Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[PAT303]

I have forgotten the actual numbers. How many RAAF Spitfires were shot down by the Japanese and how many were lost. (out of fuel or mechanical failure)

http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=7-spitfire-csu-failures
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=shortages-of-drop-tanks-spares-and-spitfires
1 wing did what they could as best they could in the situation they were dealt with, just posting up the 28-4 loss rate over and over doesn't do those guys justice.

 

[RCAFson]

This part seems to be ignored, the Spit was optimised to fight over 20,000ft, it will always be at a disadvantage to the Kittyhawk in the dogfight scenario posted earlier. Change to the clipped LF version and the outcome would be very different.

In a single stage engine, the only way to lower the engine's FTH is to use overboost. Allowing 16lb boost increases speed by ~45mph at SL. Climb rate would increase by ~40-50%. The clipped wing MkV would indeed do better at low altitude but logically it would only be fitted with a Merlin 45.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time

Do you suppose maybe the RAAF was looking for a "one size fits all" safe boost limit for all altitudes? IIRC, these were not factory new Spits, but hand me downs that had already cut their teeth in North Africa and similar garden spots. With the available fuel, they may have felt the Merlin was robust enough to withstand the next increment of boost at lower altitudes, but that in the thinner air above FTH the cooling and intercooling systems might be overtaxed. Make sense?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BiffF15]

Hey guys,

It is hard for me to discern which particular "scissors" and/or "roll" maneuver the P-40 pilot used do get on the tail of the Spitfire, but as Wes said, it was probably some variant of the Lag Roll he described above. Today it is usually called a Displacement Roll or Lag-Scissors Turn. The aircraft executing this maneuver does not need a superior turn ability to use it, but instead needs superior roll rate and usually higher initial energy (Ps). Also as Wes said, it requires either an advantage in start position, superior timing, superior situational awareness, or any combination of the three.

View attachment 561810

Re the Martlet vs Seafire dogfight, in WWII the term "steep turn" meant a climbing turn, where the Martlet would trade energy (Ps) for increased turn rate. If the Martlet started the maneuver at a higher speed, or if both aircraft started out at the same speed, the heavier Martlet would have higher initial energy and be able to briefly out turn the Seafire, until the Martlet energy drops to the same as the Seafires.

ThomasP,

The scissors or roll maneuvers are a done to force your opponent to spit or flush out in front of you. They start with two opponents almost or near equal along each other's 3 or 9 o'clock.

The picture you attached shows a high yo-yo. If you look at the inset or Gods eye view (upper right in your attachment) you will see two fighters depicted with a thick and or thin line. The offensive plane is thin, the defensive is thick. Each line has three segments, representing equal times. The offender starts at the 7 o'clock of his adversary, cuts across his turn circle, and pulls up (represented by the "w" in his second segment of line). He then pulls his nose back down below the horizon as seen in his third segment and represented by the three slash marks. The high yo-yo would allow a lessor turning a/c to "out turn" a better turning a/c in theory. Reality is he doesn't out turn but uses the vertical in an uncontested manner. This maneuver today is easily defeated or neutralized and has been since the F15, F16, F18 arrived. It could have been defeated back in the day had the defender understood what was happening and countered it properly.

As for the Martlet Seafire fight, please understand that a steep climbing turn isn't trading energy/ speed for better rate, but trading it for altitude in which to attempt a high yo-yo or to negate an opponent attempting to high yo-yo on himself. Going up will lower your turn rate but in certain situations allow you to decrease your turn radius at the top of the maneuver (in the initial pull up you actually increase your turn radius).

A plane has one speed at which it generates its best rate (degrees per second of turn) or its best radius (smallest turn circle). These are not the same speed. The F-16 and F22 don't adhere to these last two rules.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Shortround6]

Do you suppose maybe the RAAF was looking for a "one size fits all" safe boost limit for all altitudes? IIRC, these were not factory new Spits, but hand me downs that had already cut their teeth in North Africa and similar garden spots. With the available fuel, they may have felt the Merlin was robust enough to withstand the next increment of boost at lower altitudes, but that in the thinner air above FTH the cooling and intercooling systems might be overtaxed. Make sense?
Cheers,
Wes

It doesn't make sense, at least to me. AT FTH the supercharger can only deliver 9lbs of boost. There is no more boost to be had since the throttle is wide open and the supercharger impeller is turning at max rpm (if the engine is turning max rpm). The Merlin 46 didn't use an intercooler, it was a single speed, single stage supercharger that used an impeller of 10.85in diameter instead of the Merlin 45s 10.25in impeller, and a few other tweaks to the supercharger.
Perhaps you are right and they were trying to preserve engine life?

At 16lbs boost the Merlin 45 was good for 1470hp at 9250ft while the Merlin 46 was good for 1410hp at 14,000ft. above which the boost dropped in a near linear fashion until it was 9lbs at 22,000ft (in a temperate climate))

see:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg

 

[PAT303]

In a single stage engine, the only way to lower the engine's FTH is to use overboost. Allowing 16lb boost increases speed by ~45mph at SL. Climb rate would increase by ~40-50%. The clipped wing MkV would indeed do better at low altitude but logically it would only be fitted with a Merlin 45.

Low level Spitfire V vs late war German Fighters
Post 24 of this thread has a good read on the performance difference between a HF/LF MkV.

 

[Stig1207]

http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=7-spitfire-csu-failures
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=shortages-of-drop-tanks-spares-and-spitfires
1 wing did what they could as best they could in the situation they were dealt with, just posting up the 28-4 loss rate over and over doesn't do those guys justice.

OTOH, if the scenario had been Spitfires achieving a 28-4 exchange rate against enemy fighters, would anyone be pointing out that the enemy overall was doing well going 1-1 against all types?

 

[PAT303]

People are smart

OTOH, if the scenario had been Spitfires achieving a 28-4 exchange rate against enemy fighters, would anyone be pointing out that the enemy overall was doing well going 1-1 against all types?

If the roles were reversed and 28 clapped out A6M's were lost trying to attack bombers coming in at over 25,000ft I'd be on the Zero's side of the argument.

 

[Admiral Beez]

From this thread, if would seem that ANY CONTEMPORARY Spitfire, should outclass a A6M. A Mk.V with the normal boost settings, and no silly carb filter should be a step ahead of an A6M2 or 3. The oft cited Darwin example, which is a worst case scenario as far as Spitfires is concerned, ended up about even as far as total aircraft destroyed.
The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.

I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.

 

[Stig1207]

People are smart


If the roles were reversed and 28 clapped out A6M's were lost trying to attack bombers coming in at over 25,000ft I'd be on the Zero's side of the argument.

Well. it was more a rhetorical question; but my guess is that most people would be extolling the virtues of the Spitfires and the pilots flying them.

Specifically in the Darwin case, it's not just the Spitfire (clapped out or otherwise) , all the other variables have to be applied, such as pilot quality and experience, tactics, etc.

 

[Kevin J]

Well. it was more a rhetorical question; but my guess is that most people would be extolling the virtues of the Spitfires and the pilots flying them.

Specifically in the Darwin case, it's not just the Spitfire (clapped out or otherwise) , all the other variables have to be applied, such as pilot quality and experience, tactics, etc.

IIRC it was a Wirraway that shot down a clapped out Ki-43-I.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.

Take your pick...

 

[Admiral Beez]

Take your pick...

View attachment 562074 View attachment 562075 View attachment 562076

I meant as a Japanese replacement for the Zero. Nakajima Kikka perhaps?

 

[cherry blossom]

I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.

If you are wiling to wait a little, the EE Lightning might offer a good contender if the correct tactics were used. I quote from the Telegraph obituary of Sir John Nicholls Air Marshal Sir John Nicholls

"In 1963 Nicholls instigated an interesting trial when he flew a Spitfire against the supersonic Lightning in mock combat. At the time Commonwealth forces were involved in action against Indonesia and Nicholls decided to identify tactics to fight the Indonesian Air Force P-51 Mustang, a fighter that had a similar performance to the Spitfire XIX.
After a series of flights, he decided that a high performance jet fighter should attack from below in a climb, thus avoiding the risk of becoming involved in a turning fight at slower speed where the manoeuvrable piston-engine aircraft had the advantage."

 

[pinsog]

I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.

Apparently it looks like this, but maybe a different color

 

[Admiral Beez]

View attachment 562083
Apparently it looks like this, but maybe a different color

No, and that's my point. The Zero design is several years newer than the Spitfire, but was quickly outclassed by the Brit. Take a Spitfire from 1944 and a Zero from 1944, both with good pilots, equally aware of their opponent aircraft's capabilities. The Zero has much less chance. The Zero, like the Spitfire should have been continuously upgraded.

 

[pinsog]

The late model Spitfires, especially after they installed the Griffon, were among the best prop fighters ever built. I don't think ANY prop plane could have been labeled a 'Spitfire killer' after the Griffon was installed. An F8F-2 Bearcat might compete with it down below 10,000 feet, an XP72 might do ok, but I don't think 'Spitfire killer' would be applied to any prop plane

 

[taly01]

The Zero, like the Spitfire should have been continuously upgraded.

The Spitfire (except Griffon versions) and Zero were both around 28L, and started with ~1000hp, however the Spitfire improved to some 1700hp due to supercharger, intercooling and high octane quality fuel, while the Zero plateaued at ~1100hp. Everyone here would have already heard the Japanese fuel was only ever around 92 octane, and perhaps its conjecture why the British freaked out about been 20mph slower than Fw190 and rushed the new Merlin 60 series (1700hp) in for it. While the Japanese were some 60mph slower than P-38 and Corsairs but never really boosted power to counter them.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Spitfire killer? see below

 

[Shortround6]

The two stage Merlin powered versions weren't that shabby either, allowable boost going from 16lbs to 18lbs and eventually to 25lbs with the 150 PN fuel.

Two Stage Merlin's being the bulk of the planes built even in 1944.

The low altitude cropped impeller MK Vs were capable of good performance in a limited altitude band.
We are told repeatedly how good the P-40 was at low altitude using high boost. A Spit V with the cropped impeller was within a few mph of a P-40 using 57in of boost (14lbs?) at around 3,000ft. The Spit was using 18lbs. but the Spit could climb around 1000ft/sec faster at low level.

The Merlin Spitfire was a bit of an oddball in that it never got a single stage two speed supercharger, it either had a single stage, single speed optimized for either high altitude or low altitude or it got the two speed two stage supercharger. The single speed versions were hard to beat in their designed altitude bands (at the time of introduction or shortly after) but if operating outside that band they could be at at a disadvantage. The two speed two stage engines offered a lot more flexibility.

Please remember that these are general statements and cover a period of 4-5 years (not counting 1945).