Maneuverability vs Speed

Reluctant Poster · May 15, 2023

NTGray said:
Remember that the Zero, which was considered in 1942 to be an amazing plane that outclassed its "inferior" opponents, did not actually do all that well in the real world. The Zero was always a "one trick pony" that had extraordinary maneuverability, but little else (except range, which didn't matter during actual combat). Even though our American pilots were initially impressed by the Zero's aerobatic capabilities, they did figure out ways to shoot it down, and those ways leaned heavily on teamwork, training, and the Wildcat's superior speed in a dive. Those "inferior" Wildcats actually gave better than they got, and the ratio became more and more in favor of the Wildcat with the passage of time, approaching 6:1 toward the end of the Guadalcanal campaign.

The supposed mastery of the F4F over the Zero is mostly overclaiming. According to Lundstrom the the Marines were overclaiming by about 3 to 1. See my previous post on the subject.

Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?

In some cases the Japanese were 1 to 2 years behind. It took a considerable amount of time to get the Ki-45 sorted out. The Ki-45 was also hindered by it's guns and the distances the JAAF wanted to fly. Compare the Ki-45 to the Bf 110C. The Ki-45 had two 12.7mm mgs to the 110s four 7.9 guns...

ww2aircraft.net

Thumpalumpacus · May 15, 2023

Reluctant Poster said:
The supposed mastery of the F4F over the Zero is mostly overclaiming. According to Lundstrom the the Marines were overclaiming by about 3 to 1. See my pervious post on the subject.

Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?

In some cases the Japanese were 1 to 2 years behind. It took a considerable amount of time to get the Ki-45 sorted out. The Ki-45 was also hindered by it's guns and the distances the JAAF wanted to fly. Compare the Ki-45 to the Bf 110C. The Ki-45 had two 12.7mm mgs to the 110s four 7.9 guns...

ww2aircraft.net

Lundstrom also documents the clear estimates of the naval pilots that the Wildcat was not really up to the job. Tactics could make up for some of its deficiencies.

cherry blossom · May 15, 2023

Like Thomasp, I tried designing an A6M with a Homare Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better.
MiTasol pointed out that there are extra costs arising from moving the cockpit. The most obvious is that the upper skin of the wing continues through the fuselage. In the A6M, the rear section is useful because it is the cockpit floor. Thus we need extra cockpit floor.
There are double frames (fuselage forward and aft double frames) strengthening the fuselage at the point where it would otherwise be weakened by the hole cut in the structure for the canopy. These meet and are attached to the forward and aft wing spars which pass through the fuselage. Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp) Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3) calls these formers D and G.
In the Homare A6M, the wing spars might need to be stronger but will not move. The aft double frame will still be well placed to compensate for the hole but moving the cockpit may require extra framing or a bulkhead behind the pilot. The forward double frame will still link the forward spar to the fuselage but may be stronger than necessary and add weight if it is a complete circle.
The aileron push rods also need to remain along the rear spar, so the linkage must be redesigned.

NTGray · May 15, 2023

Reluctant Poster said:
The supposed mastery of the F4F over the Zero is mostly overclaiming. According to Lundstrom the the Marines were overclaiming by about 3 to 1. See my previous post on the subject.

Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?

In some cases the Japanese were 1 to 2 years behind. It took a considerable amount of time to get the Ki-45 sorted out. The Ki-45 was also hindered by it's guns and the distances the JAAF wanted to fly. Compare the Ki-45 to the Bf 110C. The Ki-45 had two 12.7mm mgs to the 110s four 7.9 guns...

ww2aircraft.net

Even if that claim is taken at face value, the 6:1 advantage shrinks to 2:1. That's still advantage: Wildcat (in the real world).

NTGray · May 15, 2023

Thumpalumpacus said:
Lundstrom also documents the clear estimates of the naval pilots that the Wildcat was not really up to the job. Tactics could make up for some of its deficiencies.

Nobody disputed that a Wildcat was no match for a Zero in a dogfight. But there was a saying that "A Wildcat is no match for a Zero, but two Wildcats can take on four Zeroes." Tactics and teamwork played a huge role, as people like Jimmy Thach learned how to use the strengths of the Wildcat (which included simple things like a functional radio, which the Zero lacked) against the weaknesses of the Zero, and eventually gained the upper hand.

pbehn · May 15, 2023

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

In truth they were all after it all. faster, better rate of roll, turn and climb. The Zero was agile because it was light, it was light to give it a huge range. The Spitfire had a good rate of turn because it had a good rate of climb. All sorts of things were done to the Spitfire improve rate of roll throughout its service ending up with completely different wings. Same for the P-51 and especially the P-38 with powered ailerons etc.

Thumpalumpacus · May 15, 2023

NTGray said:
Nobody disputed that a Wildcat was no match for a Zero in a dogfight. But there was a saying that "A Wildcat is no match for a Zero, but two Wildcats can take on four Zeroes." Tactics and teamwork played a huge role, as people like Jimmy Thach learned how to use the strengths of the Wildcat (which included simple things like a functional radio, which the Zero lacked) against the weaknesses of the Zero, and eventually gained the upper hand.

I wasn't disputing anything at all. Of course tactics and teamwork were --and are -- important. They are important in all military endeavors. I was pointing out that such were even more important in the F4F, according to the pilots quoted by Lundstrom, due to the airframe's limitations.

Barrett · May 15, 2023

In First Team Vol. 2, John quotes Jimmy Flatley telling his pilots, "Let us not be overly critical of our equipment. It shoots the enemy down in flames and brings us home most of the time."
As oft noted, the difference was USN VF doctrine properly applied, mainly based on tactics and gunnery. The fact that F4Fs managed a (slim) superior exchange rate v. A6Ms remains significant.

Gary Cain · May 15, 2023

Greg Boeser said:
Which brings up a third dimension of combat - endurance.
If I have more fuel, I can outlast my opponent, even if I can't outrun him.

If you can't outrun him, and he is in a more maneuverable aircraft, you had better be a long way ahead of him or your goose is cooked.

PAT303 · May 15, 2023

Thumpalumpacus said:
The Zero's controls got incredibly heavy above 300 mph. Alternatively, the Wildcat would dive away from Zeros, knowing that it wouldn't have a useful roll-rate at high speed.

Same with the 109, Winkle Brown stated after test flying them that he would have suggested higher speed maneuvering during the BoB as a way to gain an advantage over the 109 because it's controls stiffened up before the Spits did.

GregP · May 15, 2023

Greyman said:
A big part of the Zero's problem vs. later Allied aircraft wasn't just the speed, but the maneuverability at speed. Above 250-300 mph it was at a distinct disadvantage.

Without a drastic redesign, more power would just exacerbate this problem. Best to do what Mitsubishi actually did and focus on a new fighter.

At 250 mph, the Zero was deadly.

It got a bit stiff starting at 280 mph and was noticeably stiffer by 300 mph and faster. The stiffness was fixable had they been so inclined and had they had the time away from being attacked. But, once we started attacking, we kept attacking. There was nothing in the design of the Zero that could not have been changed to address maneuverability at faster speeds. Of course, had they made it more maneuverable at higher speeds, it could have been overstressed in spirited maneuvering. Making it stronger would have added weight, and they didn't have a good engine that was both more powerful AND that would have fitt into the existing cowling. They were basically stuck with a 1180 hp Sakae powerplant.

That made adding much more weight problematic. Ergo the A7M Reppu that never saw production (they built a total of 9), but which DID fly during the war. 1st flight May 44.

Thumpalumpacus · May 15, 2023

PAT303 said:
Same with the 109, Winkle Brown stated after test flying them that he would have suggested higher speed maneuvering during the BoB as a way to gain an advantage over the 109 because it's controls stiffened up before the Spits did.

Maneuverability seems, therefore, to happen inside an envelope, which makes generalizations about this or that aircraft less useful. I mean, -109s dove away from early Spits, not because they could maneuver better, but because they could nose-over directly rather than having to roll first.

You're right that higher speeds generally impede maneuverability; but some planes are less affected by that high speed than others. And some planes have other design flaws which also impose requirements upon the pilots in the heat of the moment.

Greg Boeser · May 15, 2023

Thumpalumpacus said:
Maneuverability seems, therefore, to happen inside an envelope, which makes generalizations about this or that aircraft less useful. I mean, -109s dove away from early Spits, not because they could maneuver better, but because they could nose-over directly rather than having to roll first.

You're right that higher speeds generally impede maneuverability; but some planes are less affected by that high speed than others. And some planes have other design flaws which also impose requirements upon the pilots in the heat of the moment.

Yes, I read that Bf 110s were difficult to fly at higher speeds due to the heaviness of the controls.

PAT303 · May 16, 2023

Thumpalumpacus said:
Maneuverability seems, therefore, to happen inside an envelope, which makes generalizations about this or that aircraft less useful. I mean, -109s dove away from early Spits, not because they could maneuver better, but because they could nose-over directly rather than having to roll first.

I don't think that happened as much as everyone thinks it did. I have read lots of Luftwaffe pilot memoirs and many did not nose over because not only was there not enough head room in the 109 but also because it was such an unpleasant experience performing it.

PAT303 · May 16, 2023

Thumpalumpacus said:
but some planes are less affected by that high speed than others.

Combat soon proved the difference between theory and reality, what sounded good and worked in peacetime amounted to nothing once men were fighting for their lives at 20,000ft.

Thumpalumpacus · May 16, 2023

PAT303 said:
Combat soon proved the difference between theory and reality, what sounded good and worked in peacetime amounted to nothing once men were fighting for their lives at 20,000ft.

I'm basing my posts re:Wildcat on reports from combat fighter pilots -- not theoreticians.

GregP · May 16, 2023

PAT303 said:
I don't think that happened as much as everyone thinks it did. I have read lots of Luftwaffe pilot memoirs and many did not nose over because not only was there not enough head room in the 109 but also because it was such an unpleasant experience performing it.

Never saw that one anywhere in print. Doesn't mean it isn't, I just never saw that written anywhere. They were observed to do that (nose over to escape) on numerous occasions.

Gary Cain · May 16, 2023

PAT303 said:
I don't think that happened as much as everyone thinks it did. I have read lots of Luftwaffe pilot memoirs and many did not nose over because not only was there not enough head room in the 109 but also because it was such an unpleasant experience performing it.

I haven't read that anywhere. I am a pilot and have done that maneuver many times and it is actually quite fun. Akin to a roller coaster drop.

special ed · May 16, 2023

I would think "unpleasant" is preferable to bullets entering your body.

pbehn · May 16, 2023

If a Bf 109 bunts into a nose over the RAF have just had a tactical victory, the bombers are still up "there" and he isnt.

Maneuverability vs Speed

Tech Sergeant

Major

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

Major

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Major

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Major

Major

Senior Airman

2nd Lieutenant

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads