Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

(maybe because they were looking at having to fight I-15s and F3Fs...)

 

[Shortround6]

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.

The .50 cal Browning went through 3 major phases.
The Pre-war guns fired at about 600rpm, if they were lucky, had short belts and were operating at low Gs and were not synchronized.

In 1940 they figured out to make them fire at about 800rpm. At least on the proving grounds. Apparently the British had quite a bit of trouble with the guns installed in Tomahawks, P-39s, Buffaloes and Martlets? By 1942 things were somewhat better and things continued to improve as the war went on. In 1940-41 they could take an old .50 cal and drop in some new parts and upgrade it to the faster firing version. But since the number of old guns were relatively small 10-20,000 (?) this really wasn't that important....except........that that criteria was incorporated in the next requirement.

They wanted to get to that 1200rpm level (phase 3) and they wanted to do it with the standard receiver (as used in the 450rpm air cooled ground guns and the 550-600 water cooled AA guns). After several years and using 3 design teams ( or three factories with at least one team each) they gave up and allowed a modified aircraft gun only receiver to be used. The T series guns for troop trials were approved in mid 1944 and production (8-10,000 guns ?) started in late 1944. These worked and was later standardized as the M3 gun. This was the 1200rpm gun. Some unit armorers may have gotten the older M2guns to fire at 1100-1200rpm for short periods of time by hand fitting and polishing but not to the standards of reliability and durability that the Ordnance Dept wanted. The Ordnance Dept wanted a certain number of jams/stoppages per 1000 rounds fired and certain number of broken parts (firing pins, extractors, ejectors) which was quite small, like only a couple of parts per 1000 rounds fired.
It was the M3 guns that were used in the post war jets.

These guns should have been firing at full speed within a couple of shots (if that) unless the oil was really cold and in that case they were likely to jam. There is no mechanism to get up to speed like a rotary gun. The reciprocating parts and springs are either going to fire at 800rpm or they are not. Actual guns fired at between about 750-850rpm depending on the gun. A battery of 6 guns in an American plane could have all 6 guns firing at slightly different rates. Now a good armorer could do a bit of parts swapping and polishing and playing with the buffer and timing and even things up a bit. An armorer who thought he was good might get some fast firing guns but probably lost reliability doing it.
A number of the prototype guns (and there were many) never even made to the 1000 round mark without excessive failures or even blown up guns (gun fired with the bolt out of battery, high pressure gas leak from ruptured case wrecks the receiver and/or internal parts).

 

[Shortround6]

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.

Quite right.
and there were only 165 F4F-3 built in 1940-41 plus 65 F4F-3A with just the single stage supercharger. Most of these went to the Marines.
Production of the F4F-3s pretty much stopped in Dec 1941.

They did build another 100 in 1943 for training. Didn't need the folding wings.

 

[Shortround6]

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 A6M3s got 100 round magazines. There is a bit of confusion on the guns. The early A6M3s got the short barreled guns. At some point they installed the longer barrels (and longer cartridge case) 99 type IIs but still with 100 round drums/boxes. Some sources claim all A6M3 had the long guns but try to find a picture of one.

The A6M5 continued with the long barreled guns and the 100 round magazines in the model 52. The 52a introduced the belt fed Type 99 Mk. 2 model 4 guns, this was after about 747 of the A6M5 Model 52s were built. The first 114 (?) model 52a's were built using a feed block designed by the Air Technical Arsenal, after that Mitsubishi was allowed to use their own design of feed block in the next 277 planes. Now we are getting into the A6M5b with the single fuselage 13mm machine gun. We are also getting into 1944.

 

[GrauGeist]

Prior to 1943, the only other true Carrier fighters ready for combat were the Brewster Buffalo, and the F4F Wildcat.

Actually, well before 1943, there was the A5M.

It entered service in 1937, whereas the F2A entered USN service in late 1939. The F4F entered service in 1940 (with foreign operators) and the USN followed soon after.

 

[Spindash64]

You are correct. I should have specified "modern" carrier fighter. That is to say, fully enclosed cockpit, retractable gear, monoplane without external bracing. The Claude was also in some form of service for a bit of WW2 (at least to the point of getting a reporting name), but the comparison is mostly about whatever could be seen as being up to the current standards. The Zero, Buffalo, and Wildcat fit that much better, being slower than contemporary Spitfire Is and 109Es, but unlike previous generations of fighters (side note: I HATE that almost every definition of fighter generations treats all prop planes as a single generation, as if a SPAD XIII has more in common with a P-51H than an F-4 does with an F-15), the overall difference in performance between Carrier and Land based fighters was relatively small, no longer seeming like the Carrier planes were a generation behind.

 

[GrauGeist]

To be honest, I've never heard of "first generation", "second generation" and so on, applied to piston fighters.
It's always been "Early", "WWI Era", ""Interwar" with WWII types falling into "Early War" and "Late War" and then of course "Post War", "Korean War", etc.

The generation label usually applies to the Jets.

In regards to the A5M, it was still in front line service as late as Spring of 1942, encountering USN elements at Marshall Islands and Coral Sea.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So Ok, it's four aircraft - A5M, A6M, F2A and F4F. A5M and F2A were kind of the training wheels versions, built in relatively small numbers and not quite ideal or 'finished' designs, compared to A6M and F4F. So it ads a small nuance, but I still kinda see his point.

I would just add though that all four types I believe also had to act as land based fighters.

 

[MIflyer]

As far as "Maneuverability-vs-speed," I recall something by Maj "Kit" Carson, P-51 pilot.

A PBY landed on the water to pick up some aircrew and an Me-262 ran out and shot up the PBY. Carson dueled with the Me-262. He said that while the Mustang could out-turn the ME-262 in terms of radius, the ME-262 could fly around its larger turn circle so much faster than the P-51 that he could not pull a lead on it. And obviously the Me-262 could disengage at will. But I found this a rather different perspective on what it meant to be more maneuverable than your opponent.

A trick used on new P-51 pilots in the US was for an instructor to say they would dogfight, the student in a P-51 and the instructor in a Piper L-4. The student would think this absurd; the Piper clearly had no chance. Of course the L-4 could easily out turn the P-51 and after a few turns in which the his target disappared before he could line it up, the student would decide to make a very fast pass before the Piper could get out of the way; this inevitably led the P-51 to overshoot by a huge margin. The student would try it again, with the same results and eventually the instructor would land the L-4 in a field, taxi under a tree and watch as the baffled student frantically blazed across the sky trying to find the suddenly invisible Piper. The IDF once did something similar with an MB-326 versus a Mig-21; eventually the angry Russian pilot in the Mig thought he had the 326 lined up just right, bored in for the kill and found a mountainside.

You have to wonder what would be the best tactics to deal with relatively slow moving drones at low altitudes. Rather than an F-16 and an AIM-9 you'd probably be much better off with an L-4 and an M-16.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You brought up two very interesting issues that I've been keen on for a couple of years now - and probably good to discuss in another thread: 1) How these slow, but nimble recon / spotting / light CAS aircraft like a piper cub, L4, Fw 189, Lysander, Hs 123, etc. etc. often if not always seemed to have a very useful niche, even in the scary conditions of mid to later war WW2, in spite of being flimsy and comparatively weak, and how this continued with aircraft like AD, OV-10 etc. in much later eras. And 2) Drone and in particular anti-drone (and / or drone vs drone) warfare which is very important in our current moment I think.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

So Ok, it's four aircraft - A5M, A6M, F2A and F4F. A5M and F2A were kind of the training wheels versions, built in relatively small numbers and not quite ideal or 'finished' designs, compared to A6M and F4F. So it ads a small nuance, but I still kinda see his point.

I would just add though that all four types I believe also had to act as land based fighters.

I doubt it could be said with any reasonable acuracy that the A5M could be considered as not quite ideal or as a fully finished design.

As it has been noted, was the first monoplane naval fighter and saw combat in China since 1937.

That the A6M superceded it and by a large margin was not the fault of the A5M but the consecuence of the fast development progress in aviation industry in the mid 30s.

 

[SaparotRob]

You have to wonder what would be the best tactics to deal with relatively slow moving drones at low altitudes. Rather than an F-16 and an AIM-9 you'd probably be much better off with an L-4 and an M-16.

Maybe a shotgun instead?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I doubt it could be said with any reasonable acuracy that the A5M could be considered as not quite ideal or as a fully finished design.

As it has been noted, was the first monoplane naval fighter and saw combat in China since 1937.

That the A6M superceded it and by a large margin was not the fault of the A5M but the consecuence of the fast development progress in aviation industry in the mid 30s.

What I mean is this - A5M was a 'transitional' design. With fixed landing gear and an open cockpit, it was up against some significant limitations to speed and range. It was also limited in armament. All of this was addressed in the A6M which was 40-50 mph faster, much more heavily armed, less draggy, had an enclosed cockpit with much better view all around, and had half again the range. In my opinion, this is why the A5M was built in relatively small numbers (1,000 aircraft) compared to the A6M (10,000 aircraft)

The I-16, a late interwar land based fighter (in operational units since 1935), was short-ranged by comparison, but with retractable landing gear the later variants were 30 mph faster than an A5M. The (available) enclosed cockpit meant that it was better for higher altitudes especially in winter. It was also much better armed. The I-16 type 24, which appeared in 1938, had two fast firing ShKAS 7.62mm machine guns and two 20mm ShVak cannon. Others had four ShKAS, but that is still twice as much firepower as an A5M.

A5Ms were encountering I-16s in China and while they claimed superiority in engagements, certainly they could see that there was a performance deficit. So there was an obvious need for an improved design.

The F2A-3 was almost 50 mph faster than an A5M, had a better range and much heavier armament (four 12.7mm). F2A units did not do so well in the Pacific, but if they had only faced A5M and Ki-27, they would have almost certainly adopted suitable tactics to take advantage of their better speed.

I would say the F2A was also a 'transitional' design, though it was closer in capabilities in many respects to the F4F than the A5M was to the A6M.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Perhaps the biggest difference between F2A and F4F was that the former was already at it's design limits in terms of what the airframe could support, before getting SS fuel tanks, folding wings, and substantial armor. F4F proved able of taking a good bit more weight, albeit at a significant hit to performance. They could still face enemy aircraft in the Pacific.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

What I mean is this - A5M was a 'transitional' design. With fixed landing gear and an open cockpit, it was up against some significant limitations to speed and range. It was also limited in armament. All of this was addressed in the A6M which was 40-50 mph faster, much more heavily armed, less draggy, had an enclosed cockpit with much better view all around, and had half again the range. In my opinion, this is why the A5M was built in relatively small numbers (1,000 aircraft) compared to the A6M (10,000 aircraft)

The I-16, a late interwar land based fighter (in operational units since 1935), was short-ranged by comparison, but with retractable landing gear the later variants were 30 mph faster than an A5M. The (available) enclosed cockpit meant that it was better for higher altitudes especially in winter. It was also much better armed. The I-16 type 24, which appeared in 1938, had two fast firing ShKAS 7.62mm machine guns and two 20mm ShVak cannon. Others had four ShKAS, but that is still twice as much firepower as an A5M.

A5Ms were encountering I-16s in China and while they claimed superiority in engagements, certainly they could see that there was a performance deficit. So there was an obvious need for an improved design.

The F2A-3 was almost 50 mph faster than an A5M, had a better range and much heavier armament (four 12.7mm). F2A units did not do so well in the Pacific, but if they had only faced A5M and Ki-27, they would have almost certainly adopted suitable tactics to take advantage of their better speed.

I would say the F2A was also a 'transitional' design, though it was closer in capabilities in many respects to the F4F than the A5M was to the A6M.

By a transitional design I understand a provisional one, like a Sea Hurricane or a Seafire (specialy early mark), not one that is replaced by new technology.

The I-16 started with enclosed cockpit but that was backtracked or flown open, so not much of advantage here. It also started with an armament of 2 LMGs, which was standard for the mid 30s (like the Bf.109) and got first 4 LMGs and then some marks 2 LMGs and 2x20mm after combat experience in the Spanish Civil War and China. And the heavy guns were also mean for CAS.

While the fixed landing gear could be regarded as outdated, don't forget that the A5M place was the aircraft carrier, were a rugged landing gear was mandatory, ease of mantienance paramount and light weight convenient for low speed landing.

A 1.000 units production run for a military aircraft of the mid 30s was not a small one, less so for a country with a limited industrial capacity like Japan and not at war (since Japan never declared war to China and all the mess was named the China Incident). The Gloster Gladiator production was 747, the P-35 was 196, the P-26 151, He 51 some 700.

The 10.000 A6Ms were made when WW2 was in full afterburner mode and started when the China Incident was 3 y.o.

The J2M got some 621 units, the N1K-Js some 1.532.

The F2A first flight was after the A5M was in operational service so it should be better, obviously. And of course its capabilities were nearer to the F4F than the A5M ones were to the A6M. The american fighters were oponents for the same contract and the A6M was the succesor of the A5M. And the production run of the F2A was some 509 units including many exports.

Edit: Production numbers from Wiki.

 

[SplitRz]

[Prior to 1943, the only other true Carrier fighters ready for combat were the Brewster Buffalo, and the F4F Wildcat.]

You are correct. I should have specified "modern" carrier fighter. That is to say, fully enclosed cockpit, retractable gear, monoplane without external bracing. T

(polite cough) The Fairey Fulmar entered operational service in 1940 and satisfies all the criteria you've just demanded. It had been in active combat use (and carrier borne!) for a year and a half before the Zero crossed swords with Buffalos or Wildcats.

(hair-splitting scissors now returned to the cabinet)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

(polite cough) The Fairey Fulmar entered operational service in 1940 and satisfies all the criteria you've just demanded. It had been in active combat use (and carrier borne!) for a year and a half before the Zero crossed swords with Buffalos or Wildcats.

(hair-splitting scissors now returned to the cabinet)

Agreed though Fulmar turned out to mainly be an armed scout rather than a front line fighter. It certainly couldn't cope with an A6M

 

[GregP]

The Fulmar was credited with 112 enemy aircraft against the loss of 40 Fulmars, which made the type the leading fighter type in terms of aircraft shot down to be operated by the Fleet Air Arm during the war. It might be a bit presumptuous saying the Fulmar couldn't cope with an early-war Japanese fighter.

Maybe, but maybe not. Would depend on tactics, I think. It had a LOT of guns and turned quite well.

 

[SplitRz]

Agreed though Fulmar turned out to mainly be an armed scout rather than a front line fighter. It certainly couldn't cope with an A6M

You've got that the wrong way round. It was designed as a 'Carrier-based reconnaissance/fighter aircraft' to specification 0.9/38, but actually turned out in practice (and largely for the want of anything better) to be heavily employed as a carrier based fighter and VERY much in the front line. (Reconnaissance as a spec was built into many FAA aircraft as part of the role and operational doctrine - even the Swordfish was designated as the 'TSR' - standing for Torpedo Strike Reconnaissance).

Whether it could cope with an A6M (it clearly couldn't and didn't, so that's not in dispute!) is irrelevant to the point that it met the criteria of what Spindash felt qualified as a modern carrier based fighter. That said, its claimed it achieved 112 victories over Japanese aircraft, which I suspect might be a better result than the Buffalo managed.

Taken from 'pedia - Fairey Fulmar - Wikipedia

The Fulmar was one of several British aircraft to participate in the North African Campaign. During September 1940, the Fulmar first saw action while flying convoy protection patrols to and from the island of Malta. When reinforcements were being dispatched to Malta, Fulmars guided flights of carrier-launched Hurricane and Spitfire fighters.The relatively sturdy Fulmar was able to achieve dozens of victories against its Italian and German adversaries. The first recorded kill by a Fulmar was scored on 2 September 1940.[18] By October of that year, Fulmar pilots had claimed the shooting down of ten Italian bombers.[10] The type proved particularly effective against Italian reconnaissance aircraft.[21] Later on, thirteen Fulmars onboard the aircraft carrier HMS Formidable also participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan, strafing the battleship Vittorio Veneto whilst trying to draw fire away from the attacking Fairey Swordfish and Fairey Albacore torpedo bombers.[3][22]

The Fulmar was also deployed in other theatres, including the Eastern Front. The type was a common constituent of the numerous Arctic convoys of World War II. According to pilots, its flight characteristics were considered to be pleasant, while its widely spaced undercarriage provided good deck handling and it had excellent fuel capacity and range. Most Fleet Air Arm fighter aces scored at least some of their victories while flying Fulmars; the first pilot to score five kills while flying the type was Sub-Lieutenant Jackie Sewell.[33] Sub-Lieutenant Stanley Orr finished the war with twelve confirmed air victories, the third-highest scoring pilot in the FAA.

The ol' Fulmar is something of a forgotten and underappreciated/maligned aircraft. This video from is a good and pretty in depth look at the aircraft, its development, history and pretty notable achievements: Fulmar - Rex's Hangar which I'd recommend.

 

[SplitRz]

The Fulmar was credited with 112 enemy aircraft against the loss of 40 Fulmars, which made the type the leading fighter type in terms of aircraft shot down to be operated by the Fleet Air Arm during the war. It might be a bit presumptuous saying the Fulmar couldn't cope with an early-war Japanese fighter.

Maybe, but maybe not. Would depend on tactics, I think. It had a LOT of guns and turned quite well.

I've double checked that - as far as I can see, it seems the 112 number is *just* those claimed against the Japanese. The number including Italian and German must be considerably more!