Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

(As Tomo says on a regular basis, 'do you have a source for that'? )

Yes, dozens of pilot interviews etc.

It was the maxim of all of the best fighter pilots to do *exactly that* though, bide your time if they could - always seeking to attack with an advantage. And if they didn't have it, wait until they did. Which, I guessing its no coincidence, why the designers and manufactures gave them aircraft in which ever higher top speed was a if not the critical thing to allow them to do that.

The exceptions were either brilliant pilots like Marmaduke Pattle in obsolete aircraft, those fighting at a significant tactical disadvantage, and/or those who quickly became a kill.

Breathlessly I watched the 109 in between the breaks in the clouds as I dove. At 12,000 feet I leveled off and watched him up ahead. In diving I had picked up speed, and now had hit 550 miles an hour. I was about 500 feet below him and closing fast. Quick now, I've got time. I checked all around, in back and above me, to ensure that no other [Germans] were doing the same to me. My speed was slacking off now, but I still had enough to pick up that extra 500 feet and position myself 200 yards dead astern. The 109 flew as straight as an arrow, with no weaving. As his plane filled my gunsight, I pressed the [trigger] - John T Godfrey

[On Erich Hartman] But by firing at the very last moment, he basically never missed. It is just impossible to miss when the target is that close. Also, the adversary would have no time to react. 'After attacking, he wouldn't stick around and dogfight like how pilots in movies do. He would flee the scene and attack again once the enemy lost him or lowered their guard. The Soviet airplanes and pilot training was particularly deficient to counter this.' Hascaryo concludes; 'It's basically aerial hit-and-run, a tactic as old as humanity and is still nonetheless devastating in the modern era. It also doesn't require the pilot to be exceptionally good at any one thing (like shooting or flying); an average pilot with above-average understanding of their machine and good planning could pull it off. Hartmann

Sailor Milan's Ten Rules of Air Fighting:

1. Wait until you see the whites of his eyes. Fire short bursts of 1 to 2 seconds and only when your sights are definitely 'ON'.
2. Whilst shooting think of nothing else, brace the whole of the body, have both hands on the stick, concentrate on your ring sight.
3. Always keep a sharp lookout. "Keep your finger out"!
4. Height [and speed] gives You the initiative.
5. Always turn and face the attack.
6. Make your decisions promptly. It is better to act quickly even though your tactics are not the best.
7. Never fly straight and level for more than 30 seconds in the combat area.
8. When diving to attack always leave a proportion of your formation above to act as top guard.
9. INITIATIVE, AGGRESSION, AIR DISCIPLINE, and TEAM WORK are the words that MEAN something in Air Fighting.
10. Go in quickly – Punch hard – Get out!

[On the Dicta Boelke]
If followed assiduously, the Dicta tactics often led to an unseen approach for a surprise attack. As historical study has shown, thus getting in the first shot in an engagement guarantees a successful attack over 80% of the time.
Head, R. G. (2016). Oswald Boelcke: Germany's First Fighter Ace and Father of Air Combat.

You dont dogfight someone into an unseen approach for a surprise attack.

Thanks, I'm familiar with the tenets of fighter tactics. However, your comments here seem to assume that fighters are working alone. You may not 'dogfight' someone into an unseen approach for a surprise attack, but it was definitely standard tactics for more experienced fighter pilots to maneuver so that their wingman or someone else for their unit would get an easy surprise attack lined up.

Using hit and run or 'boom and zoom' attacks as they are sometimes called, in practice, just meant picking fewer opportunities. Of course fighter pilots want to attack from an advantage, but you are flying with the assumption that dropping your speed below say, 275 mph, means you are likely to die, you may not be able to take shots or go after targets which require you to turn or climb and thus lose too much speed.

So it's not a matter of if you attack from advantage, that was a normal prioritization. It's that you have to limit yourself to a narrower range of opportunities. You might have an advantage over one target (who may or may not even see you coming) but if you engage that target, you may yourself become a victim of his wingman or another enemy pilot.

 

[SplitRz]

Yes, dozens of pilot interviews etc.

Ah, thats fantastic. Can you give me a few links?

I'm confused by your comment "However, your comments here seem to assume that fighters are working alone"

Nowhere have I said, assumed or implied that. None of the sources I quoted were working alone or without wingmen either. I'm confused as to you managed to extrapolate that ??

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ah, thats fantastic. Can you give me a few links?

Before I spend time hunting down links, which specific part of the statement do you want confirmation of? That pilots had to forgo attack opportunities, or that this was difficult to adjust to?

I'm confused by your comment "However, your comments here seem to assume that fighters are working alone"

Nowhere have I said, assumed or implied that. None of the sources I quoted were working alone or without wingmen either. I'm confused as to you managed to extrapolate that ??

Your last statement in that particular post: "You dont dogfight someone into an unseen approach for a surprise attack." implied that.

 

[SplitRz]

Before I spend time hunting down links, which specific part of the statement do you want confirmation of? That pilots had to forgo attack opportunities, or that this was difficult to adjust to?



Your last statement in that particular post: "You dont dogfight someone into an unseen approach for a surprise attack." implied that.

#1 Either/or

#2 How?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

#1 Either/or

[Robert M. DeHaven oral history interview (Part 1 of 5)] · The Museum of Flight - Digital Collections

Welcome to the digital collections of The Museum of Flight. This site features digitized materials from our archival, library, and artifact collections. Search and browse historic photographs, letters, journals, flight logs, military records, oral histories, and other media.

digitalcollections.museumofflight.org

"RMD: With the P-40, yes. They were typically standard tactics without theater. And that was a hit - and - run tactic. As you've heard a thousand times, and I certainly couldn't refute the
issue, you simply could not, on any basis of equality, combat any equipment that the Japanese had. They could turn circles inside of you. You couldn't do the traditional Lufbery circles. You couldn't do even a reasonable chandelle in a firing turn, which has happened to me — had happened to me on a couple of occasions. You just couldn't do it.

So the object to the game there was to try and hit at least co-altitude — or preferably slightly above if he hadn't run on through — maintain your speed, climb, and if you got an opportunity, turn back and make a second pass. But never tangle with them"


Bold is by me. In my opinion, that makes it clear that certain attacks, i.e. anything where the enemy aircraft was above, or anything after the first pass, had to be avoided. Unless you had time to extend, climb, pick up speed and come back again in the same E state.

For an example of pilots struggling to adapt to this, I recommend reading one of the many accounts of the RAF in Burma and their reaction to Chenault's version of these same tactics described by De Haven.

#2 How?

Because if you are flying in a finger four, you definitely can and do maneuver in such a way to cause your enemy to be attacked by surprise.

It was standard Luftwaffe (and Finnish) tactics in Russia, for example, that when merging with enemy fighters, for one pair from a finger four formation to turn left in a climbing turn, and the other to turn right. The Soviets would normally pursue one of the pairs. The Germans had a performance advantage and could stay ahead for a while in the climbing turn, which gave the other two pilots time to come up behind the Soviet fighters and shoot them down.

Also the Thach weave is similar in both goal and effect.

 

[Shortround6]

P-40s, P-39s, Hurricanes, Buffaloes, Wildcats, seemed to complain about the A6M and Ki-43 speed among other things.

Well, we have quite a speed range just in the Allied fighters. 30-40mph ?
The Ki-43 up until the winter of 1942/43 was good for about 305-310mph tops so not much different than the Hurricane Is and Buffalos.
However the climb performance was very different. Not surprising with with a 4500-4900lb Ki-43 (depending on fuel load while clean) compared to the over 6,000lb Hurricane I and Buffalo. I am not sure that the Wildcats and Ki-43 ran into each other much in 1942?
Identification of the Japanese planes was not the best with the A6M and Ki-43 being easily confused.
The P-40s and P-39s should have had a speed advantage, what they did not have was climb advantage. at over 7,000lbs (or over 8,000lbs) the Japanese aircraft could easily out climb the Army planes and be either long gone or or at a much higher speed when the American planes leveled off (if they did).
Turning burns off speed but the higher acceleration of the lighter planes means faster recovery. It can take 2 minutes to accelerate from a tight turn or long climb to top speed.
Were the Japanese planes really "faster" or were they accelerating faster and thus increasing/decreasing the distance?

Apparently with the tropical filters the Spit Vs weren't getting that fast. The Aussies noted Kittyhawks had a major speed advantage over them below 16,000 ft

The Australian Spitfires were a real conundrum. There were at least three mechanical problems. In no particular order.
1. The Tropical filters.
2. The Merlin 46 had the highest FTH of any single stage single speed supercharged engine. Several thousand feet higher than a Merlin 45. What this also meant was that Melrn 46 was around 100hp less powerful than a Merlin 45 until it got over 20,000ft.
3. The Australians limited the boost to 9lbs (48In ?) of boost. For reason/s known to them. Basically the Australians were running them at the 30 minute climb rating + 150rpm/same boost.

Non mechanical problems include poor tactics.


If you have two planes that otherwise equal the faster plane with have an advantage. It has a better thrust to drag ratio.
However that assumes both similar weight and wing area for similar power to weight and wing loading.

With the Japanese planes it is not as simple as just speed (thrust vs drag) and turn (both horizontal and vertical) wing loading.

The P-40 and and P-39 were fast but they were also heavy, poor power to weight=poor climb/poor acceleration.

Think about cars/motorcycles, a light but slower top speed machine can often win on a twisty track with short straightaways. It cannot win on track with fewer curves and longer straightaways.

 

[GregP]

Well, we have quite a speed range just in the Allied fighters. 30-40mph ?
The Ki-43 up until the winter of 1942/43 was good for about 305-310mph tops so not much different than the Hurricane Is and Buffalos.
However the climb performance was very different. Not surprising with with a 4500-4900lb Ki-43 (depending on fuel load while clean) compared to the over 6,000lb Hurricane I and Buffalo. I am not sure that the Wildcats and Ki-43 ran into each other much in 1942?
Identification of the Japanese planes was not the best with the A6M and Ki-43 being easily confused.
The P-40s and P-39s should have had a speed advantage, what they did not have was climb advantage. at over 7,000lbs (or over 8,000lbs) the Japanese aircraft could easily out climb the Army planes and be either long gone or or at a much higher speed when the American planes leveled off (if they did).
Turning burns off speed but the higher acceleration of the lighter planes means faster recovery. It can take 2 minutes to accelerate from a tight turn or long climb to top speed.
Were the Japanese planes really "faster" or were they accelerating faster and thus increasing/decreasing the distance?

The Australian Spitfires were a real conundrum. There were at least three mechanical problems. In no particular order.
1. The Tropical filters.
2. The Merlin 46 had the highest FTH of any single stage single speed supercharged engine. Several thousand feet higher than a Merlin 45. What this also meant was that Melrn 46 was around 100hp less powerful than a Merlin 45 until it got over 20,000ft.
3. The Australians limited the boost to 9lbs (48In ?) of boost. For reason/s known to them. Basically the Australians were running them at the 30 minute climb rating + 150rpm/same boost.

Non mechanical problems include poor tactics.


If you have two planes that otherwise equal the faster plane with have an advantage. It has a better thrust to drag ratio.
However that assumes both similar weight and wing area for similar power to weight and wing loading.

With the Japanese planes it is not as simple as just speed (thrust vs drag) and turn (both horizontal and vertical) wing loading.

The P-40 and and P-39 were fast but they were also heavy, poor power to weight=poor climb/poor acceleration.

Think about cars/motorcycles, a light but slower top speed machine can often win on a twisty track with short straightaways. It cannot win on track with fewer curves and longer straightaways.

Two planes are usually not otherwise equal except one is faster. I can't think of one instance where that is true, offhand. Also, if one is actually going faster, it won't turn with the slower one. Turn radius is proportional to the square of the velocity. R = (V^2) / (11.26 * tan (bank angle in °); V in knots.

Suppose you have two airplanes in a 45° bank, one at 260 knots and one at 280 knots.

The turn radius for the slower one is 6,004 feet while the turn radius for the faster one is 6,963 feet, assuming a level turn for both at a 45° bank angle. If one increases the bank angle, the other could, too, so I'm assuming equal bank and just changing the speed. That puts the maneuverability advantage with slower plane and the speed advantage with the faster one.

It's a trade-off, as most things in aerial combat usually are except in the case of great aircraft performance disparity.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I am not sure that the Wildcats and Ki-43 ran into each other much in 1942?

First engagement between Ki-43s and F4Fs was 27 Jan, 1943. 30 Ki-43 Is of the 1st and 11th Sentais escorting nine Ki-48s of 45th Sentai engaged six P-38s of the 339th FS, eight Marine F4Fs, and 10 P-40s over Guadalcanal. losses were reported as two P-40s shot down, two crash landed, two P-38s and a F4F, which ditched. Japanese reported one shot down, another crashed, and four missing.

Ki-43 'Oscar' Aces of World War 2, Hiroshi Ichimura

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

First engagement between Ki-43s and F4Fs was 27 Jan, 1943. 30 Ki-43 Is of the 1st and 11th Sentais escorting nine Ki-48s of 45th Sentai engaged six P-38s of the 339th FS, eight Marine F4Fs, and 10 P-40s over Guadalcanal. losses were reported as two P-40s shot down, two crash landed, two P-38s and a F4F, which ditched. Japanese reported one shot down, another crashed, and four missing.

Ki-43 'Oscar' Aces of World War 2, Hiroshi Ichimura

Yeah to swing back around to Tomo's question - P-40 pilots with the AVG encountered Ki-43s in China, the first time may have been 25 December 1941. They did pose a challenge but AVG did not have major problems with them because by then they had thoroughly embraced the Chennault hit and run strategy (which took a while to learn even after being told, but they did learn it because it was also necessary vs Ki-27s). Ki-43s were also deployed against Singapore, and I think they were at Malaya and Java too but not certain.

Ki-43s showed up in New Guinea area in very late 1942 / early 1943. I think there are some engagements prior to the one listed above in "Pacific Air War", but I'll check. From that point on there were some around the Lae / Rabaul zone and they would be regularly encountered. By this time the local Australian (75 and 76 RAAF) and US (49th FG) P-40 units were somewhat experienced and had adjusted their tactics.

The 8th FG flying P-39s initially had to re-learn the hit and run lesson but adapted to it fairly quickly. Vs the Zero, Buzz Wagoner noted: "The Zero could out-manoeuvre, out-climb and out-accelerate the P-39, but the P-39 was faster than the Zero at sea level. The P-39 was 10% better than the P-40 Warhawk in everything but manoeuvrability." "... eight flaws with the P-39, amongst them problems with the reliability of the guns, a lack of armour for the engine, leaky propellers, a weak undercarriage, poor performance above 18,000ft (a higher ceiling than often reported), and perhaps most significantly in the vast spaces of the Pacific theatre, too short an operational range." I think the 'maneuverability' he's referring to here was both roll rate and turn rate. Which did matter even though they weren't doing low-speed turning fighting. 8th started replacing P-39s in early 1943, but they probably encountered Ki-43s as well. The 67th FS operated P-39s in Solomons (P-400s) and had a lot of problems.

I believe at least one of the raids on Darwin also had Ki-43s.

Hurricanes had a lot of problems with Ki-43s as we know. So did the F2A which faced Ki-43s in Burma with the RAF, and I believe (not certain) in Malaya.

The Ki-43 had a slower max speed than the A6M, but there was a major difference. Army and Navy pilots in the New Guinea / Darwin / Solomons area had learned that the A6M became less maneuverable at higher speeds, so Allied pilots could fairly reliably perform a diving escape maneuver exploiting the torque limitations, (IIRC the A6M would only turn right at higher speeds). But the Ki-43 did not have this problem, and remained agile into higher speed, so the escape maneuver couldn't be done the same way. I believe this did cause some problems initially. On the other hand the Ki-43 did not have the same phenomenal climbing agility that the A6M had.

 

[Shortround6]

Two planes are usually not otherwise equal except one is faster. I can't think of one instance where that is true, offhand. Also, if one is actually going faster, it won't turn with the slower one. Turn radius is proportional to the square of the velocity. R = (V^2) / (11.26 * tan (bank angle in °); V in knots.

Suppose you have two airplanes in a 45° bank, one at 260 knots and one at 280 knots.

The turn radius for the slower one is 6,004 feet while the turn radius for the faster one is 6,963 feet, assuming a level turn for both at a 45° bank angle. If one increases the bank angle, the other could, too, so I'm assuming equal bank and just changing the speed. That puts the maneuverability advantage with slower plane and the speed advantage with the faster one.

It's a trade-off, as most things in aerial combat usually are except in the case of great aircraft performance disparity.

The two planes being equal is hypothetical. But in regards to your scenario the faster plane has 3 options (or more?)
1. Slow down-easier said than done but a possibility, but perhaps the worst option.
2. The faster plane can increase the bank angle and change the radius, which will increase the drag and result in a slower speed, but it may allow the faster plane to 'cut the corner'.
3. the faster plane can climb slightly, slowing the plane down but trading speed for altitude and potential energy to be used at a later point in time.

The slower plane has the same options but since it is going slower (less power or less available power/thrust under the conditions stated) it has to slow down more than the faster plane for either the increased bank angle or the climb.

The Japanese planes, being so light, had a superior climb rate and could use the vertical element better.
A lot of maneuvers were combinations. Turning (changing direction) to change the line of fire while doing something else (climbing or diving).
I believe that Spitfires could do a climbing turn at times to escape from 109s. They just couldn't run straight as they couldn't get enough distance to get out of gun range in time. The 109 could climb with the Spitfires in question also giving them too long to shoot. But the 109 could not turn with the Spitfire while climbing and keep it's nose pointed at the Spitfire.

 

[drgondog]

The two planes being equal is hypothetical. But in regards to your scenario the faster plane has 3 options (or more?)
1. Slow down-easier said than done but a possibility, but perhaps the worst option.
2. The faster plane can increase the bank angle and change the radius, which will increase the drag and result in a slower speed, but it may allow the faster plane to 'cut the corner'.
3. the faster plane can climb slightly, slowing the plane down but trading speed for altitude and potential energy to be used at a later point in time.

The slower plane has the same options but since it is going slower (less power or less available power/thrust under the conditions stated) it has to slow down more than the faster plane for either the increased bank angle or the climb.

The Japanese planes, being so light, had a superior climb rate and could use the vertical element better.
A lot of maneuvers were combinations. Turning (changing direction) to change the line of fire while doing something else (climbing or diving).
I believe that Spitfires could do a climbing turn at times to escape from 109s. They just couldn't run straight as they couldn't get enough distance to get out of gun range in time. The 109 could climb with the Spitfires in question also giving them too long to shoot. But the 109 could not turn with the Spitfire while climbing and keep it's nose pointed at the Spitfire.

The CL of the wing-body and the wing loading are the controlling factors. All factors equal, excess HPavail will prevail for ability to maintain altitude in same radius.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The two planes being equal is hypothetical. But in regards to your scenario the faster plane has 3 options (or more?)
1. Slow down-easier said than done but a possibility, but perhaps the worst option.
2. The faster plane can increase the bank angle and change the radius, which will increase the drag and result in a slower speed, but it may allow the faster plane to 'cut the corner'.
3. the faster plane can climb slightly, slowing the plane down but trading speed for altitude and potential energy to be used at a later point in time.

The slower plane has the same options but since it is going slower (less power or less available power/thrust under the conditions stated) it has to slow down more than the faster plane for either the increased bank angle or the climb.

The Japanese planes, being so light, had a superior climb rate and could use the vertical element better.
A lot of maneuvers were combinations. Turning (changing direction) to change the line of fire while doing something else (climbing or diving).
I believe that Spitfires could do a climbing turn at times to escape from 109s. They just couldn't run straight as they couldn't get enough distance to get out of gun range in time. The 109 could climb with the Spitfires in question also giving them too long to shoot. But the 109 could not turn with the Spitfire while climbing and keep it's nose pointed at the Spitfire.

The P-40 pilots adapted 'vertical turns' by diving and turning, such as a low-yo-yo. Robert DeHaven, quoted above, described it this way:

"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."

Planes with better power or which were coming in with extra E from a dive could also use a high yo yo and other vertical turns to bleed off a little speed before a turn.

 

[Shortround6]

The Ki-43 had a slower max speed than the A6M, but there was a major difference.

part of our problem in figuring out what was going is that there were two different Ki-43s and several different A6Ms from Dec 1941 to the Spring of 1943.
The Ki-43 stayed pretty constant until just about 1943. The Ki-43 IIs started leaving the factory in Nov 1942 and by the time they get to front or fully equip a unit it is ???
Now the Ki-43 II had a number of improvements over the Ki-43 I.
It got the two speed supercharged engine with more power everywhere. Basically 20-30mph more speed at any altitude from sea level to over 20,000ft.
They clipped the wing by about 2 ft and reinforced it. A bit better roll, a bit better diving speed (and they didn't break as much in flight).
They got protected fuel tanks, not good ones but better than than the old tanks.(faint praise) They also got seat back and head armor and some BP glass.
The extra weight pretty much canceled the extra power as far as climb rate went.

Allied pilots needed a pretty sharp eye to tell the difference.

The A6M started changing in late summer of 1942. Doesn't mean the older planes were shipped back to Japan.
The A6M3 started to show up in Aug 1942 but was known as the Hap/Hamp. the square wing tips made it easy to identify. But only 343 built?
The A6M3 with long wings started leaving the factory Dec 1942 and they stopped in Aug 1943.

The A6M didn't get the better speed boost from the 2 speed engines that the Ki-43 got. But the A6M3 Hap could dive 20kts faster than an A6M2. Probably not enough to change tactics.

The P-39s and P-40s were changing a bit too. The 1325hp TO engined planes start leaving the factories is the summer of 1942. Takes a while to get to the front lines, Doesn't do anything for over 12-13,000ft performance but helps at lower altitudes. Official over-boosting starts in Nov/Dec of 1942. the newer engines tolerate it better. Over boosting does nothing over 12-13,000ft.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

part of our problem in figuring out what was going is that there were two different Ki-43s and several different A6Ms from Dec 1941 to the Spring of 1943.
The Ki-43 stayed pretty constant until just about 1943. The Ki-43 IIs started leaving the factory in Nov 1942 and by the time they get to front or fully equip a unit it is ???
Now the Ki-43 II had a number of improvements over the Ki-43 I.
It got the two speed supercharged engine with more power everywhere. Basically 20-30mph more speed at any altitude from sea level to over 20,000ft.
They clipped the wing by about 2 ft and reinforced it. A bit better roll, a bit better diving speed (and they didn't break as much in flight).
They got protected fuel tanks, not good ones but better than than the old tanks.(faint praise) They also got seat back and head armor and some BP glass.
The extra weight pretty much canceled the extra power as far as climb rate went.

Yes and I think they (at least in some cases, it seems to have partly come down to pilot or squadron leader preference in the field) they got two 12.7mm guns instead of two 7.7mm or 1 x 7.7mm and 1 x 12.7mm. And a bit more ammunition IMO.

Allied pilots needed a pretty sharp eye to tell the difference.

The A6M started changing in late summer of 1942. Doesn't mean the older planes were shipped back to Japan.
The A6M3 started to show up in Aug 1942 but was known as the Hap/Hamp. the square wing tips made it easy to identify. But only 343 built?
The A6M3 with long wings started leaving the factory Dec 1942 and they stopped in Aug 1943.

The A6M didn't get the better speed boost from the 2 speed engines that the Ki-43 got. But the A6M3 Hap could dive 20kts faster than an A6M2. Probably not enough to change tactics.

The biggest advantage of the A6M3 was probably 120 rounds for the cannon rather than the 60 of the A6M2, which was low enough to be a problem sometimes.

The P-39s and P-40s were changing a bit too. The 1325hp TO engined planes start leaving the factories is the summer of 1942. Takes a while to get to the front lines, Doesn't do anything for over 12-13,000ft performance but helps at lower altitudes. Official over-boosting starts in Nov/Dec of 1942. the newer engines tolerate it better. Over boosting does nothing over 12-13,000ft.

The P-40K seems to have been a rather underrated asset in the Pacific and in China, you'll notice that a lot of the higher scoring aces in 1943 were flying them. The 1570 hp at the official WEP setting, available below ~8,000 ft, was a major boost, figuratively and literally. They also had more reliable gun / ammunition storage so much fewer stoppages.

Robert Scott got a bunch of his victories on a P-40K

23rd FG

Asisbiz Curtiss P-40K Warhawk 23FG76FS lined up for refueling Kunming China 1942 01

Asisbiz Curtiss P-40K Warhawk 23FG76FS lined up for refueling Kunming China 1942 01

www.asisbiz.com

Asisbiz Curtiss P-40K Warhawk 23FG White 7 Clinton D Vincent named Peggy II over Kunming Lake China 01

Asisbiz Curtiss P-40K Warhawk 23FG White 7 Clinton D Vincent named Peggy II over Kunming Lake China 01

www.asisbiz.com

49th FG

P-40K Warhawk the 8th Fighter Squadron, 49th FG | World War Photos

P-40K the 8th Fighter Squadron, 49th FG

www.worldwarphotos.info

They also got some P-40Fs which were used in Guadalcanal I think by the 18th FG.

 

[GregP]

The two planes being equal is hypothetical. But in regards to your scenario the faster plane has 3 options (or more?)
1. Slow down-easier said than done but a possibility, but perhaps the worst option.
2. The faster plane can increase the bank angle and change the radius, which will increase the drag and result in a slower speed, but it may allow the faster plane to 'cut the corner'.
3. the faster plane can climb slightly, slowing the plane down but trading speed for altitude and potential energy to be used at a later point in time.

The slower plane has the same options but since it is going slower (less power or less available power/thrust under the conditions stated) it has to slow down more than the faster plane for either the increased bank angle or the climb.

The Japanese planes, being so light, had a superior climb rate and could use the vertical element better.
A lot of maneuvers were combinations. Turning (changing direction) to change the line of fire while doing something else (climbing or diving).
I believe that Spitfires could do a climbing turn at times to escape from 109s. They just couldn't run straight as they couldn't get enough distance to get out of gun range in time. The 109 could climb with the Spitfires in question also giving them too long to shoot. But the 109 could not turn with the Spitfire while climbing and keep it's nose pointed at the Spitfire.

Good points, Shortround. My point was that two planes are generally not equal with one being faster. If the potentially-faster one isn't actually going faster, then his so-called advantage is negated and, since they were otherwise equal, they are pretty equal when at the same speed. If the faster one IS going faster, then he won't be as maneuverable as the slower one. So, the faster one has +20 knots, but won't turn as well at his faster speed. Assume equal armament and pilots and there's not much to choose between them.

As I've said before, a small speed advantage doesn't buy you much of an advantage.

Suppose again 260 knots and 280 knots. 260 knots is 439 feet per second. 280 knots is 473 feet per second. Suppose the combat last 20 seconds. At those speeds, the faster plane will gain a whole 675 feet over the slower plane.

Let's say the chaser has 50-cal (12.7 mm) machine guns. A Browning M-2 has an effective range of 6,000 geet (2,000 yards), so gaining or losing 675 feet in 20 seconds won't likely but you much unless you are already around 2,000 feet away. The round itself has a max range of a little over 24,000+ feet (8,000+ yards), so being near the end of the 2,000 yards distance doesn't really help a lot if you fly through a bullet stream; they still hit pretty hard at 2,500 feet.

Since the two planes are "otherwise" equal," then if one can make some neat aerial move, the other one can, too. Whether or not he can do so while tracking you is another question.

My point is that a small speed advantage doesn't really help you escape in the short-term, but it can prove useful if you can get out of the enemy's firing line and extend. If you manage to get him turning the wrong way and he takes 10 seconds to get back onto a firing solution, and if you can do that several times, you can extend and escape. As your speed advantage gets higher, it takes fewer escapes to extend and actually escape. At some speed advantage, the speed delta lets you avoid the other guy with one good move. I'm not too sure what that that magic speed advantage value is, but I know it has to be way over 20 knots.

But, in any case, running away in a straight line with a small speed advantage doesn't really do much if someone is on your tail and tracking you with evil intent, assuming he is armed, that is.

None of this is to say faster by a small amount isn't desirable. It is. What I mean is simply that, while a small speed advantage isn't a great advantage in a one-on-one dogfight, that doesn't mean you don't want that small speed advantage. At some point, it might come in handy. But don't count on it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

To escape / disengage combat required typically either diving or climbing, depending on where your advantage (if any) lay. The original go-to for a lot of Allied fighters in the pacific was a Split-S, but they came up with complex escape maneuvers pretty soon, involving skids, outside rolls etc., and then ultimately into the Split-S.

Allied fighter pilots tried to enter combat with some E so they would dive in and might be doing say 350 kts even if their top speed was 280. P-38 pilots would make a pass and then shift into a shallow high-speed climb that the Japanese fighters couldn't follow.

A6Ms could climb at such a steep angle they could often evade that way and even sometimes loop around onto the pursuing aircraft...

 

[Spindash64]

MONSTER essay-post time. Buckle your seatbelts...

It's been said before, but speed is maneuverability. Or, to give a fuller definition, both speed and maneuverability are critical parts of positioning your aircraft into a killing position, and out of a position where it can be killed.


The Zero wasn't solely designed for its low-speed turn performance, despite reputation: the entire aircraft was designed to be, for its time, a very fast and rapid climbing carrier fighter. It was generally accepted at the time that Carrier based fighters would be inferior to their land-based counterparts by a significant margin, for a number of reasons:

• Carrier aircraft must be designed with stronger, heavier landing gear than land-based aircraft, due to needing to touchdown at higher speeds to make a short landing (there's a half-joke still that the easiest way to tell what service an airline pilot flew in is to observe their landings). This adds extra weight to the design, robbing rate of climb
• Carrier aircraft must have a lower minimum control speed (that is, the lowest speed that a pilot still has reasonable authority over roll, pitch, and yaw) than land-based counterparts.
• Carrier aircraft must be able to fit on the carrier's elevator if they are to be stored below deck. This either limits maximum dimensions, forces additional weight and complexity due to folding mechanisms, or both

Consider that before the Brewster Buffalo and Wildcat, the primary US Carrier Fighter was the F3F, a Retractable gear Biplane: while Biplanes had inferior speed and range due to drag, their wings could be made shorter while still giving enough lift for a short takeoff run.

The Zero was an attempt to build a Carrier fighter that was an equal to, if not superior to, land-based fighters of its time. And to achieve this while still being acceptable for Carrier Operation, they needed to do several things:

1. Empty weight needed to be kept to a minimum: with increasing aircraft weight, with other factors controlled, the following occurs:
   1. takeoff and landing distance increases
   2. rate of climb is reduced.
   3. The amount of lift needed to maintain a turn of a given "tightness" increases (try looking up "Load Factor" for more information)
2. Internal fuel storage needed to be sufficient for long range operation, as the Zero would need to fight over the largest battlefield on earth. Running out of fuel over the Pacific Ocean could be a death sentence.
3. The engine needed to be powerful engine to give good speed and climb, but light enough to not adversely affect weight, and efficient enough to not adversely affect range
4. The Japanese Navy, having just started conflict with China, who was primarily using obsolete biplanes, anticipated a need for excellent control at low speeds, while still being fast enough to engage more modern aircraft.

here's a direct clip from the bane of all teachers, Wikipedia:
"Based on the experiences of the A5M in China, the IJN sent out updated requirements in October, calling for a speed of 270 kn (310 mph; 500 km/h) at 4,000 m (13,000 ft) and a climb to 3,000 m (9,800 ft) in 9.5 minutes. With drop tanks, the Navy wanted an endurance of two hours at normal power, or six to eight hours at economical cruising speed. Armament was to consist of two 20 mm cannons, two 7.7 mm (.303 in) machine guns and two 60 kg (130 lb) bombs. A complete radio set was to be mounted in all aircraft, along with a radio direction finder for long-range navigation.[8] The maneuverability was to be at least equal to that of the A5M, while the wingspan had to be less than 12 m (39 ft) to allow for use on aircraft carriers."


To meet these requirements, the designers took advantage of the following:

• The Zero used a newly developed ESD, or "Extra Special Duralumin" alloy for the airframe. This was noticeably lighter for comparable strength when compared to previously used alloys, and that meant the airframe of the Zero could be built lighter for a given load
• The Zero's wing was built as a single component, rather than 2 wings mated together. This made construction more difficult, but it also further improved strength to weight ratio
• The Zero's wingtips could be folded in to allow the plane to fit on Carrier Elevators. This was a compromise between the desire for a longer wing, the need to conform to the requirements of existing vessels, and the previously mentioned need for a strong wing
• Originally, Mitsubishi's own Zuisei engine was used, but this was swapped to Nakajima's competing Sakae engine for production. Both engines were incredibly light for the power they offered (by the standards of pre WW2, at least), only around 1,200lbs, while offering nearly 1,000hp in emergencies.

The end result was highly formidable, and I don't think I need to go over the details too heavily. That said, I WILL make note of something people often forget: Prior to 1943, the only other true Carrier fighters ready for combat were the Brewster Buffalo, and the F4F Wildcat. The Sea Hurricane and Sea Spitfire were good performers, but neither was really suitable as a carrier aircraft. The Seafire in particular suffered immensely due to its narrow undercarriage not being sufficiently strengthened for the high sink rates of deck landing. And Brewster had so many mismanagements at its company that it was accused of sabotage, so I think for now, we should really only compare the A6M2 and the F4F-3 and -4:

• The Zero and both Wildcats are about equal in maximum level flight airspeed. I don't have details on speed vs altitude, but the differences are small enough to be ignored for this very broad discussion
• The Zero (empty weight roughly 1750kg, or 3,900lbs) is far lighter than both the F4F-3 (empty weight around 4,900lbs), and the F4F-4 (around 5,900lbs). In combat, all of these aircraft will be significantly heavier, due to the massive weight of fuel, but the Zero still comes out around 1,000lbs lighter.
• The Wildcats have more engine power at almost all altitudes, thanks to using a 2-stage, 2-speed system (this is where some small part of the weight of the Wildcat comes from). This advantage is greatest at altitudes above 16,000ft. However, this altitude band is somewhat less important in the Pacific Theater, where combat generally ranges from Sea Level to 15,000ft, rarely exceeding 20,000ft. Below 10,000ft, the Wildcat still has more power, but not by as much.
• Since the Zero is roughly as fast as the Wildcats despite having slightly less engine power, the Zero must have slightly lower parasite drag.
• Because of the lower weight, lower induced drag, and slightly lower parasite drag, the Zero has a greater maximum rate of climb (raw vertical speed, using measured ft/min), and a steeper maximum angle of climb (The steepest angle that the aircraft can maintain a climb at without losing speed, degrees from horizontal). These also translate to better overall acceleration. As such, the Zero will tend to gain both altitude and airspeed much faster than the Wildcat.
• The Zero has a slightly lower stall speed than the Wildcat. Not by quite as much as people would expect, but combined with the superior acceleration, it becomes clear why a US pilot would be told to "never dogfight a Zero": a fight below 200mph Indicated Airspeed (essentially how fast the plane "feels" like it's flying, since thin air gives less lift and drag) would blatantly favor the Zero.
• Above 190mph Indicated Airspeed, the Zero's ailerons would begin to stiffen, making it difficult to perform rolling maneuvers at high speeds. Servo tabs were installed later on to address this, but they were quickly removed when it became clear that this would overstress the aircraft. The other controls also stiffen at high speeds, although not to the same degree. Meanwhile, the Wildcat maintains relatively good authority at these speeds, meaning that above 200mph, the Wildcat can potentially outroll the Zero, and at even higher speeds, it can even pull tighter turns.
• Due to the low-speed lift design of the Zero, it suffers from a low maximum safe diving speed of 390mph Indicated. The Wildcats, meanwhile, can handle dives approaching 550mph, which even some late war fighters aren't capable of.
• The F4F-4 (Not the -3), was able to fold almost the entirety of its wings to the sides (yet another source of weight), which meant significantly more of them could be stored inside of a Carrier. This sounds like a small feature when looking at the "trading card" stats, but don't underestimate the power of being able to bring 50% more fighter cover to a carrier battle.
• Despite popular belief, the F4F-3 did not carry armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. These were added to the -4 model, which was the primary variant flying from the Battle of Midway onwards. The Wildcat was still more resistant to battle damage in many cases than the Zero, however: many systems of the F4F were so redundant and idiot proof, you could almost build a second plane out of them.
• While I'm struggling to find the specific sources for it right now, the Wildcat, iirc, had all trim tabs adjustable by the pilot in flight. This meant that he could simply dial the tabs to the desired setting when in cruise to let aerodynamic forces hold the control surfaces at the desired placement, making it much easier to maintain formation. The Zero's aileron trim tabs could only be adjusted on the ground.
• The F4F-3 had four wing mounted Browning Machine Guns, firing 12.7x99 ammunition. These guns were somewhat heavy for their caliber and rate of fire, but boasted high muzzle velocity, as well as retention of velocity over distance. They could also carry up to 400 rounds a gun, giving more than half a minute of combined firing time. The -4 model carried six of these guns, but due to the extra weight, along with the rounds per gun dropping to only 270 (enough for about 20 seconds of constant fire), this gun setup was unpopular with US pilots. Many -4 Wildcats were modified back to the four-gun setup
• The Zero, as mentioned in the IJN requirements, had twin 20mm cannons in the wings, and twin rifle calibers firing synchronized through the cowling. On paper, the high explosive rounds of the zero seem to place its damage above the Wildcats, but in practice, the combination of low ammunition count (60 rounds a cannon, only enough for 7 seconds on the trigger) and low muzzle velocity (around 2/3 that of the Browning) meant that it was far from uncommon for a Zero pilot to have to take on a Wildcat using only the Rifle calibers.

What all of this meant is that an F4F pilot could successfully engage a Zero IF he refused to engage in combat below 200mph IAS (Indicated Airspeed). Below this, the Zero had almost every advantage, but it couldn't really force the fight to slow down if the Wildcat refused to do so. This is also where we finally get into what we call "Boom and Zoom" tactics, which are valuable in any situation, but are most noticeable here. If a group of Wildcats dived on a group of Zeroes at high speed, opened fire, and then use that speed to make a shallow climb back to high altitudes (or used it to continue in a very high speed dive), the Zeroes could not accelerate quickly enough to catch up and shoot them down. The Japanese used these same tactics earlier in the war, as well as over China, so it's not as if the tactic was born out of pure desperation.

We know now that the Japanese overestimated the importance of low-speed control compared to high-speed control, but they weren't blind to the importance of other factors as well. It's merely that Air Combat is about positioning in a 3D space, and turn radius is just one part of that.

 

[GregP]

Nice post above. I have an FM-2 manual and it had all 3 pilot-adjustable tabs. The left aileron has an adjustable tab and the right aileron is a fixed tab. That makes it adjustable assuming no combat damage. I'm thinking the F4F-3 had a similar trim system, but I also don't have an F4F-3 pilot's manual.

The Browning M2 had a cyclic rate of fire of 1200 - 1300 rpm. 400 rounds would last some 20 seconds plus a few as it came up to speed when firing commenced. I doubt 30 seconds. But, that's quibbling a bit, maybe. Close enough.

I've been up close and personal with the A6M-5 Model 52 Zero and it is well built. Since it is built lightly, it is way easier to get "hangar rash" on the Zero than with an F4F, but it is NOT a poorly-made aircraft and there are some innovative small details. By way of example, the rudder trim system is ingenious. There were "fixes" for the stiffening up of the controls with speed but, as with the German Bf 109, nobody actually fixed the Zero's faults in practice. Too bad. It COULD have been better by an amount that can't really be determined. Fixing the roll rate only to have the wings overstressed might not be a good thing. Similar things for other "fixes."

I'm thinking that likely it was because the designer was working on the J2M and the A7M. But not interrupting the production line might have played a part, too, as it did with the F6F Hellcat not getting a few faults, like slow roll rate, fixed. The F6F "fix" was to eliminate the dihedral... but they didn't allow that to happen. Notice there was no multihedral on the F8F Bearcat.

To me, the best "fix" for the A6M would have been to fit a Kinsei 62 (1,500 hp) to the A6M airframe, strengthen the wings a bit with 0.010" thicker skins and "fix" the aileron mechanical advantage. But, that would require approval that wasn't likely, given the facts of what actually happened during the war. Actually having a good "fix" designed and even prototyped, assuming it worked as a "fix," doesn't mean it would ever get done in production. Witness the two XF6F-6s.

As with almost all weapon systems, changes in production require many levels of approval, most from people who don't think like users of the weapons. They are coming from a manufacturing or profits point of view, not from thinking about combat advantages. Too bad the military doesn't have an aircraft change review board staffed by former combat pilots. Things might proceed in a different direction. Might, that is ...

 

[Greg Boeser]

• Despite popular belief, the F4F-3 did not carry armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. These were added to the -4 model, which was the primary variant flying from the Battle of Midway onwards.

Early F4F-3s did not have these items. Nor did they come equipped with bullet proof windscreens or reflector sights. However, by the end of 1941, these improvements were being produced and installed.
By May 1942 all shipboard F4F-3s had self sealing tanks, bulletproof windscreens, reflector sights, and pilot back armor.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One thing worth pointing out on the Zero - IJN policy was actually to use the aircraft in a 'boom and zoom' manner, i.e. to energy fight. And this is actually how they were used much of the time. The turn fighting came in as the result of getting entangled into a turning fight often by what the enemy aircraft did.