Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't entirely disagree with this point either, though I'm still unconvinced on the merit of its technology and high speed performance when compared to aircraft of other powers. Its maneuverability could compensate for its speed to some degree, especially in your what-if scenario where there would be a greater quantity of skilled pilots to exploit this strength, but it doesn't seem to be superbly advanced as a design for the time, except maybe the butterfly flaps you have spoken of prior.

It seems about as good as any other major fighter type at it's time. I would say it's at least as good as an La 7 for example.

Performance? At all altitudes in and above 6000m, where the N1K2-J (the faster model) would attain its maximum speed, the P-47C/D still exceeded it in level flight speed, even with the calculated maximum speed of the former with emergency power.

This really depends a lot on exactly which model of P-47 and what boost they were using, maybe the propeller and other things. But I think the really, really fast P-47D variants (and the very late / end of the war P-47M and N) were pretty late in the game.

Looks like at the standard 56" Hg boost rating, P-47D10 wasn't any faster than an N1K1 at 6,000 meters, in fact maybe a bit slower. It's only at 65" Hg and 70" Hg that they seem to really pull ahead.

P-47 Performance Tests

Where the P-47 really shines is at very high altitude, 10,000 meters and more, which is very good for say, escorting heavy bombers (assuming the have the range) but is not where most combat took place in the Pacific Theater, Russia, or even quite often in Western Europe.

Admittedly, the P-47 is not as maneuverable, with an inferior rate of climb. As for armament, the P-47 appeared to have a greater quantity of machine guns, even if they were of inferior calibre, with faster rates of fire and greater number of rounds.

Four 20mm cannon is probably a bit better than 8 x 12.7mm machine guns, or at least that seems to be the consensus around here.

At the end of the day, big engines and fast high altitude speeds still appeal more to me. Just my preference.

No arguing with your preference needless to say.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm a bit baffled, too.

The KI-84, N1K2-J and KI-100 were on a par with fighters made by any nation on earth at that point in time.

Why is this so hard to accept?

Ki-100, on it's best day and speed-wise, was on par with Spitfire II from 1940, despite the Ki-100 being vintage of 1945.
N1K2-J - a bit better, but still worse in performance vs. the best what the West was making. The German fighters of 1941 will give it a good run for it's money, and then some.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ki-100, on it's best day and speed-wise, was on par with Spitfire II from 1940, despite the Ki-100 being vintage of 1945.
N1K2-J - a bit better, but still worse in performance vs. the best what the West was making. The German fighters of 1941 will give it a good run for it's money, and then some.

Ki-84 or N1K2-J vs. Bf 109F or G-2? I'd take those odds

 

[tomo pauk]

Ki-84 or N1K2-J vs. Bf 109F or G-2? I'd take those odds

I haven't commented on Ki-84

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ok fair enough, N1K2 vs. Bf 109G-2?

 

[tomo pauk]

N1K2 vs. Bf 109G-2?

Gustav.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Right... what is the best Gustav mark available in 1941... are there even any yet?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Anyway I think N1K2 Pwns an F4, G2 or G4.

 

[GregP]

The Bf 109G-1 was produced from Feb 1942. It got to front-line units very shortly after that, though I don't have a date. They were serving in Mar 1943. Basically, the early G models were built about like a Bf 109F. Later, they got bumps and bulges to cover added items. Also, as the G-series was developed, they got a lot heavier.

The Bf 109F-4 flew at about 6,395 pounds as a fighter. The G-2 came in at about 7,597 pounds as a fighter and could sortie at 8,734 pounds. The Bf 109G-10 came in about 7,596 as a fighter and could sorties at 8,975 pounds. So, a G-10 was flying regularly a couple of thousand pounds pounds heavier than the F-4, which many Luftwaffe pilots considered to be the best of the Bf 109 series. Weights came from Kurfurst's website.

I suppose we all get heavier as we get older.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'll make a thread for the matchup so as not to derail this one.

 

[Brooke]

If maneuverable fighters like the A6M Zero are considered to have been such capable fighters, if not the best in the world relative to contemporary fighters, why was it then that every single major power, including Japan itself, were committed to the development of increasingly faster and more powerful aircraft. Were improved anti-air defenses a factor in this? Escort role—keeping up with bombers? Why not increasingly larger wing areas (to a point, of course), along with other additions that could increase maneuverability? Was armor, and the survival rate of pilots in general, a large factor in any of this?

The Energy-Maneuverability theory developed by Boyd would be a good way to compare aircraft in dogfights.

Aircraft

 

[GregP]

Boyd's ideas were spot-on in many cases. But, like most good ideas, they need to be "fleshed out" a bit to make them useful.

The real problem with Boyd's energy-maneuvering diagrams diagrams is getting the data for the aircraft you want to compare. Getting the data for your own airplanes , while a bit expensive and time-consuming, is doable. Getting the data for your enemy's airplanes might pose more of an issue. Getting data for even all the WWII fighters is problematic at best, and most modern fighter jets have a place where the data you want are labeled "classified" or "unavailable," making the diagrams desirable, but not readily attainable. Having examples in hand to fly is quite nice, but not always an attainable situation.

Still, if you had the data, you could make the comparison.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

That makes sense. The F-16 sure came out like a nice little project though...

 

[BiffF15]

That makes sense. The F-16 sure came out like a nice little project though...

And it's EM diagram is not like the others…

 

[GregP]

Anybody know where we can find some EM diagrams? I mean real ones, not from a video game.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Out of interest, what bearing does 'your preference' have upon either the lesson of history, or the direct experience of pilots during the war?

I'm rapidly losing any bearing on the point of this thread.

I have expressed previously an urge to drop this topic, though there are still some small details to address, and some potential points that I forgot to add, such as bringing up actual combat experience—the elite pilots of the 343rd Kokutai, even in N1K2-Js, experienced issues with fighting high-end American aircraft, at least according to previous threads on this forum, though their aircraft may have been in poor condition, as were the Spitfire Vcs in the 1943 Darwin Raid, according to accounts—but otherwise, I'm largely spent. The vast majority of reputable English-language sources I came across on the internet showed slower speeds for Japanese aircraft compared to contemporary European and American designs, if not in 1940, the Zero's debut, then certainly after 1943. Most English-language sources outside this forum presenting upper estimates for Japanese aircraft were dubious sources, say flight 'sims' like War Thunder, where realism would not be the utmost goal. However, all sources conclude that Japanese aircraft were highly maneuverable, and this apparent slow-speed high maneuverability dichotomy partially explains why I made this thread in the first place.

I'm a bit baffled, too.

The KI-84, N1K2-J and KI-100 were on a par with fighters made by any nation on earth at that point in time.

Why is this so hard to accept?

Inferior level flight speeds, especially for the Ki-100, though in dives and climb rates they were closer. Maneuverability was still good, but for how much longer? There's also their engines, which struggled at higher altitudes, and, in the case of the Homare, were unreliable. The strikingly awful record of these aircraft, with the successes of the Ki-100 in question, even with all the disadvantages of wartime Japan taken into account, cannot be dismissed outright.

This really depends a lot on exactly which model of P-47 and what boost they were using, maybe the propeller and other things. But I think the really, really fast P-47D variants (and the very late / end of the war P-47M and N) were pretty late in the game.

Looks like at the standard 56" Hg boost rating, P-47D10 wasn't any faster than an N1K1 at 6,000 meters, in fact maybe a bit slower. It's only at 65" Hg and 70" Hg that they seem to really pull ahead.

P-47 Performance Tests

From what I've seen on the other thread you've made, you're relying on the flawed, war-time TAIC calculations for the N1K1-J. The Japanese manual for the N1K2-J, as provided by a user on this forum, shows a 611kph speed for the aircraft at altitude, though with a de-rated engine (and at military power) according to that same user, who then went on to claim that the fighter could have potentially achieved speeds approaching 650kph with emergency power, though his calculations for this were disputed.

Where the P-47 really shines is at very high altitude, 10,000 meters and more, which is very good for say, escorting heavy bombers (assuming the have the range) but is not where most combat took place in the Pacific Theater, Russia, or even quite often in Western Europe.

I will concede on this point.

Four 20mm cannon is probably a bit better than 8 x 12.7mm machine guns, or at least that seems to be the consensus around here.

I guess so.

The Energy-Maneuverability theory developed by Boyd would be a good way to compare aircraft in dogfights.

Aircraft

It seems like it would be suitable for comparisons between WWII aircraft from what I've heard, though I'm not intimately familiar with it.

 

[GregP]

Top level speed is WAY overrated in here.

Out of 40+ WWII pilots I have talked with, NONE said top speed was the most important aspect of aerial combat. It certainly was an issue if your opponent was 40+ mph faster than you, but anywhere within 20 or so mph wss close enough to not be able to run away from bullets or cannon shells very easily, even in a semi-prolonged chase. Also, top speed was seemingly almost never achieved in actual combat, assuming combat means hard turns. The only time MOST pilot got to top speed was in a dive from altitude or when trying to run away from combat for some reason. Certainly almost never in actual combat that didn't involve diving combat. "Combat speed" was anywhere from 40 to 70 mph above cruise speed since you went to full rich and full throttle, well ... at least military throttle, when you saw the enemy and were intending to join combat, and you typically didn't have long to accelerate ... maybe 10 - 25 seconds before combat was joined and you were breaking hard and losing speed because of the g-load.

I have seen thread after thread in here touting top speed. but have heard no combat pilots touting it. They were wishing for more altitude, more range, better armament, superior numbers and things like better position. Top speed is important if the other guy is better and you are running away or if you are responding to a call for help at some point a few miles away. If you are low on fuel, top speed won't help much except temporarily because you use fuel even faster than if you don't go to top speed.

One WWII combat veteran said it best to me, "top speed was for company test pilots and salesmen. The rest of us didn't usually see it very often after the factory testing was done."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yeah I think escaping is quite important in air combat, because (from a pilot's point of view) it doesn't always go your way so you need to be able to depart when things go south. Either that or you have your affairs in order and don't mind meeting your maker.

But escaping was usually done with a dive, at speeds far over top speed, or a climb sometimes. So it's hard to quantify performance of one vs another, not impossible but pretty hard, and as Greg said, there was a lot of overlap.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yeah, I guess W/O Kinsuke Muto (343rd Kokutai) didn't get the memo that his N1K2-J was a piece of over-rated shit when he alone engaged 12 USN F6F Hellcats in February 1945, downing four and forced the remainder to disengage.

And I suppose the B-29s downed by the KI-84 were just flukes.

Because we all know the Japanese could never have built anything that was as good as western stuff...

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Top level speed is WAY overrated in here.

Out of 40+ WWII pilots I have talked with, NONE said top speed was the most important aspect of aerial combat...

I have seen thread after thread in here touting top speed. but have heard no combat pilots touting it. They were wishing for more altitude, more range, better armament, superior numbers and things like better position. Top speed is important if the other guy is better and you are running away or if you are responding to a call for help at some point a few miles away. If you are low on fuel, top speed won't help much except temporarily because you use fuel even faster than if you don't go to top speed.

One WWII combat veteran said it best to me, "top speed was for company test pilots and salesmen. The rest of us didn't usually see it very often after the factory testing was done."

A high maximum speed is usually the product of some combination of a powerful engine, clean airframe (which implies a sophisticated understanding of aerodynamics), quality of fuel, or some other attribute(s) that I have neglected to mention. In other words, it has greater implications for the logistical aspect of warfare, a nation's technological and industrial capacities in particular. That's what I was focusing on when I highlighted speed. I guess this would answer my question prior in part, speed is less important. Regardless, newer aircraft were still coming with higher and higher maximum speeds, at least outside of Japan, regardless of what pilots thought. This is a fact, the pilots themselves have and would attest to this, am I wrong? The F4F, F6F, F8F, for instance?

Yeah, I guess W/O Kinsuke Muto (343rd Kokutai) didn't get the memo that his N1K2-J was a piece of over-rated shit when he alone engaged 12 USN F6F Hellcats in February 1945, downing four and forced the remainder to disengage.

That prior story sounds like propaganda, or inexperienced American pilots trying to turnfight. The truthfulness of any account of late-war air battles over Japan is in doubt, at least, according to discussions here and elsewhere on the internet.

And I suppose the B-29s downed by the KI-84 were just flukes.

I never said that higher speed or higher altitude aircraft were entirely invulnerable to slower, lower aircraft.

Because we all know the Japanese could never have built anything that was as good as western stuff...

Sometimes, they came close, especially by the end of the war. But at the end of the day, the V-2 rocket, the King Tiger, the Me-262, the atom bomb, the M3 infrared sniper scope, 100 octane fuel, and the Me-209 were never produced in Japan (I recall that the 100 octane fuel the Japanese possessed before and during the war were foreign in origin). No indigenous cipher device on the level of the Enigma either.