Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (2 Viewers)

[MiTasol]

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 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.

 

[cherry blossom]

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)

I suspect that the A6M2s over Guadalcanal had to fight with their drop tanks attached to return safely to Rabaul.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Darwin area has two weather periods according to then official definitions, wet (green, mud) and dry (brown, dust).

RAAF Aircraft performance unit, some notes on Spitfire tests, date is usually for week ending, serial if given, notes. Note the cowl entries.
26-Aug-42 na First aircraft checked and are properly tropicalised and fitted with flame dampers.
2-Jan-43 A58-110 listed under RAF serial EE610, allotted this date, on 3rd subject to a thorough ground check.
13-Jan-43 A58-110 Tests delayed owing to lack of oxygen mask, as much flying below 18,000 feet as possible. Since arrival of oxygen mask some trouble has been experienced with the airscrews.
27-Jan-43 A58-110 Performance tests in progress.
3-Feb-43 A58-110 Performance tests with 90 gallon belly tanks were carried out.
10-Feb-43 A58-110 Performance tests with 90 gallon belly tanks almost complete. The oxygen mask for this aircraft was stolen whilst hanging out to dry after a high altitude flight. Action taken to obtain further masks.
17-Feb-43 A58-110 Tests proceeding.
24-Feb-43 A58-110 Belly tank trials completed.
10-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Under repair after damage received when belly tank became detached in flight. Tests with modified cowl to proceed when cowl available.
17-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Repairs completed. Fuel consumption and take off tests alone outstanding.
24-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Fuel consumption tests at 15,000 and 25,000 feet and take off tests done. Aircraft undergoing 40 hour inspection.
31-Mar-43 A58-110 EE610 Fuel consumption tests nearly completed, take off tests done. Experimental packing for airscrew tried out in ground run. Packing has so far been unsatisfactory.
7-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Flow meter removed for check and refitted and flight tested. Fuel consumption tests nearly completed, take off tests done.
7-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Experimental packing for airscrew removed from EE605 after satisfactory ground run and fitted to EE610
14-Apr-43 A58-10 AR621 to go to P&T flt for further G suit trials
14-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Tests held up pending manufacture of normal air intake cowlings, airscrew packing tests continuing.
21-Apr-43 na Modified engine cowling, deleting aircleaner, being fitted at SD&F flt, for performance tests.
21-Apr-43 A58-110 EE610 Oil seal washer problem, awaiting modified cowling. airscrew packing giving a lot of trouble.
28-Apr-43 AR621 Currently at 2 OTU, mountings for G-Suit completed and at 1 AD
28-Apr-43 EE610 Unserviceable due to fitting of new cowling and oil seal rings. Airscrew packing still giving trouble.
28-Apr-43 na Modified engine cowling, deleting aircleaner, performance tests begun.
5-May-43 EE610 (In report as EE616) Normal cowl fitted, performance tests near completion, fitting and flight testing of 30 gallon auxiliary tank successfully carried out. Airscrew packing tests continued.
12-May-43 EE610 Normal English Air Intake fitted, climbs to 35,000 feet and level speeds carried out but will be repeated dud to doubtful air temperature readings. fitting and flight testing of 30 gallon auxiliary tank successfuly carried out. Airscrew packing tests continued.
12-May-43 AR621 VHF Radio tests continuing by W/Cdr. Read
19-May-43 na Urgent action to manufacture non tropical engine fairings for one Sqn, another 24 fairings to be made and fitted by 1 June.
19-May-43 EE610 Engine unserviceability caused delay, tests now concluded. Airscrew packing tests continued. No further troubles experienced.
19-May-43 AR621 Being fitted with additional apparatus
26-May-43 EE610 Normal cowl speed tests completed, 5 to 6 mph slower than expected as engine is due for overhaul. The stone grill and air intake and cooler are different to the English design. Airscrew packing tests continued.
26-May-43 EE669 Due to EE610 problems, to be modified for further tests for verification of 380 mph top speed.
26-May-43 AR621 Being fitted with additional apparatus
2-Jun-43 na 24 aircraft fitted with non tropical cowling, remaining reserve aircraft estimated completed by 3 June
2-Jun-43 EE610 Prototype glider towing equipment fitted. Further full throttle level speeds attempted but results appear doubtful, check being made with EE669. Airscrew packing tests continued.
2-Jun-43 AR621 Wired for Cotton (anti G) Suit, S/Ldr Cushing will go to Sydney on 5 June for work on the centrefuge before carrying out tests on Frank and Cotton Suits. Taylor Suit tests continuing.
9-Jun-43 EE610 Tests interrupted by fitting of Prototype glider towing equipment fitted due to be completed in a few days. Airscrew packing tests continued.
9-Jun-43 EE669 Unserviceable due to engine roughness at high altitudes.
9-Jun-43 AR621 Tests on Cotton and Frank suites continued, Frank suit so far appears less effective.
16-Jun-43 na Installation of anti G system in two Spitfires expected by 18 June, one aircraft yet to be delivered. CO2 cylinders not yet indemnified for pressures being used.
16-Jun-43 EE610 Aircraft returned with Prototype glider towing equipment fitted. Airscrew packing tests to be continued when aircraft serviceable.
16-Jun-43 EE669 Faulty throttle linkage adjustments corrected, engine still rough at high altitudes, carburettor being checked.
16-Jun-43 330 Airscrew freezing tests completed, no signs of freezing.
16-Jun-43 AR621 G tests, S/Ldr Cuming underwent a course in the centrifuge at University of Sydney. Flight tests continued. Taylor suit tests continuing.
23-Jun-43 EE610 Used for glider towing successfully, maximum speed 140 mph for glider handicaps general performance.
23-Jun-43 EE669 Carburettor removed for flow checks, due to rough running commencing at 19,000 feet. Fuel pressure gauge being installed in fuel line.
30-Jun-43 EE610 Unserviceable for modification to glider towing gear.
30-Jun-43 EE669 Tank pressure modification carried out.
7-Jul-43 EE669 Engine still very rough at full power above 17,000 feet. Another complete test of throttle being carried out.
7-Jul-43 EE610 Glider towing attachment fitted. Airscrew packing tests continued. Wooden belly tank, the 90 gallon tank did not fit and has been returned to manufacturer.
14-Jul-43 EE610 Further glider tests with E.G.3 held up as glider has damaged wing tip. Airscrew packing tests continued, no trouble has been experienced.
14-Jul-43 EE669 Level speed and climbs at about full throttle height completed. Smooth operation with tropical cowl attained but not with normal cowl. Aircraft allotted away. Tests to be verified on AR621, proposal to lower air intake 3 inches.
14-Jul-43 AR621 No G suit tests done
21-Jul-43 AR621 Test flight to investigate roughness with modified cowl.
21-Jul-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued.
28-Jul-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued with satisfaction.
28-Jul-43 AR621 Anti G suits, to Brisbane with Beaufort carrying maintenance personnel, for comparisons with Hap
28-Jul-43 AR269 Anti G suits, to Brisbane with Beaufort carrying maintenance personnel, for comparisons with Hap
4-Aug-43 AR621 No engine roughness with English cowling, tests with EE610 continuing. Being fitted with radio in preparation for the arrival of the Hap.
4-Aug-43 EE610 English cowl fitted, 1/32 inch difference in cowl/flap distance between EE610 and AR621, flight tests to commence. Airscrew packing tests continued with satisfaction. Wooden belly tank tests completed, report submitted.
11-Aug-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued with satisfaction.
18-Aug-43 EE610 Airscrew packing tests continued satisfactorily.
18-Aug-43 AR621 Comparative tactical trials with Hap continuing at Archerfield.
1-Sep-43 EE610 Tests continuing to find cure for high altitude engine roughness with English cowl fitted. Airscrew packing tests continued.
1-Sep-43 AR621 Test carried out using new electrically controlled valve for G-Suit.
8-Sep-43 EE610 Tests continuing to find cure for high altitude engine roughness, an English made temperate cowl has been found and is being fitted. Airscrew packing tests continued, leaking after only 19 hours flying.
8-Sep-43 AR621 Test carried out using new electrically controlled valve for G-Suit. Valve not releasing correctly, equipment removed and being modified.
27-Oct-43 EE610 Belly tank installation attachment now satisfactory by stiffening the tank adjacent to the attachment pin, can withstand over 5 G
10-Nov-43 EE610 Belly tank installation tested to 7 G
24-Nov-43 JF394 mark VIII level speed, climb and take off tests, engine surging at high altitude.
8-Dec-43 A58-315 Airscrew surging, possibly due to oil frothing at high temperature
8-Dec-43 A58-110 P.8 Compass, needle sticking against glass cover if much bank applied.
15-Dec-43 A58-315 Climbing tests delayed due to unserviceablity of Cine Camera in automatic observer. Durability test on locally made tyres begun.
22-Dec-43 A58-315 Durability test on locally made tyres, worn through to canvas in 10 flights using concrete taxyways and runways.
29-Dec-43 A58-315 Flown to Gorrie for tropical test of modified oil cooler, which did not give enough cooling in warm air. Locally made tyres do better on non concrete runways.
5-Jan-44 A58-315 Oil cooling tests, pressure and temperature gauges fitted throughout the system plus another form of restriction on the air outlet.
12-Jan-44 A58-10 Drogue towing, use of English pully has eliminated cable breakages, tests now on drogues, to eliminate their unsteady streaming.
2-Feb-44 A58-303 Modification found successful on A58-315 has been done on several other aircraft which have been flight tested. The effect on oil temperature varies between aircraft, 65 to 80 degrees, now trying for a ground test of all such viscosity valves.
2-Feb-44 A58-315 Modification found successful on A58-315 has been done on several other aircraft which have been flight tested. The effect on oil temperature varies between aircraft, 65 to 80 degrees, now trying for a ground test of all such viscosity valves.
2-Feb-44 A58-10 Drogue towing, stronger drogues break cables, more flexible cable has been procured.
2-Feb-44 A58-10 G-suit equipment installation held up by intermittent arrival of parts
2-Feb-44 A58-303 G-suit equipment installation held up by intermittent arrival of parts
8-Mar-44 A58-303 Tests to be done of 1 piece G-suit made by Dunlops. Photographic recorder of G pressure, maximum G and airspeed being installed.
15-Mar-44 A59-315 Fuel consumption tests begun
29-Mar-44 A59-315 Performance tests done. Minor misfiring at cruise power noted and will be investigated.
29-Mar-44 A58-303 G-Suit. Device to restrict elevator movement at a certain pre-determined G value is being installed.
8-Jun-44 A58-303 High G tests with G-suit begun
29-Jun-44 A58-303 High G tests with G-suit, further tests with new equipment
19-Jul-44 A58-110 Reconditioned Merlin 46, 8 hours flown, satisfactory, no glycol leaks.
26-Jul-44 A58-303 High G tests with G-suit, tests completed
26-Jul-44 A58-110 Reconditioned Merlin 46, glycol leak at 60 degrees C has suddenly increased, leaking all the time. No further operation of the engine.
16-Aug-44 A58-110 Second Reconditioned Merlin 46 fitted, glycol leak after 2 hours 25 minutes flying. Report on first engine being forwarded.
13-Sep-44 A58-315 RG 5/3 spark plugs, still satisfactory
15-Nov-44 A58-303 Photographic recording unit for G-Suit tests completed and fitted at 1 APU.
22-Nov-44 A58-303 To test American G.3 G-Suit.
13-Dec-44 A58-303 Test American G.3 G-Suit. 12 preliminary flights, suit estimated to give 2G protection.
20-Dec-44 A58-599 Carriage of 300 pound wing bombs, carriers and belly tank fitted.
20-Dec-44 A58-303 American G.3 G-Suit. Initial tests completed.
3-Jan-45 A58-303 Test American G.3 G-Suit. Testing the G2 valve versus the USN Cornelius valve.
10-Jan-45 A58-499 Carriage of 300 pound wing bombs, awaiting trials with bombs fitted.
14-Feb-45 A58-499 Carriage of 300 pound wing bombs, deflectors for spent cartridge cases being prepared
7-Mar-45 A58-499 CO contamination, equipment tests, slight modification needed. Deflectors for spent cartridges fitted, 300 pound wing bomb racks.
14-Mar-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, level speeds at combat power done.
14-Mar-45 A58-499 CO contamination, equipment tested, slight modification needed. Low power speeds completed, deflector to prevent bomb fusing by spent cannon cases being tested.
21-Mar-45 A58-499 Deflectors for spent cartridges flight tested with 300 pound wing bomb racks. Mock up of coolant system done, tests on corrosion problems begun.
28-Mar-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, preliminary fuel consumption runs
28-Mar-45 A58-499 Deflector to prevent bomb fusing by spent cannon cases being tested, various modifications done. Mock up of coolant system completed, tests about to start.
5-Apr-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, fuel consumption runs done.
12-Apr-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, fuel consumption runs at 20 and 30,000 feet done
12-Apr-45 A58-499 Deflector to prevent bomb fusing by spent cannon cases satisfactory, position error with 250 pound bombs calculated.
18-Apr-45 A58-601 HF VIII performance test, take off tests done. Mock up of coolant system completed, 40 hours of running with uninhibited glycol and water mixture.
25-Apr-45 A58-499 300 pound wing bombs, no further work for last 2 weeks, aircraft unserviceable
25-Apr-45 na Mock up of coolant system completed, 60 hours of running with uninhibited glycol and water mixture. No results yet
16-May-45 A58-499 300 pound wing bombs, aircraft serviceable, flight trials underway.
16-May-45 na Coolant system corrosion, CAC aerater header tank tested, working satisfactorily.
23-May-45 A58-499 300 pound wing bombs, Rated and combat power level speed runs done with 250 pound bombs and 30 gallon belly tank, level speeds at optimum range, -2 pounds/square inch boost at 1,800 rpm, this finishes flying work.
23-May-45 na Mock up of coolant system completed, 60 hours of running with uninhibited glycol and water mixture. No results yet
Apr-46 A58-717 Tropical trials with improved flexible fuel tank, test tank fitted, aircraft to be sent to Darwin

Early Australian Spitfire imports and RAAF strengths, to end 1943

14-Aug-1942 6
19-Oct-1942 6
21-Oct-1942 5
27-Oct-1942 6
28-Oct-1942 10
29-Oct-1942 7
30-Oct-1942 9
2-Nov-1942 4
4-Nov-1942 16
5-Nov-1942 1
10-Nov-1942 6

Strength excludes aircraft awaiting official write off but includes still to be assembled. Date is week ending. Delivered, lost and assembled are cumulative figures.
Date / Deliv / Lost / Strength / Assembled
5-Sep-42 / 6 / na / na / 6
9-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
16-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
23-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
30-Sep-42 / na / na / na / 6
9-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
16-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
23-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
30-Oct-42 / na / na / na / 6
6-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 14
13-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 29
20-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 45
27-Nov-42 / na / na / na / 62
4-Dec-42 / na / na / na / 73
11-Dec-42 / 103 / 3 / 100 / 76
18-Dec-42 / 103 / 3 / 100 / 82
25-Dec-42 / 103 / 4 / 99 / 94
31-Dec-42 / 108 / 4 / 104 / 95
8-Jan-43 / 108 / 4 / 104 / 97
15-Jan-43 / na / na / 104 / 101
22-Jan-43 / 108 / 5 / 103 /
29-Jan-43 / 114 / na / 108 / 106
5-Feb-43 / 114 / 4 / 107 / 106
12-Feb-43 / 114 / 4 / 107 / 107
19-Feb-43 / 114 / 9 / 105 / 107
26-Feb-43 / 118 / 11 / 107 / 107
5-Mar-43 / 124 / 11 / 113 / 110
12-Mar-43 / 132 / 10 / 119 / 112
19-Mar-43 / 145 / 10 / 127 / 114
26-Mar-43 / 144 / 10 / 125 / 115
2-Apr-43 / 144 / 11 / 125 / 115
9-Apr-43 / 144 / 15 / 125 / 115
16-Apr-43 / 151 / 18 / 132 / 115
23-Apr-43 / 165 / 18 / 145 / 119
30-Apr-43 / 165 / 17 / 146 / 12
7-May-43 / 165 / 18 / 132 / 140
14-May-43 / 165 / 18 / 132 / 147
21-May-43 / 171 / 18 / 138 / 157
28-May-43 / 171 / 18 / 137 / 157
4-Jun-43 / 171 / 19 / 135 / 159
11-Jun-43 / 171 / 28 / 135 / 163
18-Jun-43 / 176 / 31 / 138 / 166
25-Jun-43 / 177 / 34 / 135 / 167
2-Jul-43 / 195 / 37 / 151 / 168
9-Jul-43 / 202 / 37 / 141 / 172
16-Jul-43 / 202 / 39 / 139 / 174
23-Jul-43 / 202 / 44 / 138 / 186
30-Jul-43 / 202 / 44 / 142 / 192
6-Aug-43 / 218 / 45 / 158 / 198
13-Aug-43 / 228 / 46 / 167 / 199
20-Aug-43 / 228 / 46 / 165 / 205
27-Aug-43 / 228 / 46 / 165 / 217
3-Sep-43 / 228 / 51 / 165 / 218
10-Sep-43 / 228 / 53 / 162 / 222
17-Sep-43 / 228 / 53 / 161 / 222
25-Sep-43 / 228 / 54 / 160 / 222
1-Oct-43 / 229 / 57 / 158 / 223
8-Oct-43 / 235 / 63 / 162 / 225
15-Oct-43 / 235 / 66 / 163 / 225
22-Oct-43 / 260 / 69 / 186 / 225
29-Oct-43 / 260 / 72 / 186 / 226
5-Nov-43 / 260 / 72 / 186 / 226
12-Nov-43 / 265 / 73 / 190 / 230
19-Nov-43 / 265 / 73 / 188 / 239
26-Nov-43 / 265 / 76 / 186 / 248
3-Dec-43 / 271 / 77 / 191 / 252
10-Dec-43 / 271 / 77 / 190 / 252
17-Dec-43 / 273 / 77 / 192 / 253
24-Dec-43 / 273 / 77 / 191 / 255
31-Dec-43 / 278 / 78 / 194 / 255

 

[pinsog]

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

Carrier based F4F's were the Cactus Air Force after their carriers got sunk or damaged.

 

[pinsog]

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.

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.

I've seen info that the Spitfires were worn out and someone back in this thread said they were brand new, I don't know which it was, but some of the Wildcats at Guadalcanal were literally pieced together from multiple wrecks after getting shelled by battleships and cruisers so "my spitfire ain't brand new" doesn't really hold water compared to the crap they were flying at Guadalcanal.

 

[GrauGeist]

Carrier based F4F's were the Cactus Air Force after their carriers got sunk or damaged.

Carrier based F4Fs operated in a dust-free environment, however.

Henderson Field, on the otherhand, was either a dustbowl or mud pond, depending on the day's weather...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"my spitfire ain't brand new" doesn't really hold water compared to the crap they were flying at Guadalcanal.

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.

 

[pinsog]

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.

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

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

 

[pinsog]

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.

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.

I'm sure you've read Shore's books A Bloody Shambles? In 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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Agree

I'm sure you've read Shore's books A Bloody Shambles?

The first 2 Volumes

In 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.

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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.

Again, one incident doesn't mean this was a common occurrence.

Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story

By age 21, Capt. Tilley was an Ace combat pilot! By age 21 Capt. Tilley had received a DFC, 7 Air Medals, and a Campaign ribbon with 7 battle stars

www.kilroywashere.org

 

[nuuumannn]

Fighters of World War I didn't operate from aircraft carriers because aircraft carriers didn't exist.

Um, yes they did, HMS Furious and Argus, aside from seaplane tenders converted for launching aircraft since 1914... Furious launched the Tondern raid, the first aircraft carrier launched air strike in history in July 1918.

The Tondern Raid 1918 - About this website

Just messing with you...

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.

Yes, but as pointed out, the trials were done with the A6M3, not the A6M2, which had inferior performance to the former, referred to as the "Hap" in the trials, after "Hap" Arnold, but was subsequently changed to "Hamp" to avoid embarrassment. To put those trials into context, they were to evaluate the new type of Japanese fighter against existing types.

This is a good page on this model of the Zero that is often referenced on this forum.

Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3)

but someone in this thread (not sure where) said they were brand new.

The 42 Capstans delivered to Australia in 1942 were new aircraft. The first to arrive were Mk.VCs built by Supermarine Aviation (Vickers) Ltd to contract No.B19713/39 of a fifth order for 1100 Spitfire Is dated 11 October 1940 but before construction the production line changed from Mk.Is to Vs, VIs, VIIs and eventually IXs, with the VCs for Australia being mainly rolled out in May 1942.

Here's an example of one of the first to arrive in Australia in August, BR386, which received the RAAF serial number A58-22, from the Big Book of Spitfires by Morgan and Shacklady:

BR386 2923 HPA FF 9-5-42 39MU 10-5 47MU 4-6 Stir Cas 19-6 Aus 25-8

This entry contradicts other reports that state the first Spitfires had arrived in Australia by 14 August, nevertheless, the aircraft on rollout had served with maintenance units (MU) for servicing prior to being shipped to Australia aboard the Stirling Castle, a troop ship. This early arrival date can be confirmed by a report carried out on 17 August 1942 at Laverton, Victoria where the type was assembled and readied for service on delivery, which states that "I found however, that the first aircraft is not yet erected and and it is estimated that by the RAF Engineering Officer who is in charge of the erection party that the six aircraft will not be available until after a period of 10 to 14 days." This lines up with the 25 August date mentioned above, which leads me to suspect the date Morgan and Shacklady quote is the completion date of the aircraft rather than their arrival date in Australia. The two authors got their information from the British Aircraft Movement Cards on microfiche at the RAF Museum (the originals held at the Air Historic Branch), which lead me to suspect the original data the British had on the aircraft was incorrect, rather than an error by the authors.

The first six aircraft were BR386 (A58-22), BR462 (A58-23), BR471 (A58-25), BR568 (A58-56), BR570 (A58-57) and BR572 (A58-58). The first Spitfire to receive an Australian serial was AR510, which was delivered in December 1942, becoming A58-1. Before the Australian serials were applied the Spits went by their manufacturer applied serials. Photographic evidence of this exists.

The EE serial batch were built by Westland Aircraft Ltd at Yeovil to Contract No.B124305/40 for 200 aircraft and were delivered between September 1942 and February 1943. The bulk of them rolled out in September 1942 and were on their way to Australia a month or two later in October and November.

This is an entry for the previously mentioned Spitfire VC EE610, which became A58-110, of which there are a few surviving images around:

"EE610 6MU 14-9-42 215MU 23-9 Port Wynd 9-10 Aus 21-11"

EE610 arrived in Australia in November 1942 aboard the freighter Port Wyndham along with a larger number of aircraft than the previous six, mostly Westland built VCs. The very first batch of Capstans was diverted to North Africa, making the six that arrived on the Stirling Castle the first to arrive in Australia.

 

[PAT303]

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.

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?.

 

[PAT303]

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

That just about sums it up.

 

[PAT303]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Zero's used over Darwin were brand new, you should read the book Darwin Spitfires.

As were the Spitfires See my post above.