Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
I suspect that the A6M2s over Guadalcanal had to fight with their drop tanks attached to return safely to Rabaul.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)
Reading through this thread and doing research on this (which I find quite fascinating) I would love to find how this was actually calculated and who ordered the use of the filters. Were the filters later removed?I suspect they did do a basic analysis and determine that the number of spare engines (2/5 of 3/4 of SFA) and lead time for replacements from England (90 days at best) meant you could use the aircraft for say a week with no filters and say a month with filters. Add to that calculation the maximum possible number of attacking Japanese aircraft that an engineless Spitfire can destroy and the answer was USE FILTERS.
Carrier based F4F's were the Cactus Air Force after their carriers got sunk or damaged.We talking about carrier based F4Fs or Cactus Air Force F4Fs?
Well like everyone else Wildcat pilots were veterans after they saw combat. There was Coral Sea, Midway and then Guadalcanal. Pilots died, got transferred, got wounded, new pilots came in and replaced them so it was a mix of guys that were in maybe a few fights with Zeros or maybe none at all. They were not like Germans and British pilots that fought constantly during the Battle of Britain.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.
Carrier based F4Fs operated in a dust-free environment, however.Carrier based F4F's were the Cactus Air Force after their carriers got sunk or damaged.
And you're trying to make an overall comparison of 2 aircraft based on their operational condition rather then their full operational potential when they roll out of the factory. No matter what you say the Spitfire MKV was the superior aircraft when compared to the Zero Models 21, 22 and 31. It was faster, performed better above 20,000', was faster in a dive, had better armor protection and armament. The Zero had the range and probably better acceleration and better maneuverability below 300 mph."my spitfire ain't brand new" doesn't really hold water compared to the crap they were flying at Guadalcanal.
I would agree the Spitfires based in Europe were better (I've said that several times) but not the Spitfires that were operated by the RAAF. According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference. The Spitfire can barely outroll the Zero at high speed. The Zero was 1 mph faster at around 17,000 feet (obviously dead even). The test pilots themselves said "the Spitfire possed no outstanding features to allow it to gain the upper hand if combat was started on even terms". They said if the Spitfire started 4000 feet above the Zero it could boom and zoom at will, but dang, any relatively closely matched fighters could do that to each other with a height advantage.And you're trying to make an overall comparison of 2 aircraft based on their operational condition rather then their full operational potential when they roll out of the factory. No matter what you say the Spitfire MKV was the superior aircraft when compared to the Zero Models 21, 22 and 31. It was faster, performed better above 20,000', was faster in a dive, had better armor protection and armament. The Zero had the range and probably better acceleration and better maneuverability below 300 mph.
Now after that factor in tactics and pilot skill.
Of course the Wildcat is going to be more robust compared to the Spitfire, for starters is was designed to operate from an aircraft carrier!
Lastly, READ about what those RAAF units were up against when attempting to defend their territory.
Take a factory fresh Spit V and a Zero and put them side by side - be it in Australia, England, the US or China, the results are going to be the same, the Spitfire is the better aircraft PERIOD. I read the reports and they were compiled with operational aircraft and IMO were probably made to show a worse case scenario so better aircraft can be attained. If you're flying with beat up aircraft (as some claimed and seems to be true) or with something that is diminishing performance (like drop tanks or desert air filters) you can be using P-51s and you're still going to be at a disadvantage!I would agree the Spitfires based in Europe were better (I've said that several times) but not the Spitfires that were operated by the RAAF. According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference. The Spitfire can barely outroll the Zero at high speed. The Zero was 1 mph faster at around 17,000 feet (obviously dead even). The test pilots themselves said "the Spitfire possed no outstanding features to allow it to gain the upper hand if combat was started on even terms". They said if the Spitfire started 4000 feet above the Zero it could boom and zoom at will, but dang, any relatively closely matched fighters could do that to each other with a height advantage.
I know the Wildcat was a tough navy plane. My point about the Wildcat was that people say "well the Spitfires were worn out that's why they didn't do well", my point is the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were literally blown up by naval artillery shells and multiple planes scavenged to make one junk pile fly and they still had a 1 to 1 ratio against Zeros not including the bombers they shot down.
I enjoy the debate but we may just have to disagree on this one. Please also remember that the Zero used in the test wasn't factory fresh either. I agree 100% that a new Spitfire in europe with full boost, no tropical filter etc would/should be a whole different story but the Spitfires they shipped weren't set up that way.Take a factory fresh Spit V and a Zero and put them side by side - be it in Australia, England, the US or China, the results are going to be the same, the Spitfire is the better aircraft PERIOD. I read the reports and they were compiled with operational aircraft and IMO were probably made to show a worse case scenario so better aircraft can be attained. If you're flying with beat up aircraft (as some claimed and seems to be true) or with something that is diminishing performance (like drop tanks or desert air filters) you can be using P-51s and you're still going to be at a disadvantage!
You're painting this with a wide brush and continue to ignore the fact that in the final outcome these questionably tired Spitfires with these bolt on air filters were very much responsible for the Japanese giving up their bombing campaigns against Australia.
Stop comparing this campaign to Guadalcanal, two different environments with two different tactical goals.
AgreeI enjoy the debate but we may just have to disagree on this one. Please also remember that the Zero used in the test wasn't factory fresh either. I agree 100% that a new Spitfire in europe with full boost, no tropical filter etc would/should be a whole different story but the Spitfires they shipped weren't set up that way.
The first 2 VolumesI'm sure you've read Shore's books A Bloody Shambles?
I can see this on a turning dogfight, the Oscar was more maneuverable in the zero, also there is an element of acceleration. Even the later model Oscars were not that fast compared two the Spitfire VIII so unless you're close in I still think the Spitfire would be the better aircraft and come out ahead if the pilot was seasoned, used energy tactics, speed and disengaged if forced into a turning fightIn the last book they talk about brand new Spitfire VIII having difficulty with KI43's to the point that many of them were out of service for bent fuselages. (The Spitfires VIII was a freaking hot rod) The Japanese had adapted tactics and placed KI43's from high level all the way down to low level so the Spitfires couldn't just boom and zoom them, any altitude the Spitfires leveled out at had KI43's around them.
You should read Shores last book when you can. They told of KI43's intercepting a recon P38 and a recon Mosquito. The recon Mosquito was at, I think, 28,000 feet and the KI43 dove zoom climbed up and shot it down. I was floored. The Spitfires weren't trying to dogfight but the Japanese tactics forced them to. I was floored on that as well. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a contemporary fighter that I'd want to be in to fight a Spitfire VIII, they were a stud.Agree
The first 2 Volumes
I can see this on a turning dogfight, the Oscar was more maneuverable in the zero, also there is an element of acceleration. Even the later model Oscars were not that fast compared two the Spitfire VIII so unless you're close in I still think the Spitfire would be the better aircraft and come out ahead if the pilot was seasoned, used energy tactics, speed and disengaged if forced into a turning fight
All good but one incident like this doesn't mean much. I'd like to know specifics, units, speeds etc. Hopefully you can find this reference.You should read Shores last book when you can. They told of KI43's intercepting a recon P38 and a recon Mosquito. The recon Mosquito was at, I think, 28,000 feet and the KI43 dove zoom climbed up and shot it down. I was floored. The Spitfires weren't trying to dogfight but the Japanese tactics forced them to. I was floored on that as well. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a contemporary fighter that I'd want to be in to fight a Spitfire VIII, they were a stud.
If I get a chance I'll see if I can find the quotes and I'll post them about the Spitfire VIII
Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.
According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference.
but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new.
Seriously mate, the RAAF spitfires were fitted with high altitude merlin 46's rated at 9psi boost pressure not Merlin 45's running 16psi, as posted by SR6 with only 9psi the 46 was giving away 500hp at the test altitude, the RAF had cleared all Merlin marks to 16psi in Aug '42 and were running 18psi Feb '42, do you think that running less boost in '43 than the Merlin XII was 1940 could be the reason the V's performance was down to the Zero's level?.I would agree the Spitfires based in Europe were better (I've said that several times) but not the Spitfires that were operated by the RAAF. According to the head to head test done by the RAAF, the Spitfire barely out climbed the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference, the Spitfire barely out dives the Zero, not enough to make a tactical difference. The Spitfire can barely outroll the Zero at high speed. The Zero was 1 mph faster at around 17,000 feet (obviously dead even). The test pilots themselves said "the Spitfire possed no outstanding features to allow it to gain the upper hand if combat was started on even terms". They said if the Spitfire started 4000 feet above the Zero it could boom and zoom at will, but dang, any relatively closely matched fighters could do that to each other with a height advantage.
That just about sums it up.Perhaps worthy of note, the A6M3 was a contemporary of the Spitfire Mk. VIII or IX, not the older, and considerably less capable Mk V.
The defense of Darwin is the absolute worst case scenario for the Spitfire. If some malevolent being tried to assemble a Spitfire to be as uncompetitive as possible, it would look a lot like the Mk.V's in Northern Australia
The Zero's used over Darwin were brand new, you should read the book Darwin Spitfires.Please also remember that the Zero used in the test wasn't factory fresh either.
The Zero's used over Darwin were brand new, you should read the book Darwin Spitfires.