Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (1 Viewer)

[GregP]

The F4U was a VERY good airplane that was delayed WAY too long by the U.S.A. . Had it been deployed when it COULD have been, it would have made a much greater impact. As it is, the Corsair was probably among the two highest-performing piston fighters we fielded, at least in the F4U-4 variant. Later variants were even better, but were too late for the war. The F2G was great, but they only built 10!

I sometimes knock the Ta-152 for having fielded only 43 or so planes. You can imagine how important I think the F2G was!

I think the Hellcat was hands down, the ace-maker of the PTO and the best we fielded in that theater at the time it was operational. At the same power settings, not in ram air, the Corsair and Hellcat flew the same speed. With ram, the Corsair was slightly faster, but not by much. I strongly believe the Corsair had an "optimistic" aiespeed indicator. Go gly in formation with one. He always indicates faster than the rest!

But, and here's the important part, it's just an opinion. They vary, like your mileage.

Shortround makes some good points above, though. Worth considering. The general level of comments in here is pretty damed good from most. Again, just my opinion.

 

[parsifal]

Greg, as usual you make a lot of sense. I should say despite my bagging of the Corsair that it was a very fine aircraft. Both the f6F and F4u were winners in that regard. but were they absolutely necessary? I tend now given SRs clarification about the limits on the F4f I am inclined to concede the hellcat was necessary to vital. Its a hard stretch to say that about the corsair though.

 

[GregP]

Hi Parsifal,

Both fighters were very good, with the Corsair being a bit later than was actually possible.

It still did well, but got into the fight during the decline of Japanese aircrew ability, which no doubt contributed to it's successes. To what extent will never be known since there is NO way to monitor that. All we really know, in the end, is that the Japanese were losing veterans faster than they could be replaced. Much the same could be said for the Luftwaffe from mid-1943 onward.

In both cases, the Allies were building up their cadre and the Axis was losing theirs faster than the buildup efforts could support, though they WERE trying. Here in the U.S.A., we didn't have anyone bombing us, so we had a LOT of flying fields that could relax and train people properly. In Japan and Germany, there were bombs dropping everywhere most of the time, and they also had the added plague of having new production of war materiel being bombed, too.

The British did, too, at first, but increasingly less as the war wore on after D-Day. These factors were quite significant, and probably helped seal the outcome. The same could be said for land forces, submarines, ships, and even food and clothing.

We SHOULD have bombed the power stations! Everything would have stopped! The time to do it was when spring was getting warmer, so the coming warm season would be both upon them and simultaneously less deadly to civilians without power. The hope would be to finish it before winter starts killing people. But, it wasn't a popular choice due to possible retalliation. If YOU do something not very nice, THEY can do it back, too. Always has been that way.

In Medieval times, they sometimes had an evening truce so they could gather the wounded and dead. Seems like a good idea to me. Better would be to negotiate and NOT fight, but wars started anyway. They should have gotten together and watched the two opposing leaders fight for the win! That way, they'd elect warriors who KNOW they don't want to fight.

People don't generally realize it, and REALLY didn't in the late 1960's, but the LAST people who want war are soldiers. They have to go fight and die! They want the politicians to succeed and avoid war. Politicians who vote for war should be among the first troops sent to the new front!

If it were that way, I bet we'd have a LOT fewer wars!

 

[Shortround6]

Greg, as usual you make a lot of sense. I should say despite my bagging of the Corsair that it was a very fine aircraft. Both the f6F and F4u were winners in that regard. but were they absolutely necessary? I tend now given SRs clarification about the limits on the F4f I am inclined to concede the hellcat was necessary to vital. Its a hard stretch to say that about the corsair though.

You may be right using hindsight but the problem at the time was the timing of programs. The development of the Corsair was overly long for a variety of reasons but a key date was June 30th, 1941. On that date Vought signed a contract with the Navy for 524 Corsairs (after several months of negotiations) and on the same date Grumman signed a contract for TWO XF5F-1 prototypes powered by Wright R-2600 two stage engines. The first prototype would not fly until June 26th 1942. a few days/weeks before Vought rolls out the first "production" F4U.
Grumman ran one of fastest (if not the fastest) design, development and start of production programs of any fighter in WW II. Eastern Aircraft (a consortium of General Motors plants) also took over production of the Wildcat and Avenger freeing up Grumman's factory/s and workers to concentrate on the F6F.

Brewster and Goodyear were tooled up and starting to produce F4Us in the middle of 1943 after being signed up to join the program in Nov and Dec of 1941 respectively.

When do you cancel the F4U and try to switch over to the F6F?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I think the Hellcat was hands down, the ace-maker of the PTO and the best we fielded in that theater at the time it was operational. At the same power settings, not in ram air, the Corsair and Hellcat flew the same speed. With ram, the Corsair was slightly faster, but not by much. I strongly believe the Corsair had an "optimistic" aiespeed indicator. Go gly in formation with one. He always indicates faster than the rest!

But, and here's the important part, it's just an opinion. They vary, like your mileage.
...

When aircraft flew, the ram effect was present, whether in bigger or lower form. Certainly with F6F and F4U.
The F6F-3/5 and F4U-1 will be separated by ~20 mph advantage that F4U has. Nothing to do with indicators, the F6F was good for 370-390 mph in tests, the F4U-1 many times went above 400 mph, sometimes around 410-420 mph.
Same situation was with XF6F-6 and F4U-4 (both with -18W engines) - a 20 mph difference.

 

[Conslaw]

I read Corky's book. Here's where his theory about the airspeed indicators being off falls to the ground. These planes were flown from aircraft carriers. You have to monitor your airspeed carefully, and correct it to ground speed to rendezvous with your carrier in the middle of the ocean. The Navy would have detected a systematic error in airspeed of either plane early and demanded immediate correction. The 20 MPG difference in top speed lasted through all the war. If you look at the tests at wwiiaicraftperfromance.org. Almost all of the F6F maximum speeds are 375-390 MPH. I'm not knocking the F6F at all. The key to this plane's success is that it was fast ENOUGH.

 

[Elvis]

We have a few threads on this (or more than few) and there seems to be a bit of trouble with "stretching" an F4F. Like what engine are you going to use? The R-1830 didn't really go anywhere for several years and then staggered up to 1350hp for take-off and about 100hp more at altitude than the 1941-42 engines and that was in 1944/45
Changing to the R-2600 was looked at twice by Grumman and they decided that a new airframe was needed to get the Best out of the engine. Swapping a single stage 2 speed R-2600 for the existing two stage R-1830 means over 400lbs of engine weight. A bigger prop (or four blades if you don't want to change the landing gear much). A bigger tail to counter act the torque and..........
The first FM-2 with the 1300hp R-1820 9 cylinder radial was't delivered until August of 1943. later ones got the 1350hp engine with stronger crankshaft. But with only a single stage-two speed supercharger power was 1000hp at 16,600ft. performance at altitudes above 20,000 would be increasingly disappointing. What pasted over some of the differences in powerplant between the F4F-4 and the FM-2 was the FM-2 was about 650lbs lighter. In part due to the engine and in part due to having only 4 guns and in part????

Only other option is swiping R-2000s from C-54s, production doesn't exceed more than a couble dozen a month until June of 1942, yes perhaps they could have change the priority a bit. basically it was an R-1830 with a bore job. More power for take-off but power at altitude showed very little difference. 1100hp at 16,000ft military power for a 1590lb engine.

I am having trouble seeing where the stretch is going to occur.

Interesting you bring up the notion of an F4F powered by an R-2000 (which was based on the R-1830 but re-fitted with R-1340 cylinders and pistons and an improved cylinder head).
That's an XF4F-8, which was the experiment that eventually brought about....the FM-2.
From what I've been able to decipher, the airframe was redesigned during the development of the FM-2 and is accredited with some of the weight loss.
I thought the R-2000's that were in the C-54's were turbocharged? (i.e., exhaust driven vs. mechanically driven)
I also understand that the FM-2 saw a couple of different versions of the Wright R-1820-56 engine. One with water injection and one without. I seem to notice the water injected version was capable of higher WEP. That could also explain part of the 50 HP difference you noticed in that engine (there used to be a very good website that included a very intricate list of US Navy engines in use at the time, but I've long since lost the link).


Elvis

 

[cherry blossom]

... snip...
People don't generally realize it, and REALLY didn't in the late 1960's, but the LAST people who want war are soldiers. They have to go fight and die! They want the politicians to succeed and avoid war. Politicians who vote for war should be among the first troops sent to the new front!

If it were that way, I bet we'd have a LOT fewer wars!

I am risking going off topic but your view, whilst popular with this forum's membership, may not always be true. I feel sure that war is unpopular with most conscripts but officers may have other interests such as a desire for rapid promotion, so that 18th Century junior officers used to drink to "bloody wars and sickly seasons" How does 'promotion' work in the military? - Straight Dope Message Board.

Even senior officers may need glory and it has been argued that Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf - Wikipedia wanted war in 1914 so that he would be allowed to marry his mistress Virginia Reininghaus, whose marriage needed to be annulled Was Conrad von Hötzendorf completely insane? Did his insanity start WWI? - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History. General Galtieri Leopoldo Galtieri - Wikipedia is a more recent example of someone on the boundary between the military and politics.

Then there are those who need funds. For example, we have Admiral Suetsugu remark on war with America "Certainly, even that is acceptable if it will get us a budget" Japan Prepares for Total War.

In fact, the Japanese armed forces in the 1930s can offer a fine collection of "peaceably inclined" officers such as Araki Sadao Sadao Araki - Wikipedia, Mutaguchi Renya Renya Mutaguchi - Wikipedia or Tsuji Masanobu Masanobu Tsuji - Wikipedia.

Much more worrying are the officers who advocate war now because they suspect that they will lose a war that is postponded. The classic examples are alleged to include several members of the Prussian General Staff of 1914, who feared the consequences of the development of Russian railways by 1917, and Admiral Nagano Osami in 1941, conscious of America's building program and Japan's oil shortage.

Hopefully, we will not have an American officer sometime in the 21st Century fearing the consequences of delaying a confrontation with rapidly increasing Chinese forces.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am risking going off topic but your view, whilst popular with this forum's membership, may not always be true. I feel sure that war is unpopular with most conscripts but officers may have other interests such as a desire for rapid promotion, so that 18th Century junior officers used to drink to "bloody wars and sickly seasons" How does 'promotion' work in the military? - Straight Dope Message Board.

Even senior officers may need glory and it has been argued that Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf - Wikipedia wanted war in 1914 so that he would be allowed to marry his mistress Virginia Reininghaus, whose marriage needed to be annulled Was Conrad von Hötzendorf completely insane? Did his insanity start WWI? - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History. General Galtieri Leopoldo Galtieri - Wikipedia is a more recent example of someone on the boundary between the military and politics.

Then there are those who need funds. For example, we have Admiral Suetsugu remark on war with America "Certainly, even that is acceptable if it will get us a budget" Japan Prepares for Total War.

In fact, the Japanese armed forces in the 1930s can offer a fine collection of "peaceably inclined" officers such as Araki Sadao Sadao Araki - Wikipedia, Mutaguchi Renya Renya Mutaguchi - Wikipedia or Tsuji Masanobu Masanobu Tsuji - Wikipedia.

Much more worrying are the officers who advocate war now because they suspect that they will lose a war that is postponded. The classic examples are alleged to include several members of the Prussian General Staff of 1914, who feared the consequences of the development of Russian railways by 1917, and Admiral Nagano Osami in 1941, conscious of America's building program and Japan's oil shortage.

Hopefully, we will not have an American officer sometime in the 21st Century fearing the consequences of delaying a confrontation with rapidly increasing Chinese forces.

As a former soldier, and combat veteran, I can assure you that Greg is correct. The vast majority of soldiers do not want war. From my experience the majority of your overzealous "Lets go to war" gung ho soldiers were the first to shit themselves when they experienced combat first hand.

No one wants to leave their family, and possibly die. That does not mean you are not prepared to so, but you don't want to.

 

[cherry blossom]

As a former soldier, and combat veteran, I can assure you that Greg is correct. The vast majority of soldiers do not want war. From my experience the majority of your overzealous "Lets go to war" gung ho soldiers werethe first to shit themselves when the experienced combat first.

No one wants to leave their family, and possibly die. That does not mean you are not prepared to so, but you don't want to.

I must admit that almost all of my examples were pre-1945. Since 1945 and especially since 1949 Soviets explode atomic bomb - Aug 29, 1949 - HISTORY.com, everyone has known that a full scale war would only lead to promotion to a higher plane.

I doubt if the officers that I mentioned lacked courage but they often lacked intellience with Conrad von Hötzendorf being considered a bad general even by WW1 standards and Mutaguchi Renya being on several lists of the worse generals of WW2. Interestingly Araki Sadao and Suetsugu Nobumasa became ministers whilst Tsuji was elected to the Diet, so perhaps I should warn only about soldiers who want to enter politics.

The dangerous post 1945 characters tend to congregate in intelligence and special forces, with perhaps the best example being the ex-KGB Vladimir Putin. In "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook" Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook - Wikipedia Luttwak comments that special forces are much more likely than more technical forces such as the Air Force to carry out a coup. Whilst politicians are often either bellicose or stupid (or both), I suspect that they get many of their worse ideas from their intelligence services, who would suffer budget cuts if the World became more peaceful.

 

[CORSNING]

I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right there in wing loading, but the Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models. It probably got very slightly worse in later models, and was always very close to the Ki-43 in maneuverability.

Greg,
I can not believe you are making these statements with the information I have provided in
the AIRCRAFT PERFOMANCE section of Warbirdsforum.
Aircraft / Loaded weight / Wing area / Wing loading
A6M2 m21 / 5,313 lb. / 241.541 sq. ft. / 22.0 lb./sq. ft.
A5M4 / 3,680 lb. / 191.597 sq. ft. / 19.22 lb./sq. ft.
Ki.43-I / 4,515 lb. / 236.805 sq. ft. / 19.07 lb./sq. ft.
Ki.27a/b / 3,946 lb. / 199.777 sq. ft. / 19.75 lb./sq. ft.

The last three are monoplane aircraft capable of outturning the A6M2 up to their maximum
speeds. Taking into consideration aerodynamics, acceleration into the roll and their turning
ability, the Ki.27 has been listed by many historians as being the most maneuverable
monoplane fighter ever produced by any nation. The Ki.43-I not only outturned the A6M2,
it also could out roll it. This made it a harder aircraft to kill if the pilot was skilled and knew
you were there. Just ask Tommy McGuire.

 

[CORSNING]

The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire,
Pinsog,
Do you have documents proving this? And where can they be viewed?

 

[CORSNING]

I believe (but could be wrong) that the Ki 43s better turning ability came from the combat or butterfly flap.

which changes not only the square footage but the lift co-efficient of the wing (at least until you get to the aileron).

Trying to fly at 300mph plus might be a bit of problem with the flaps deployed however????
I believe the combat setting was 8 degrees?

Wing loading is a very good place to start but planes that are close to each other might have other features or attributes that change things a few percent (actual lift co-efficient at angle of attack used for hard turn?)

Dead on the Bullseye you are Shortround.

 

[CORSNING]

There is no doubt in my mind that both the Corsair and the FW 190 were superior technologically to the Zero. Yet, in terms of historical and military importance, neither the German or the American a/c could hold a candle to the Zero. In the case of the corsair, it is hard to justify even its very existence, though at the time of its development, no-one could know this.

On a historical and military importance stance, I totally agree. "In the case of the corsair,
it is hard to justify its existence." WHAT THE #ELL ARE YOU SMOKING? 12 to 1 victory
ratio for any fighter seems to me to be justification for its existence.
But then again, that's just me.[/QUOTE]

 

[CORSNING]

The ditch the Corsair and F6F idea holds up well with hindsight. At the time expecting the Japanese to fail to field better fighters in numbers could have been a serious mistake.
How many threads do we have on a big wing KI 44 instead of mass production of the KI 43 in the last two/three years of the war?

That would be the Ki.44-III.

 

[CORSNING]

If they cant stretch the f4, then there is a better case for the F6f, but why then also proceed with the F4u

SPEED, speed is life and all military tests showed that the F4U had that ability over the
F6F, PERIOD!

 

[CORSNING]

Zero vs. Spitfire vs. Fw 190
Interesting topic with no boundaries.
I apologize to everyone before I get on my soapbox. It is getting real
tiresome watching this aircraft vs that aircraft vs. that aircraft and then
being asked, "Oh by the way, which one of them there suckers do you
think is the absolute gem-of-the-earth?"
Well then, maybe it is time to put these aircraft into perspective.
The winner is: Spitfire. The first Spitfire Mk.1s became operational
on 4 August 1938. No contenders at this time. It gets to rule the
skies of this thread until 19 August 1940.

Oh, I am sorry. Where you envisioning a different time? OK then,
19 August 1940, the first missions of the A6M2. They would have
devastated the newly arrived Spitfire Mk.IIs. The winner is: Zero.

The truth is the Zero would probably have dominated the skis over
everywhere until its weaknesses were found.
Fw 190A-1 finally decided to show up in August 1941.

I am out of time tonight but might just post a comparison of their
performances in August of 1941, If my wife says I can.
Just started a small vacation from work today mates.

 

[Shortround6]

The winner is: Zero.

The truth is the Zero would probably have dominated the skis over
everywhere until its weaknesses were found.
Fw 190A-1 finally decided to show up in August 1941.

How much of the Zero's domination was due to pilots and/or poor tactics in the various air forces involved?

If the P-40 long nose wasn't good enough for Europe in late 1940 compared to the Spit II but was good enough in the hands of experienced pilots in the Flying Tigers to handle Ki 43s about a year and half later (early Ki 43 used the same engine as the A6M2 Zero ) then what would have been the result of Flying Tigers flying Spit IIs? granted the Spits might not have stood up to the Chinese airfield conditions quite as well.
Or Zeros in Europe trying to fight 109Fs in 1941, 109s using similar tactics to the Flying Tigers? Use speed and dive and avoid truning fights?

I would also note the Spitfire V was upgraded twice in allowable boost on the Merlin 45 engine. When first introduced it was limited to 9lbs boost instead of the 12lbs used in the Merlin III. at some point in 1941 it was allowed to use 12lbsl boost and picked up roughly 12-14mph in speed at any altitude below about 18,000ft. In Jan 1942 the allowable combat boost was raised to 15lbs
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

But most power charts and performance charts from later dates show 16lbs of boost. At altitudes under about 13,000ft this was good for about 25mph (?) more than 9lbs boost.

Speeds are for England or Europe and not tropics.

 

[CORSNING]

How much of the Zero's domination was due to pilots and/or poor tactics in the various air forces involved?
I can't give an exact percentage because given the antiquated aircraft such a the P-26 in the
Philippines and other antiques that were thrown in the air against it this answer probably can't
even be calculated (at least not by my small mind).

If the P-40 long nose wasn't good enough for Europe in late 1940 compared to the Spit II but was good enough in the hands of experienced pilots in the Flying Tigers to handle Ki 43s about a year and half later (early Ki 43 used the same engine as the A6M2 Zero ) then what would have been the result of Flying Tigers flying Spit IIs? the Spits mightgranted not have stood up to the Chinese airfield conditions quite as well.
You partly answered your own question. No secret the P-40 just couldn't perform at the altitudes
needed for Europe. Location is everything. Imagine Mk.II Spitfires with sand filters in North Africa.
I don't think they would have the performance they had over England.

Or Zeros in Europe trying to fight 109Fs in 1941, 109s using similar tactics to the Flying Tigers? Use speed and dive and avoid truning fights?
This would have been very interesting. I'm not sure the A6M2s would have faired as well in
Europe...? One of the main reasons the Zero was so dangerous in 1940/1942 was its range.
It could show up anywhere. It was sort of like the Mustang in Europe in that respect.

I would also note the Spitfire V was upgraded twice in allowable boost on the Merlin 45 engine. When first introduced it was limited to 9lbs boost instead of the 12lbs used in the Merlin III. at some point in 1941 it was allowed to use 12lbsl boost and picked up roughly 12-14mph in speed at any altitude below about 18,000ft. In Jan 1942 the allowable combat boost was raised to 15lbs
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg
I might have to pick your brain on these boost ratings someday Shortround. My limited research in
this area came up with that the Merlin 45 was initially cleared for +12 lbs. in February 1941. On
3 January 1942 the boost limit was raised to +16 lbs. (1,515 hp./11,500 ft./3 min.). And then
later the Merlin 45M was cleared for +18 lbs. I don't have a date for this last boosting clearance.
The higher boosting levels usually only affected low and low-medium altitudes.

But most power charts and performance charts from later dates show 16lbs of boost. At altitudes under about 13,000ft this was good for about 25mph (?) more than 9lbs boost.

Speeds are for England or Europe and not tropics.

 

[Shortround6]

The 45M was the one with the cropped impeller.
for speeds with just change in boost with normal impeller.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_V_Level_Speed_RAE.jpg

test report for Spit V with Merlin 50M (the 45M, 50M and 55M all made the same power, there were other differences) see
Spitfire F. Mk.VB Climb and level speed performance