change the ultamit outcome for a variety of reasons, ssome related to air power and some not, it would have made things much tougher for the Brits if for no other reason than time on station. If each hypothetical German A6m can spend half an our or more fighting over Britain insead of 5 or 10 minutes as was often the case with the Bf109 that is a huge force multiplier independent of the realative merits of the two aircraft.

Staying over British territory for an extra 30 minutes means the RAF has 30 more minutes to also attack you, or flying deeper into Britain brings you into range of more fighter groups and also allows the coastal groups to land rearm and refuel and bounce you on the way back out. Staying over enemy airspace controlled by an efficient integrated air defence network for longer than necessary is probably not the greatest idea, and lets not forget both the Luftwaffe and RAF loaded their planes with armour and self sealing tanks after analyzing their losses during the battle of France, the A6M had neither, and you wouldn't be facing worn out MkV's but new build Mk1/11's.

Kevin J · Nov 24, 2019

PAT303 said:
Staying over British territory for an extra 30 minutes means the RAF has 30 more minutes to also attack you, or flying deeper into Britain brings you into range of more fighter groups and also allows the coastal groups to land rearm and refuel and bounce you on the way back out. Staying over enemy airspace controlled by an efficient integrated air defence network for longer than necessary is probably not the greatest idea, and lets not forget both the Luftwaffe and RAF loaded their planes with armour and self sealing tanks after analyzing their losses during the battle of France, the A6M had neither, and you wouldn't be facing worn out MkV's but new build Mk1/11's.

Let me guess, 2 squadrons of A6M2's are available in 1940/41? Do they duke it out with our 2 squadrons of Whirlwinds?

Kevin J · Nov 24, 2019

Kevin J said:
Let me guess, 2 squadrons of A6M2's are available in 1940/41? Do they duke it out with our 2 squadrons of Whirlwinds?

3 A6M 1939, 98 A6M 1940, so enough for 2 squadrons over the English Channel for 6 months. First squadron operational August 1940, second in November based on historic production rates.

Shortround6 · Nov 24, 2019

MiTasol said:
A Spitfire 1 with fixed pitch prop superior to an A6M2 with constant speed prop and many many many times the range?

Well, there were only about 80 or so Spit MK Is with wooden props and not all of those kept the wooden props.

so

1938 (late) Spit MK I with wooden prop vs ??????paper airplane? requirement ?
1939 (early) Spit MK I with wooden prop vs Zero Prototype (first flight April) with Zuisei engine
1939 (late) Spit MK I with 2 pitch prop vs Zero prototypes with Zuisei engines.
1940 (early) Spit MK I testing constant speed prop and being fitted with armor and partial self sealing tanks. Zero is still undergoing flight tests with many small problems.
1940 (late) Spit MK II constant speed prop, Merlin XII engine (SPit IS are leaving the factories with constant speed props and planes in the field have been converted. . Zero sees 100th plane delivered by year end, single speed supercharger. Zero gets folding wing tips
1941, (early) Spitfire MK Vs with Merlin 45s. 8LMGs. Zero still has single speed engine.
1941 (late) Spit MK Vs get cannon and finally belt feeds. Zero Prototypes with 2 speed engines are flying.
1942 (early) Spitfires are operating with increased boost, two stage engines are being introduced slowly. Zeros with 2 speed engines and clipped wing go into production in April of 1942.
1942 (late) More Spitfire models, increased production of two stage versions. Zeros with 2 speed engines go into service in the Solomons, Zero gets 100 round magazines for the 20mm cannon.

The Australians did not get the latest and best Spitfires. any talk of Zeros in the BoB means the early Zero with single speed supercharger, lower diving speed than the Hap/Hamp (thinner wing skin, longer wing tips, less effective ailerons.

Using Hap/Hamp Zeke 32 as a basis of comparison to the Spit MK I is about like comparing the A6M2 model 11 to a Spitfire MK IX or wondering how the Bf 109E would have fared against the Spit MK IX.

Kevin J · Nov 24, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Well, there were only about 80 or so Spit MK Is with wooden props and not all of those kept the wooden props.

so

1938 (late) Spit MK I with wooden prop vs ??????paper airplane? requirement ?
1939 (early) Spit MK I with wooden prop vs Zero Prototype (first flight April) with Zuisei engine
1939 (late) Spit MK I with 2 pitch prop vs Zero prototypes with Zuisei engines.
1940 (early) Spit MK I testing constant speed prop and being fitted with armor and partial self sealing tanks. Zero is still undergoing flight tests with many small problems.
1940 (late) Spit MK II constant speed prop, Merlin XII engine (SPit IS are leaving the factories with constant speed props and planes in the field have been converted. . Zero sees 100th plane delivered by year end, single speed supercharger. Zero gets folding wing tips
1941, (early) Spitfire MK Vs with Merlin 45s. 8LMGs. Zero still has single speed engine.
1941 (late) Spit MK Vs get cannon and finally belt feeds. Zero Prototypes with 2 speed engines are flying.
1942 (early) Spitfires are operating with increased boost, two stage engines are being introduced slowly. Zeros with 2 speed engines and clipped wing go into production in April of 1942.
1942 (late) More Spitfire models, increased production of two stage versions. Zeros with 2 speed engines go into service in the Solomons, Zero gets 100 round magazines for the 20mm cannon.

The Australians did not get the latest and best Spitfires. any talk of Zeros in the BoB means the early Zero with single speed supercharger, lower diving speed than the Hap/Hamp (thinner wing skin, longer wing tips, less effective ailerons.

Using Hap/Hamp Zeke 32 as a basis of comparison to the Spit MK I is about like comparing the A6M2 model 11 to a Spitfire MK IX or wondering how the Bf 109E would have fared against the Spit MK IX.

I did that comparison because a Vb with a tropical filter has about the same performance as a I.

pinsog · Nov 24, 2019

Greyman said:
So we're in agreement then? Nowhere does it say the Zero accelerates faster than the Spitfire?

A Seafire IIC racing a 6 Gun Martlet/Wildcat and barely out accelerating it might give some insight on a Spitfire V Tropical vs a Zero on acceleration.

michael rauls · Nov 24, 2019

PAT303 said:
Staying over British territory for an extra 30 minutes means the RAF has 30 more minutes to also attack you, or flying deeper into Britain brings you into range of more fighter groups and also allows the coastal groups to land rearm and refuel and bounce you on the way back out. Staying over enemy airspace controlled by an efficient integrated air defence network for longer than necessary is probably not the greatest idea, and lets not forget both the Luftwaffe and RAF loaded their planes with armour and self sealing tanks after analyzing their losses during the battle of France, the A6M had neither, and you wouldn't be facing worn out MkV's but new build Mk1/11's.

Agreed that staying over Britain longer is not going to be without additional losses for the Luftwaffe but it would be a force multiplier in that it would allow many more targets to be within range of bombers escorted by A6ms instead of Me110s which would also reduce Luftwaffe atrition to a certain extent. Would also mean no place in Britain would be safe from Luftwaffe raids.
Whether the Luftwaffe would use this hypothetical capability in an effective manner or just continue to do things like bomb London is a different matter.

stona · Nov 24, 2019

michael rauls said:
Would also mean no place in Britain would be safe from Luftwaffe raids.
Whether the Luftwaffe would use this hypothetical capability in an effective manner or just continue to do things like bomb London is a different matter.

Even in daylight, which is what you mean, the Luftwaffe could theoretically bomb anywhere at night, the targets have to be identified and found.

The Germans only managed to bomb 11 Group's sector stations as part of a wider campaign. They never understood their importance or function.

Ineffectively bombing wider ranging targets just means fewer bombs fall on the ones that actually matter. The Luftwaffe doesn't have a larger available bomb lift because it has a long(er) ranged escort. The same weight of bombs simply gets more widely distributed.

It would certainly be inconvenient for Bomber, Coastal, Training Commands and the RN to have their airfields bombed (as it was historically) but it was doing nothing to win the air campaign for the Germans.

MiTasol · Nov 24, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Well, there were only about 80 or so Spit MK Is with wooden props and not all of those kept the wooden props.

so ........ Using Hap/Hamp Zeke 32 as a basis of comparison to the Spit MK I is about like comparing the A6M2 model 11 to a Spitfire MK IX or wondering how the Bf 109E would have fared against the Spit MK IX.

I'll pay that

XBe02Drvr · Nov 24, 2019

QUOTE="stona, post: 1515023, member: 26138"]The Germans only managed to bomb 11 Group's sector stations as part of a wider campaign. They never understood their importance or function.[/QUOTE]

This calls to mind a passage from post #406 upthread:

nuuumannn said:
the Germans lost the Battle of Britain as much as the British won it. Poor intelligence, a lack of solid information as to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, underestimation of the enemy, a lack of appreciation of the strategic situation as the battle unfolded.

Which leads to:

stona said:
The Luftwaffe doesn't have a larger available bomb lift because it has a long(er) ranged escort. The same weight of bombs simply gets more widely distributed.

And:

stona said:
It would certainly be inconvenient for Bomber, Coastal, Training Commands and the RN to have their airfields bombed (as it was historically) but it was doing nothing to win the air campaign for the Germans

Superior escort fighters and longer ranged bombing raids still would not have prevailed without better strategic vision and focus on the part of the Germans. Kinda like the flawed protagonist in a Greek tragedy.
Cheers,
Wes

RCAFson · Nov 24, 2019

pinsog said:
View attachment 561740

View attachment 561741
A Seafire IIC racing a 6 Gun Martlet/Wildcat and barely out accelerating it might give some insight on a Spitfire V Tropical vs a Zero on acceleration.

The above account is highly suspect and does not accord at all with flight test data conducted by the UK on the Martlet and Seafire. Here's another look at similar aircraft:

All the Fine Young Eagles by David L. Bashow

Page 248-9.

After a few rounds from the bar, a discussion developed regarding the merits of the Wildcat versus the Hurricane. It continued until the American issued a challenge they would have four Wildcats at Torbay the following morning. The tactics were simple. Four pairs, each consisting of a Wildcat and a Hurricane, would meet at an agreed upon altitude, in each of the four quadrants of the sky, North. West. South and East of the airport. They would meet, fly in formation for a minute or two, then break up and approach each other head on. From then on it was a straight dogfight, with each pilot trying to get on the other fellow's tail. Flight Commanders were not allowed to fly on either side. We were part of the large audience assembled on the ground to see the show. Everything went according to plan. The aircraft met. flew in formation for a minute or two, and then began dog fighting. In a couple of minutes there were four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats, and they stayed there, to great applause and shouts from the audience below.

After landing, everyone adjourned to the hangar to hash over the situation. The Americans seemed completely nonplused by the turn of events. They could not understand how things could have turned out the way they had. It must have been some kind of aberration that could never happen again, so they issued another challenge for the following afternoon. This time, they announced. Flight Commanders could fly, so I decided to get in on the fun in Hurricane 5485. That afternoon the two readiness aircraft: equipped with depth charges, were sitting on the tarmac. "Butch" Washburn and "Gibby" Gibbs were the readiness pilots that day and Butch said to me. "You know Bill, I think we can take on these buggers with those readiness aircraft." "Why not?" I replied ... "Have a go." We lined up a fourth pilot and the exercise was carried out all over again with four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats once again. Butch Washburn was so keen that he stayed on the Wildcat's tail until it landed on the runway. The Americans were forced to admit that the Hurricane was the better aircraft. Even when it was ladened with depth charges. We had a party in the Mess that night with the Americans becoming more generous and more lavish with their praise as the evening wore on. According to some of them, if 128 Squadron, complete with aircraft and personnel. could suddenly be transported to the Pacific Theater, we would make short work of the Japanese Air Force. Yes, it was a great party ...

The Sea Hurricane and Seafire have greatly superior power to weight ratios and lower wing loading than the F4F/Martlet and the above results are predicted by the data.

XBe02Drvr · Nov 24, 2019

Interesting question: Why would a Spitfire, with its thin wing and sleek wind cheating shape, have an acceleration problem vis a vis its contemporaries, even in a dive? It has a thin, elliptical wing, which theoretically should give it just about optimum L/D for its aspect ratio at pretty much all useful angles of attack, thereby minimising induced drag. Parasite drag from its highly streamlined fuselage is about as low as it can practically go, leaving the radiator as a potential culprit. But then why aren't other contemporary liquid cooled fighters similarly handicapped?
Just speculating, I wonder if the wing angle of incidence relative to the thrust line would have anything to do with it. The Spit was designed in an era when fighter dromes were small with obstacles around them, and relatively short takeoffs and landings the norm. It would make sense in that case to mount the wing with its high speed airfoil at a slight positive angle of incidence relative to thrust line and fuselage centerline. Unfortunately, this means that when the pilot "unloads" (zeros the AOA) in order to maximise acceleration, the plane develops a desire to "tuck under" because of the downward canted thrust line relative to the chord line. So the pilot has to maintain a slight positive AOA to counter the "tuck" thereby incurring an induced drag penalty. The A4 Skyhawk was similarly afflicted, and for the same reason.
The other possibility is a thrust penalty incurred during the "unload", but weren't Spits V and above equipped with pressure carbs or fuel injection? Or at least the infamous orifice?
Any engineers out there want to jump in?
Cheers,
Wes

pinsog · Nov 24, 2019

RCAFson said:
The above account is highly suspect and does not accord at all with flight test data conducted by the UK on the Martlet and Seafire. Here's another look at similar aircraft:

The Sea Hurricane and Seafire have greatly superior power to weight ratios and lower wing loading than the F4F/Martlet and the above results are predicted by the data.

I'm aware of that story as it has been discussed on this board. The carrier named in the story was in the Pacific at the time, according to people smarter than me. Also, Hurricanes carrying depth charges and still outturning a Wildcat sounds like it's made up as well. Captain Eric Brown said the Wildcat and Hurricane were very close, although in a mock dogfight the Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera pics of the Wildcat. (That sounds like the Me109/Spitfire combats of the early war period when they would trade spots on performance every few months) Neither of those examples sound like the kind of superiority where one could carry depth charges and still out perform your opponent. The Wildcat/FM2 was the best turning US fighter of the war with the exception of the P36. I do agree a Hurricane has better performance than a Wildcat on speed, climb (especially climb) and probably turned a bit tighter.

Edit: something else that lends credibility to the Wildcat Spitfire story, at least to me, is the humbleness of the Wildcat pilot. He says the Spitfire pilot was MUCH better than he was but he was still able to turn a smaller circle. Not the way fighter pilots normally act.

Clayton Magnet · Nov 24, 2019

IdahoRenegade said:
On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941?

Poorly, seeing as how the P-40 wasn't operational until 1941

RCAFson · Nov 24, 2019

pinsog said:
I'm aware of that story as it has been discussed on this board. The carrier named in the story was in the Pacific at the time, according to people smarter than me. Also, Hurricanes carrying depth charges and still outturning a Wildcat sounds like it's made up as well. Captain Eric Brown said the Wildcat and Hurricane were very close, although in a mock dogfight the Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera pics of the Wildcat. (That sounds like the Me109/Spitfire combats of the early war period when they would trade spots on performance every few months) Neither of those examples sound like the kind of superiority where one could carry depth charges and still out perform your opponent. The Wildcat/FM2 was the best turning US fighter of the war with the exception of the P36. I do agree a Hurricane has better performance than a Wildcat on speed, climb (especially climb) and probably turned a bit tighter.

Edit: something else that lends credibility to the Wildcat Spitfire story, at least to me, is the humbleness of the Wildcat pilot. He says the Spitfire pilot was MUCH better than he was but he was still able to turn a smaller circle. Not the way fighter pilots normally act.

The story related to USS Wasp (CV18) in July 1943, and she was completing trials while based at Boston in late 1943/early 1944. Many of the Essex class carriers had similar workup routines and the author may have gotten the ship and/or dates wrong. USS Ranger was moored at Placentia Bay Nfld in early July 1943 and seems the most likely candidate. While Wasp (CV-7) was in Nfld in early 1942.

A loaded F4F-4 weighs 7975lb ( Martlet II/IV= ~7700lb) and has 260ft2 wing area. A Hurricane Mk X weighs about 6850-7000lb and and even with two x 250lb DCs would still have lower wing loading than an F4F-4. A Seafire 2C weighs about 7150lb and has 242ft2 of wing area.

Eric Brown was probably remembering early fixed wing Martlets that weighed in at ~7200lb. The folding wing F4F-4 Wildcat and Martlet II/IV was a unmanoeuvrable fighter compared to a Hurricane and/or a Spitfire and was further handicapped by a low performance engine.

pinsog · Nov 24, 2019

RCAFson said:
The story related to USS Wasp (CV18) in July 1943, and she was completing trials while based at Boston in late 1943/early 1944. Many of the Essex class carriers had similar workup routines and the author may have gotten the ship and/or dates wrong. USS Ranger was moored at Placentia Bay Nfld in early July 1943 and seems the most likely candidate. While Wasp (CV-7) was in Nfld in early 1942.

A loaded F4F-4 weighs 7975lb ( Martlet II/IV= ~7700lb) and has 260ft2 wing area. A Hurricane Mk X weighs about 6850-7000lb and and even with two x 250lb DCs would still have lower wing loading than an F4F-4. A Seafire 2C weighs about 7150lb and has 242ft2 of wing area.

Eric Brown was probably remembering early fixed wing Martlets that weighed in at ~7200lb. The folding wing F4F-4 Wildcat and Martlet II/IV was a unmanoeuvrable fighter compared to a Hurricane and/or a Spitfire and was further handicapped by a low performance engine.

The F4F-4 could outmaneuver a P40 at any altitude and at wars end the Wildcat was still the most maneuverable plane in the US inventory. Wildcats were not unmaneuverable, they could turn inside any US fighter after the P36 was gone. The F4F-4 couldn't climb worth a hoot, but they turned just fine.

But I guess the gist of all of this is no matter what 2 RAAF pilots flying a Spitfire V head to head with a Hamp said, no matter that the score was 28 Spitfires shot down against 4 Japanese fighters, no matter that the Japanese flew 500 miles one way and ran Spitfires out of gas over their own territory, none of that means a thing, the only thing that's matters is the Spitfire could not and was not ever bested by any obsolete pile of junk called a Zero, Hamp or KI43.

The Spitfire cannot be defeated by any mortal weapons. Any test stating otherwise should be destroyed.

Here are some more RAAF tests to make excuses for where a P40 doesn't immediately succumb to the mere presence of the mighty Spitfire

Love the part where the P40 OUTTURNED the Spitfire and scissored in behind him. OH MY!!! The mighty Spitfire was outturned by the lowly P40... HURRY EVERYONE!!! Say it didn't happen or make an excuse for the Spitfire, you know, pilot was new, blind, quadriplegic, something....

RCAFson · Nov 24, 2019

pinsog said:
The F4F-4 could outmaneuver a P40 at any altitude and at wars end the Wildcat was still the most maneuverable plane in the US inventory. Wildcats were not unmaneuverable, they could turn inside any US fighter after the P36 was gone. The F4F-4 couldn't climb worth a hoot, but they turned just fine.

But I guess the gist of all of this is no matter what 2 RAAF pilots flying a Spitfire V head to head with a Hamp said, no matter that the score was 28 Spitfires shot down against 4 Japanese fighters, no matter that the Japanese flew 500 miles one way and ran Spitfires out of gas over their own territory, none of that means a thing, the only thing that's matters is the Spitfire could not and was not ever bested by any obsolete pile of junk called a Zero, Hamp or KI43.

The Spitfire cannot be defeated by any mortal weapons. Any test stating otherwise should be destroyed.

Here are some more RAAF tests to make excuses for where a P40 doesn't immediately succumb to the mere presence of the mighty SpitfireView attachment 561804 View attachment 561805

View attachment 561803

The F4F-4 had lower wing loading than a P40. Compared to the Hurricane or Spitfire the F4F-4 was a poorly performing, unmanoeuvrable aircraft. The P40 has better performance than the F4F-4 but had a very poor turn radius.

Again, in the above test the Spitfire was denied the use of overboost.

pinsog · Nov 24, 2019

RCAFson said:
The F4F-4 had lower wing loading than a P40. Compared to the Hurricane or Spitfire the F4F-4 was a poorly performing, unmanoeuvrable aircraft. The P40 has better performance than the F4F-4 but had a very poor turn radius.

Again, in the above test the Spitfire was denied the use of overboost.

Obviously a conspiracy on the part of the RAAF to discount the Spitfire as the greatest weapon of all time. It is why those 28 RAAF pilots let themselves get shot down by the barely able to fly Hamps and only shooting down 4 in return.

How did the P40 outturn the Spitfire? Blind pilot? No arms?

michael rauls · Nov 24, 2019

RCAFson said:
The F4F-4 had lower wing loading than a P40. Compared to the Hurricane or Spitfire the F4F-4 was a poorly performing, unmanoeuvrable aircraft. The P40 has better performance than the F4F-4 but had a very poor turn radius.

Again, in the above test the Spitfire was denied the use of overboost.

I've never heard of the p40 discribed as having a poor turning radius except by those using the A6m as a yardstick to measure it by. Have read many times they outurned 109s in the desert and I don't think anyone would refer to the Bf109 as having a poor turning radius.
P40s certainly had their issues, largely high altitude performance but was turning radius really one of them?

Shortround6 · Nov 24, 2019

pinsog said:
How did the P40 outturn the Spitfire? Blind pilot? No arms?

Uh, where does it say the P-40 out turned the Spitfire?

Maybe my reading comprehension has gone to pot as I get older but my take on the 4 combats listed in that report is that essentially the P-40 managed a draw on two of them and got the hell out of Dodge on two of them. This hardly proof the P-40 was superior. It may be proof the P-40 wasn't as bad as some people think.

It doesn't matter how many times this report is posted or how big you make the letters.

combat 1 the fight was practically a stalemate and after both planes descended 9,000ft in 5-7 minutes the KittyHawk pilot dives away breaking contact.

combat 2. after two minutes in which the Spitfire cannot be shaken by the P-40 the P-40 breaks contact by diving away.

combat 3. Kittyhawk starts with height advantage. (how much?) and after 14 minutes the fight had descended by 7,000ft, neither plane could gain the advantage, in other words a stalemate or draw.

Combat 4, Spit starts with the height advantage. in 11 minutes the fight descends 9,000ft, neither plane can really get an advantage, P-40 uses superior speed to break away.

and we are to conclude that the P-40 was the better plane?

I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time. I do know the Merlin 46 made around 70-90 less hp at any altitude up to over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 which sure didn't help the RAAF Spitfire Vs. compared to the "book" tests in England of Spitfire Vs using Merlin 45s. Merlin 46 did make rated power several thsousnad feet higher than the Merlin 45 so a combat started at 22,000-24,000 would have gone the Spitfires way.

FTH for the Kittyhawk was around 12,000ft and in level flight it was 14,000ft or better. the Merlin 46 had an FTH of 22,000ft and in level flight was even higher.
At 13,000ft the Merlin 46 gave about 1020hp at 9lbs boost if I am reading the chart right.

Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Major General

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Major

1st Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads