Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

pinsog · Oct 17, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
From someone who was there...

"Despite the much vaunted superiority of the Spitfire, low hours of experience,
questionable command decisions and tactics and mechanical problems with propeller
constant speed units (propeller pitch), glycol coolant leaks and engine wear due to
the dust and constant cannon failures (freezing at altitude) were common. These
aircraft also differed from the standard Spitfire Vc in that they had been fitted with a
Vokes air filter beneath their nose to reduce the amount of sand and dust which
entered the engine, which also reduced their performance by around 30 mph."

https://www.ozatwar.com/raf/spitfireoverdarwin.pdf

I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn't work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don't work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don't have a very good plane for this environment. Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine.

I'd like to point out that the US didn't have anything in theater to do better than the Spitfire. The Japanese just flew over the top of the P40's and waved at them because the P40's couldn't play at that altitude. They needed P38's but apparently none were available

GrauGeist · Oct 17, 2021

pinsog said:
No, the Zero air intake was up high out of the dust. Did ALL P40's have a filter or only the Merlin powered P40's?

The A6M2 had it's carb intake at 6 O'clock on the cowling, the A6M3 and later types had the intake at 12 O'clock.

The KI-43-I was also at 6 O'clock, but was repositioned to 12 O'clock with the KI-43-II.

Shortround6 · Oct 17, 2021

P-38s had two air intakes. One was the standard one on the side of the engine nacelle. The other was inside the wheel well in the nacelle. This was to be used when taking-off or taxiing in dirty conditions.
On both the P-38 and the P-47 the air always followed the long route through the turbo charger, intercooler and ducts. There was no by-pass.

On the P-47 the air (and dirt) was always going go from the front of the plane to rear, through the turbo, then inter cooler and then back to the front of the plane before reaching the carb. Not sure how much dirt made that trip.

buffnut453 · Oct 17, 2021

Shortround6 said:
On the P-47 the air (and dirt) was always going go from the front of the plane to rear, through the turbo, then inter cooler and then back to the front of the plane before reaching the carb. Not sure how much dirt made that trip.

Alas dirt (being dirt) is not apt to send postcards so we may never know how far it went on its various trips. However, if dirt is anything like its close relative beach sand, I think we can be reasonably confident that it got EVERYWHERE!

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2021

pinsog said:
They probably had the intake on top of the cowling where there isn't as much dust.

Have you ever seen dust?, have you ever seen aircraft operate on a dusty field?, it won't matter if the filter is above the engine or below, it's sucking dust. An Australian company has had to make new air filter box's for Toyota's here in Oz, Merc had to design a new one for our Army's G wagons because they were sucking dust, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2021

pinsog said:
I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn't work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don't work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don't have a very good plane for this environment

Um yeah, the constant speed units were faulty not from dust, the guns froze because the planes didn't have heaters and the Oz made ammo was out of spec, all engines used in dusty conditions, planes tanks trucks had filters, except the Zero apparently, the speed loss from the filter was 5 knots, 6 Mph as per a test done by the RAAF.

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2021

pinsog said:
Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine.

I'd drive my Defender, no plastic there. Toyota air-intake system fault: a closer look

PAT303 · Oct 17, 2021

Look at the first photo of the Defender in this link, to give you an idea of what the conditions were like at Darwin, 117 Spitfires were lost to all causes, many after crashing into tree's. Unsealed 4X4 - Here's what a filtration expert thinks about Toyota's dust problem

FLYBOYJ · Oct 17, 2021

It's obvious we all seem to know what induction sand filters are used for and that sand/ dust are not good for reciprocating engines. Radials seem to fare better in dusty and sandy environments. I don't know how bad the sand/ dust situation was at Darwin and how it compared to a place like the Sahara Desert where you have fine sand/ dust. Flight through moderate sand and dust IMO isn't going to cause harm in the short term, but no doubt it's going to eventually have an affect on engine life. During the discussed period, someone made the decision to have these Spitfires operate with these filters which caused at least a 10% reduction in speed for starters. It would seem to me you would mitigate the risk and determine whether to operate at a diminished capability for the sake of saving equipment, or concentrate on defeating the enemy at hand and worry about attrition later? I don't have an answer for that and I don't know if eventually the latter was undertaken but if I was running an operation I would concentrate more on stopping the bombing of a civilian population even if it meant burning up assets.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 17, 2021

pinsog said:
I have great respect for you Flyboy but to me this just proves my point. If your prop doesn't work in the dust and dirt, if your guns don't work in the dust and dirt, if you have to add a filter that cuts your top speed by 30 mph then maybe you don't have a very good plane for this environment. Example: would you rather drive a Ferrari or a diesel Toyota Land Cruiser on a dirt road across Australia? On pavement the Ferrari will obviously win, but on a 1000 mile long dirt road the Land cruiser is the better machine.

Its obvious I would use the equipment best suited for the environment. Dust and sand environments can be mitigated if you have the equipment and facilities (Hangars) to deal with environment. That wasn't the case over Darwin and it limited the Spitfire's performance, as stated by several, even yourself - take the Zero, send it to the UK and then compare the performance of a Spit V, the latter is a superior machine, the rest of the discussion involves pilot skill and tactics

pinsog said:
o
I'd like to point out that the US didn't have anything in theater to do better than the Spitfire. The Japanese just flew over the top of the P40's and waved at them because the P40's couldn't play at that altitude. They needed P38's but apparently none were available

Errr, over Darwin, no but P-38s were in theater performing combat operations in December 42'. If you read the full story you'll find that the Japanese had to eventually give up on their campaign because they did not have enough serviceable bombers to continue. Although you had situations where the RAAF Spitfires were beaten pretty badly by the Zeros, in the bigger picture the Zeros actually FAILED their mission as they were not able to provide enough protection for the bombers so they can sustain continual operations.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 17, 2021

This is from our member Wildcat who posted this in the thread I mentioned earlier. Count the Japanese bombers destroyed or damaged

Spitfire units –
54 RAF
452 RAAF
457 RAAF

IJNAF units
202Ku Zero's
753AG Betty's
934Ku Jake Rufe floatplanes

IJAAF
59th Sentai Oscar
61st Sentai Helen bombers
75th Sentai Lily bomber
70th DCS Dinah

During the 1943 campaign No1FW claimed 70 enemy aircraft destroyed – 34 fighters, 29 bombers, 7 recon aircraft. From various sources I've compiled the following actual losses –
6 Feb 43 – 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Kurasuki Setaguti Lt Fumio Mori 70th DCS) 54RAF

7 Mar 43 - 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Yutaka Tonoi Lt Chokiti Orihara 70th DCS) 457RAAF

15 Mar 43 - 1 Zero destroyed (PO2c Seiji Tajiri (a/c 6540) Ku202) – F/O Mawer RAAF 54RAF
8 Betty's damaged (753Ku)

2 May 43 – 7 Zero's damaged, 7 Betty's damaged

10 May 43 - 1 Zero destroyed (PO1c Kunio Sakai Ku202) – F/Sgt Watson – 457RAAF
1 Zero destroyed (CPO Tadao Yamanaka Ku202) – P/O Morse – 457RAAF

23 May 43 – 1 Ki-46 damaged 54RAF

28 May 43 – 2 Betty's destroyed (753Ku) 457RAAF
1 Betty crash landed (753Ku) 457RAAF

20 Jun 43 - 1 Oscar destroyed (1LT Shigeto Kawata 59th Sentai)
1 Helen destroyed (LT Kenjiro Matsuhara 61st Sentai)
1 Helen destroyed (Capt Katsuhiro Ohta 61st Sentai (a/c 174))
1 Helen crash landed (1/Lt Yoshio Kawamura 3KIA 61st Sentai)
1 Lily force landed (1/Lt Masakatsu Yamazaki 75th Sentai)
1 Lily force landed (WO Shinzo Miura 75th Sentai)

28 Jun 43 – 1 Betty crash landed (753Ku)
1 Betty 3 zero's damaged

30 Jun 43 – 1 Betty crash landed (753Ku)

6 Jul 43 - 1 Betty destroyed (FCPO Masao Kobayashi 753 Ku (a/c 3677))
2 Betty's crash landed (753Ku)
2 Zero's damaged

18 Jul 43 - 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Capt Shunji Sasaki (70th DCS CO) Lt Akira Eguchi 70th DCS (a/c 2414)) – S/Ldr James 457RAAF

10 Aug 43 - 1 Jake destroyed (PO/3 Ishiwata, WO Nagano PO/2 Takagami 934th Ku) – F/O Young P/O Coombes – 452 RAAF
1 Rufe damaged (LT Toshiharu Ikeda CO 934th Ku) as above

17 Aug 43 - 1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Kyuichi Okomoto Lt Yasuro Yamamoto (a/c2250) 70th DCS) – F/L Watson – 457RAAF
1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Saburo Shinohara Lt Hideo Ura (a/c2273) 70th DCS) – F/Sgt Jenkins F/Sgt Watson – 457RAAF
1 Ki-46 destroyed (Lt Shir-Ichi Matsu-ura Lt Kyotoshi Shiraki (a/c2237) 70th DCS) – S/L James – 457RAAF
1 Ki-46 destroyed (Sgt Tomihiko Tanaka Sgt Kinji Kawahara Ku202) – W/C Caldwell – No1 FW

7 Sep 43 - 1 Zero destroyed (PO1c Yoshio Terai Ku202)

6 Nov 43 – 1 Ki-46 damaged 457RAAF

11/12 Nov 43 - 1 Betty destroyed (Cdr Michio Horii XO, Lt Takeji Fujiwara wing leader 753 Ku) – F/O Smithson – 457RAAF night time interception.

From this I get 5 fighters destroyed, 6 bombers destroyed 8 force/crash landed (on Japanese held Islands) and 7 recce 1 floatplane destroyed.
How many of these crash landed bomber never flew again, I don't know. The two Lily's were finished off by a RAAF Beaufighter strike a few days later. The above is wide open to corrections and additions.

Air combat over Darwin

From an earlier thread I started a couple of years ago.. Spitfire units – 54 RAF 452 RAAF 457 RAAF IJNAF units 202Ku Zero’s 753AG Betty’s 934Ku Jake Rufe floatplanes IJAAF 59th Sentai Oscar 61st Sentai Helen bombers 75th Sentai Lily bomber 70th DCS Dinah During the 1943...

ww2aircraft.net

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 17, 2021

PAT303 said:
Have you ever seen dust?, have you ever seen aircraft operate on a dusty field?, it won't matter if the filter is above the engine or below, it's sucking dust. An Australian company has had to make new air filter box's for Toyota's here in Oz, Merc had to design a new one for our Army's G wagons because they were sucking dust, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Got to agree here. I spent 12 months flying out if Iraq. Initially we did not have filters, but even after getting them we went through engines like there was no tomorrow. It was like sucking up a sandbox.

pinsog · Oct 17, 2021

We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. I also know that they shot down some bombers, but let's consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.

(I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)

FLYBOYJ · Oct 17, 2021

pinsog said:
We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. I also know that they shot down some bombers,

Again, if you research the campaign they did more than shoot down some bombers, they eventually helped end the Japanese bombing campaign of Darwin (see post 1271)

pinsog said:
but let's consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.

(I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)

So think about your points - the Wildcat was a naval aircraft, a lot more rugged than the Spitfire but by far not the same performance. Consider pilot training and tactics as well as fighting close to home. They basically did the same thing the RAAF did over Darwin but I think the learning curb was a bit shorter.

GrauGeist · Oct 17, 2021

Dang, that was a considerable amount of KI-46s downed, which was no easy feat.
The KI-46 was a fast, high-flying twin and virtually un-touchable during the early years of the war...

PAT303 · Oct 18, 2021

pinsog said:
We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new. Some say the filter cost 30 mph, but PAT303 said it cost 6 mph (I have seen/read that test as well PAT303). I have no idea if the Spitfires were old or new or if the filter cost 30 mph or 6 mph. I also know that they shot down some bombers, but let's consider that Wildcats at Guadalcanal fought Zeros over an extended period in muddy, dirty, dusty horrible conditions, pilots sick with dysentery and malaria, getting shelled at night by cruisers and battleships in Wildcats that were sometimes pieced together from multiple wrecks and still managed a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros and decimated unescorted bombers.

(I still shake my head at how a Wildcat, with the climb rate of a concrete truck, ever managed to hold its own with a Zero)

Were the Wildcat pilots skilled pilots?, like I posted only 6 of the RAAF pilots had seen combat, did the Wildcats guns work?, the Spitfires didn't have heaters and the 20mm ammunition was made in a new factory in Sydney and was not within spec. The Spitfires the RAAF got were worn out, they had been shipped as deck cargo and had severe corrosion, there was a serious issue with the CSU with 30 documented cases of them failing, lastly, as stated by SR6, Darwin Merlin 46's only ran 9 PSI boost giving about 1020hp, the normal Merlin 45 engined MkV's produced 1500hp, loosing 500hp is a massive disadvantage.

GrauGeist · Oct 18, 2021

We talking about carrier based F4Fs or Cactus Air Force F4Fs?

Conslaw · Oct 18, 2021

Elvis said:
The Zero was designed to fight in a WWI scenario.
Later allied planes were designed to fight in a WWII scenario.

No, the Zero was designed to be exactly what it was, a long-range naval air superiority fighter - but that term was not in use. Fighters of World War One didn't fly 500-600 miles into enemy territory and dominate the air over enemy bases. Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.

Greyman · Oct 18, 2021

pinsog said:
We also have much conflicting info on the exact situation for the Spitfires, many say they were worn out piles of crap, but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new.

It might be a case of both being true, in a manner of speaking.

At this point in the war Spitfire V was at its absolute nadir in terms of quality. The fit, finish, etc. of mid/late Mk.Vc aircraft was pretty bad.

There also seemed to be a trend of the worst batches of particular aircraft being sent off to the other theatres (Malta, Burma, etc.) while the better examples remained in England. It wouldn't surprise me if the Australian Spitfires -- even if brand new -- were some sorry examples of the type.

MiTasol · Oct 18, 2021

buffnut453 said:
Alas dirt (being dirt) is not apt to send postcards so we may never know how far it went on its various trips. However, if dirt is anything like its close relative beach sand, I think we can be reasonably confident that it got EVERYWHERE!

And coral dust (think of talcum powder sized grinding compound) goes places that not even sand can get to.

Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major General

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads