Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Dude that is just ridiculous, superficial adolescent posturing. You aren't even saying anything.

 

[GregP]

Newer aircraft were getting better in all aspect of performance including speed, climb, range, roll, turn, armament,acceleration, visibility, and even ergonomics. It was the nature of technical advances in WWII-era aircraft design.

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere ... maybe.

 

[PAT303]

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...

I'd say it's more an outlier than the norm, I'd like to know why 12 against 1 went so badly, the Hellcat pilots don't sound like typical American pilots who relished the thought of combat and openly sought it if they got so much as a sniff of it, 8 disengaging is a polite way of saying they ran, I can't imagine that happening either.

 

[ThomasP]

Of course it is an outlier and not the norm. Or at least as much as the multiple kill sorties of pretty much all/any of the pilots of any nation that managed it.

Also, remember the US pilots were told to not engage in dogfights with the Japanese pilots as it had been proven that everything else being equal they would sustain higher than desirable/necessary losses. Depending on the situation and skill level of the pilots it is possible that they had lost situational awareness to the point that they could not avoid a dogfight and decided discretion was the better part of valor.

Also, it is not like the same kind of thing did not happen to other nation's air forces in the same or different theaters.

Also, was Muto's 6-kill sortie confirmed after the war by records? or at least not discredited?

 

[Ovod]

For what it's worth Wikipedia says:

In February 1945 Lieutenant Kaneyoshi Muto, flying a N1K2-J as part of a formation of at least 10 expert Japanese pilots, faced seven US Navy Hellcat pilots, from squadron VF-82, in the sky over Japan; the formation shot down four Hellcats with no loss to themselves.[11] After the action, Japanese propagandists fabricated a story in which Muto was the sole airman facing 12 enemy aircraft.[12] (A leading Japanese ace, Saburō Sakai, later mentioned in his autobiography that Muto had actually done this feat at an earlier stage of the war – albeit at the controls of a Zero fighter.[13])

Kawanishi N1K - Wikipedia

 

[SplitRz]

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."

Hmmmm. I'm no pilot. But all the reading I've done over 40 years indicates that speed is a - if not the - priority design objective for a fighter aircraft which has a primary role of intercepting and shooting down bombers and other fighters (the latter more as a secondary role in achieving air superiority to defend a nations own bombers).

Combat manoeuvrability is usually expressed in roll and turn rates. Hard turns to get on an assailants six requires a sustainable high turn rate, and high roll rate to initiate a turn or to change direction glazes that cherry. But hard, competitive combat manoeuvring is usually defensive - it means you're trying to get into a firing position against a target aircraft thats trying to do the same to you without being the target yourself. ALL sensible and successful fighter pilots wanted to intercept an adversary and fill him with lead without even being seen. That was the objective. And a speed advantage was absolutely fundamental to being able to put their aircraft in the correct position to making that happen. A dogfight was something sensible pilots wanted to actively avoid (even if it wasn't always possible). Of course, someone doesn't want to be flying at a marked handling disadvantage and manoeuvrability remains important, but surely its not the most critical attribute?

What did other fighter pilots say?

"Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."— Captain David McCampbell, USN

Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds. Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, Luftwaffe, the world's leading ace, with 352 victories in WWII. Cited in 2000 book Aces.

then there's the apocryphal: "Speed is life, altitude is life insurance."

I totally agree that quoted top speeds were the stuff for brochures and test aircraft. But that applied to everyone and all models and marks. But the ability to put oneself in a favourable position for attack and to dictate the terms of combat (or break it off at will) was a function of speed, not of manoeuvrability.

Speed allows you to make an intercept
It allows you to get over a target area - and away. The less time over target, the least time you can be intercepted or be a target yourself
Speed makes you a more difficult target for Flak
Speed can be converted (at least initially) into energy for initial manoeuvres
Speed may allow you to conduct multiple engagements and to reposition, rejoin formation etc
Speed is one of the fundamental things that allows pilots to get into that 'better position'

I re-read Ritchie's 'Fighter Pilot' recently. They were happy with their Hurricane's armament (though envious of the destructive capability of 109s cannon). They knew they could outmanoeuvre their opponents if the situation allowed. But all the way through his account, he and his fellow pilots are frustrated that they don't have the performance that would allow them to intercept more Do17s and Ju88s (let alone 109s). And THAT was the job of a 1940s fighter pilot. Mixing it in a dogfight *was not* their primary job.

Again, reading 'Ace of Aces' regarding the life and combat history of Pat Pattle, he encounters situation after situation in which even contemporary low-performance Italian aircraft are able to outrun Gladiators which would, otherwise have been kills.

Superior speed, through a combination of tactical positioning and aircraft performance IS what made the principal difference between winner or loser. Its interesting that both the Italians and Japanese placed a priority of manoeuvrability over speed in their early war designs - and that clearly placed them in an inferior position to their opposition once tactics had evolved to reflect that deficit.

Totally agree that nerds quoting theoretical 'Top Trump' top speeds with difference margin of a few percent as somehow the ultimate decider is nonsense. But speed as the overall most important aspect of a combat fighter CANNOT really be overstated, can it?

 

[yulzari]

Hmmmm. I'm no pilot. But all the reading I've done over 40 years indicates that speed is a - if not the - priority design objective for a fighter aircraft which has a primary role of intercepting and shooting down bombers and other fighters (the latter more as a secondary role in achieving air superiority to defend a nations own bombers).

Combat manoeuvrability is usually expressed in roll and turn rates. Hard turns to get on an assailants six requires a sustainable high turn rate, and high roll rate to initiate a turn or to change direction glazes that cherry. But hard, competitive combat manoeuvring is usually defensive - it means you're trying to get into a firing position against a target aircraft thats trying to do the same to you without being the target yourself. ALL sensible and successful fighter pilots wanted to intercept an adversary and fill him with lead without even being seen. That was the objective. And a speed advantage was absolutely fundamental to being able to put their aircraft in the correct position to making that happen. A dogfight was something sensible pilots wanted to actively avoid (even if it wasn't always possible). Of course, someone doesn't want to be flying at a marked handling disadvantage and manoeuvrability remains important, but surely its not the most critical attribute?

What did other fighter pilots say?

"Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."— Captain David McCampbell, USN

Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds. Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, Luftwaffe, the world's leading ace, with 352 victories in WWII. Cited in 2000 book Aces.

then there's the apocryphal: "Speed is life, altitude is life insurance."

I totally agree that quoted top speeds were the stuff for brochures and test aircraft. But that applied to everyone and all models and marks. But the ability to put oneself in a favourable position for attack and to dictate the terms of combat (or break it off at will) was a function of speed, not of manoeuvrability.

Speed allows you to make an intercept
It allows you to get over a target area - and away. The less time over target, the least time you can be intercepted or be a target yourself
Speed makes you a more difficult target for Flak
Speed can be converted (at least initially) into energy for initial manoeuvres
Speed may allow you to conduct multiple engagements and to reposition, rejoin formation etc
Speed is one of the fundamental things that allows pilots to get into that 'better position'

I re-read Ritchie's 'Fighter Pilot' recently. They were happy with their Hurricane's armament (though envious of the destructive capability of 109s cannon). They knew they could outmanoeuvre their opponents if the situation allowed. But all the way through his account, he and his fellow pilots are frustrated that they don't have the performance that would allow them to intercept more Do17s and Ju88s (let alone 109s). And THAT was the job of a 1940s fighter pilot. Mixing it in a dogfight *was not* their primary job.

Again, reading 'Ace of Aces' regarding the life and combat history of Pat Pattle, he encounters situation after situation in which even contemporary low-performance Italian aircraft are able to outrun Gladiators which would, otherwise have been kills.

Superior speed, through a combination of tactical positioning and aircraft performance IS what made the principal difference between winner or loser. Its interesting that both the Italians and Japanese placed a priority of manoeuvrability over speed in their early war designs - and that clearly placed them in an inferior position to their opposition once tactics had evolved to reflect that deficit.

Totally agree that nerds quoting theoretical 'Top Trump' top speeds with difference margin of a few percent as somehow the ultimate decider is nonsense. But speed as the overall most important aspect of a combat fighter CANNOT really be overstated, can it?

Every advantage is an advantage. Top speed is just one of them. One tries to fight unfairly so all advantages are good ones.

I do wonder what Marmaduke Prattle's score would have been had he Hurricane from the start rather than a Gladiator.

 

[pbehn]

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."

This is reflected in the attitude of the RAF, they would readily sacrifice top speed for other attributes like fitting cannon, bp glass etc. It is possible for a manufacturer to game the system using a prop solely for top speed and changing things like cooling you can increase top speed at rated altitude and screw up performance elsewhere like overheating on climb. NAA offered the RAF the possibility of a faster Mustang by reducing wingspan, the RAF would only accept if take off runs and rate of climb were not affected, which is the same as a refusal.

 

[Shortround6]

Top speed is an indicator. It is not decisive on it's own (unless very very fast).
Climb rate is an indicator.
Dive speed is an indicator, not quite as important as the first two.
and so on through the list; turn rate, turn circle (not the same) roll rate, initial roll rate, etc., etc.

Mustang Is were classic indicator of top speed and it's importance.
Just about the fastest fighter of it's time, especially considering power.
However, because of it's power and weight it wasn't a very good fighter because of it's low climb rate. Low climb rate also means problems for sustained turns or acrobatics that bleed off speed.

However Top speed does mean that the faster plane, depending on the differences in speed, doesn't have to fight if it doesn't want to. Again, see Mustang I's used as tactical recon. Germans had a lot of trouble intercepting them.
Top speed was not acceleration, but a lot of the time they were related, however rate of climb may be more closely related to acceleration. Allison Mustang could outrun the early P-38s and P-47s down low. They could out accelerate the Mustang from low speeds and out climb it.

The Mustang (and few others) were enough lower in drag that they rode roughshod over old assumptions. Most of the time the power to weight ratio indicated performance and the classic maneuverability vs speed thing held up, Maneuverable airplane needed bigger wing which meant lower speed (assuming same or close engines) but that ignored the actual drag of the airplane.

 

[GregP]

I'd say it's more an outlier than the norm, I'd like to know why 12 against 1 went so badly, the Hellcat pilots don't sound like typical American pilots who relished the thought of combat and openly sought it if they got so much as a sniff of it, 8 disengaging is a polite way of saying they ran, I can't imagine that happening either.

As I recall, the Japanese pilot observed the Hellcat pilots simply tried to come in a shoot at him one at a time as they were taught in training. He, on the other hand, juked away, never the same way twice in a row, taking such shots as were offered.

In truth, relatively green combat pilots almost always try to do as they learned in training, regardless of which Air Force they are in. It's when they have learned their airplane and have done enough flying against others to gain confidence in their abilities and their current aircraft that they get "original" in their thinking. John Boyd didn't start out being a top-notch dogfighter. He learned it while learning his airplane, fighting with others, and noting where and when his airplane seemed to be energetic and when it seemed to be "out of gas."

I can't say for sure on this point, but I'd make a fair bet the 12 U.S. pilots engaged in this 12-on-one dogfight weren't wiley old veterans, but were likely on their first cruise as combat pilots, and did as they were trained in fighter pilot school.

 

[GregP]

Hmmmm. I'm no pilot. But all the reading I've done over 40 years indicates that speed is a - if not the - priority design objective for a fighter aircraft which has a primary role of intercepting and shooting down bombers and other fighters (the latter more as a secondary role in achieving air superiority to defend a nations own bombers).

Combat manoeuvrability is usually expressed in roll and turn rates. Hard turns to get on an assailants six requires a sustainable high turn rate, and high roll rate to initiate a turn or to change direction glazes that cherry. But hard, competitive combat manoeuvring is usually defensive - it means you're trying to get into a firing position against a target aircraft thats trying to do the same to you without being the target yourself. ALL sensible and successful fighter pilots wanted to intercept an adversary and fill him with lead without even being seen. That was the objective. And a speed advantage was absolutely fundamental to being able to put their aircraft in the correct position to making that happen. A dogfight was something sensible pilots wanted to actively avoid (even if it wasn't always possible). Of course, someone doesn't want to be flying at a marked handling disadvantage and manoeuvrability remains important, but surely its not the most critical attribute?

What did other fighter pilots say?

"Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."— Captain David McCampbell, USN

Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds. Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, Luftwaffe, the world's leading ace, with 352 victories in WWII. Cited in 2000 book Aces.

then there's the apocryphal: "Speed is life, altitude is life insurance."

I totally agree that quoted top speeds were the stuff for brochures and test aircraft. But that applied to everyone and all models and marks. But the ability to put oneself in a favourable position for attack and to dictate the terms of combat (or break it off at will) was a function of speed, not of manoeuvrability.

Speed allows you to make an intercept
It allows you to get over a target area - and away. The less time over target, the least time you can be intercepted or be a target yourself
Speed makes you a more difficult target for Flak
Speed can be converted (at least initially) into energy for initial manoeuvres
Speed may allow you to conduct multiple engagements and to reposition, rejoin formation etc
Speed is one of the fundamental things that allows pilots to get into that 'better position'

I re-read Ritchie's 'Fighter Pilot' recently. They were happy with their Hurricane's armament (though envious of the destructive capability of 109s cannon). They knew they could outmanoeuvre their opponents if the situation allowed. But all the way through his account, he and his fellow pilots are frustrated that they don't have the performance that would allow them to intercept more Do17s and Ju88s (let alone 109s). And THAT was the job of a 1940s fighter pilot. Mixing it in a dogfight *was not* their primary job.

Again, reading 'Ace of Aces' regarding the life and combat history of Pat Pattle, he encounters situation after situation in which even contemporary low-performance Italian aircraft are able to outrun Gladiators which would, otherwise have been kills.

Superior speed, through a combination of tactical positioning and aircraft performance IS what made the principal difference between winner or loser. Its interesting that both the Italians and Japanese placed a priority of manoeuvrability over speed in their early war designs - and that clearly placed them in an inferior position to their opposition once tactics had evolved to reflect that deficit.

Totally agree that nerds quoting theoretical 'Top Trump' top speeds with difference margin of a few percent as somehow the ultimate decider is nonsense. But speed as the overall most important aspect of a combat fighter CANNOT really be overstated, can it?

Never said speed wasn't important. I said it is overrated. You need enough speed, but one plane being faster than another by 10- 15 mph is NOT much of an advantage.

Suppose your opponent's airplane is 15 mph faster than yours. Also suppose you likely won't shoot at him if he is more than 1,000 feet away. If you start side by side and you are both at top speed, where he is 15 mph faster, it will take him just a bit more than 45 seconds to get 1,000 feet away.

Assume you are flying a normal WWII fighter with something like 8 seconds of ammunition in your guns, and you are NOT flying a P-38 with 11 seconds of ammunition. In the time you are both flying at top speed, you could empty yours guns almost six times before he is out of range. So, 10-15 mph speed differential doesn't protect you OR give you much of an advantage in combat.

What it DOES allow you to do, if YOU have the 15 mph speed advantage, with a good evasion maneuver is to maybe get away after you evade his attack, assuming you can get off-line and diverge with a direction difference that makes him take too long to get back on your six. Alternately, if you see 20 enemy fighters and you are faster, you can extend and they can't catch you. Now that helps, but not much once combat has joined and you are close.

 

[Snautzer01]

As I recall, the Japanese pilot observed the Hellcat pilots simply tried to come in a shoot at him one at a time as they were taught in training. He, on the other hand, juked away, never the same way twice in a row, taking such shots as were offered.

In truth, relatively green combat pilots almost always try to do as they learned in training, regardless of which Air Force they are in. It's when they have learned their airplane and have done enough flying against others to gain confidence in their abilities and their current aircraft that they get "original" in their thinking. John Boyd didn't start out being a top-notch dogfighter. He learned it while learning his airplane, fighting with others, and noting where and when his airplane seemed to be energetic and when it seemed to be "out of gas."

I can't say for sure on this point, but I'd make a fair bet the 12 U.S. pilots engaged in this 12-on-one dogfight weren't wiley old veterans, but were likely on their first cruise as combat pilots, and did as they were trained in fighter pilot school.

See post 385. Outnumbered and against top notch with a decent fighter. Think that scenario hadnt been seen in a long while by the Navy boys.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

This is all over the place.

Most of the stuff you listed is German and they lost the war in spite of all their technology.

Not sure about the mention of the Me209, though. Are we talking about the Bf109 spin-off designed for racing/record setting or the Me209-II that was a dead-end development or replacing the Bf109 (just like the Me309)?

 

[GrauGeist]

I'd say it's more an outlier than the norm, I'd like to know why 12 against 1 went so badly, the Hellcat pilots don't sound like typical American pilots who relished the thought of combat and openly sought it if they got so much as a sniff of it, 8 disengaging is a polite way of saying they ran, I can't imagine that happening either.

When the 343rd Air Group went into service with their N1K2-J, they were able to reach parity with USN/USAAF adversaries.
Some engagements saw the Kokutai take more losses but then on other engagements, they prevailed.

It's interesting to note that many of the 343rd's losses were when they were trying to land due to being low on fuel.

As formidible as the N1K2 was, it was no match for overwhelming numbers of Allied aircraft darkening their skies (much like the Germans experienced).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Top speed is an indicator. It is not decisive on it's own (unless very very fast).
Climb rate is an indicator.
Dive speed is an indicator, not quite as important as the first two.
and so on through the list; turn rate, turn circle (not the same) roll rate, initial roll rate, etc., etc.

Mustang Is were classic indicator of top speed and it's importance.
Just about the fastest fighter of it's time, especially considering power.
However, because of it's power and weight it wasn't a very good fighter because of it's low climb rate. Low climb rate also means problems for sustained turns or acrobatics that bleed off speed.

This is one of the amusing ironies of the whole origin story, and it goes well beyond climb rate. For a combination of reasons, the Allison P-51 / Mustang models were not as good in the fighter role as the supposedly 'obsolete' P-40 they were meant to replace. They were used side by side in China with disappointing results for the Mustangs, (though Chennault saw the potential and liked them).

One reason I have learned is apparently due to the aileron size and also how the ailerons were rigged, which could be done different ways. It seemed the merlin 60 series powered mustangs had the better ailerons and a much better roll rate. So that helped a lot (speaking of maneuverability).

The Mustang was indeed a superlative design, but it needed a little tweaking before it became the beast that it was in the long run.

However Top speed does mean that the faster plane, depending on the differences in speed, doesn't have to fight if it doesn't want to. Again, see Mustang I's used as tactical recon. Germans had a lot of trouble intercepting them.
Top speed was not acceleration, but a lot of the time they were related, however rate of climb may be more closely related to acceleration. Allison Mustang could outrun the early P-38s and P-47s down low. They could out accelerate the Mustang from low speeds and out climb it.

One other thing about WW2 fighters in general, from tests I've read online where they set up two planes drag racer style at a low speed and tested acceleration side by side - they did not accelerate like jets or even like sports cars. Acceleration in a strait line was fairly sedate. That is why when a fighter pilot wanted to LEAVE, such as when tracers were visible flying by the windscreen, the escape maneuver often involved very fast rolling and skidding and going into a dive.

The Mustang (and few others) were enough lower in drag that they rode roughshod over old assumptions. Most of the time the power to weight ratio indicated performance and the classic maneuverability vs speed thing held up, Maneuverable airplane needed bigger wing which meant lower speed (assuming same or close engines) but that ignored the actual drag of the airplane.

Yes that is the major lesson of the Mustang, and some others, without a doubt. Mustang perhaps more than any others, though later mark Spitfire is also in the ballpark.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

When the 343rd Air Group went into service with their N1K2-J, they were able to reach parity with USN/USAAF adversaries.
Some engagements saw the Kokutai take more losses but then on other engagements, they prevailed.

It's interesting to note that many of the 343rd's losses were when they were trying to land due to being low on fuel.

As formidible as the N1K2 was, it was no match for overwhelming numbers of Allied aircraft darkening their skies (much like the Germans experienced).

I agree, and reading little snippets of commentary from USN and USMC pilots, the "George" seemed to have a certain wary respect. One of the interesting things about this is that the Ki-84, which looks a bit better on paper in some ways, did not seem to have the same success or generate the same wariness. IIRC they clashed with P-40s and Mustangs of the 23rd FG and didn't come off so well. Maybe that is down to less skilled IJA pilots, not quite up to the Navy standards.

 

[pbehn]

This is all over the place.

Most of the stuff you listed is German and they lost the war in spite of all their technology.

Not sure about the mention of the Me209, though. Are we talking about the Bf109 spin-off designed for racing/record setting or the Me209-II that was a dead-end development or replacing the Bf109 (just like the Me309)?

The Enigma and Lorenz codes were fantastic tools for delivering German secrets into allied hands in real time. Immediately prior to D-Day the second colossus computer came on line and Ike was presented with the full order of battle of German forces in France. Most of the post you replied to amounts to Balkankreuz is bestens

 

[Shortround6]

This is one of the amusing ironies of the whole origin story, and it goes well beyond climb rate. For a combination of reasons, the Allison P-51 / Mustang models were not as good in the fighter role as the supposedly 'obsolete' P-40 they were meant to replace. They were used side by side in China with disappointing results for the Mustangs, (though Chennault saw the potential and liked them).

This is in part due to the Allison engine Mustangs not getting the newer version engines.
All the British ones got the same engines that the P-40Es got.
The P-51s and Mustang IAs got the same engines the P-40E got. (and there were only 150 of them split between the Americans and British)
The A-36s got the super low altitude V-1710-87 engine which no P-40 ever got. (Think Merlin 45 with a cropped impeller)
Only the P-51As and Mustang IIs got the same engine as the P-40M & Ns got and there were only 310 of them built and they didn't start showing up until 3-4 months after the P-40M.
The P-51As with Allison -81 engine don't show up in India until July 1943 (311th fighter bomber group which already has some A-36s) and the 23rd fighter group in Kweilin China gets some P-51As in Sept 1943. The 23rd fighter group flies their first combat mission with P-51As on Nov 26th 1943. About the same time that P-51Bs were going into action over Germany?

 

[GrauGeist]

Most of the post you replied to amounts to Balkankreuz is bestens

This is clearly a superior performing A6M...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

This is in part due to the Allison engine Mustangs not getting the newer version engines.
All the British ones got the same engines that the P-40Es got.
The P-51s and Mustang IAs got the same engines the P-40E got. (and there were only 150 of them split between the Americans and British)
The A-36s got the super low altitude V-1710-87 engine which no P-40 ever got. (Think Merlin 45 with a cropped impeller)
Only the P-51As and Mustang IIs got the same engine as the P-40M & Ns got and there were only 310 of them built and they didn't start showing up until 3-4 months after the P-40M.
The P-51As with Allison -81 engine don't show up in India until July 1943 (311th fighter bomber group which already has some A-36s) and the 23rd fighter group in Kweilin China gets some P-51As in Sept 1943. The 23rd fighter group flies their first combat mission with P-51As on Nov 26th 1943. About the same time that P-51Bs were going into action over Germany?

That's interesting, although performance does not seem to be the major issue for the Allison Mustangs. Even with the 1710-39 (engine of a P-40E) they were 40 -50 mph faster than other early P-40s that were still around, and 20-30 mph faster even than a P-40F. I think their climb rate was better than P-40s as well, unless the latter was very stripped down.

I also think that the British got some early-ish Mustangs (don't remember the precise mark) which had V-1710-73, which is the same engine as the P-40K. Quite robust, ~1500 hp even without overboost, which apparently they did for more power (up to ~1700 hp) down at sea level, according to the American wartime memo on the British use of the Mustangs.

I think the issue was really more one of maneuverability. Which was addressed by the time the B/C model Mustangs were coming out. I was never able to learn if later production Allison Mustangs ever got the same adjustments.