Maneuverability vs Speed

[GregP]

And your point is?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There are no Guarantees, There are only improved odds. And the A6M2 in many places around the globe did not have good odds or at least not the odds they enjoyed in early 1942 vs the Allies in the the SW Pacific/Asia.

It also not just about speed. Spitfires had much better climb than the American planes. More power/Less weight.
If gives the Spitfire options that the P-40 did not have. Spitfire still should not get into a turning fight with Zero.

True, but the P-40 could roll and dive better than the Spitfire V. And apparently outrun it at lower altitudes. So it didn't have every advantage.

But it definitely climbed much better, and that was indeed quite helpful.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Basically the A6M2 has about 21% more fuel than 109 does if both have drop tanks.

I think you have your thumb on the scale right there. The A6M also had a smaller and much more fuel efficient engine. It had a lot more than 21% better range than a 109 in the real world, more like three times the range. And I believe you know that.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I think it bears mentioning that, as brought up before, IJN and IJA fighters like the Zero and the Ki-43 tended to cruse at relatively low speeds to help with range. Even the Ki-84 had over a 1000 mile range--when cruising at about 175 mph I believe. And even that was faster than the Zero or Ki-43 cruised at. Range is one thing, how fast you're going when you're getting it is another.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And your point is?

I pointed out that there was relatively little fighter combat going on over NW Europe in 1941-1943 in an earlier post, in the context of the debate going on here for 40 pages comparing European vs Japanese day fighters. My point earlier was that most of the air to air combat at that time was happening in the Pacific, Mediterranean, Russian Front, and China. Not just NW Europe which for some reason always seems to be the default. NW Europe was very important in 1940. And then again very important in 1944 (and late 1943 too). In 1941-43 overall though, it was less important as the war was being mostly fought, and really decided, elsewhere, like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, (second) El Alamein, Malta, Sicily, Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Midway etc.

Someone then mentioned the night bombing campaign by the RAF.

I pointed out that wasn't relevant to the discussion. Then I was accused by Reluctant Poster of defining air combat too narrowly.

Here in this last post you are reacting to, I was clarifying what should have already been obvious: In a discussion of speed vs maneuverability and Japanese vs. European and American day fighters, which is what we have been doing, night fighters are not relevant.

I'll spell it out a little bit more:

Night fighters are usually different types of aircraft. Usually but now always twin-engined aircraft with two or more crew. Maneuverability isn't nearly as much of a factor. Key factors are speed, climb. altitude performance, radar, radar countermeasures, and armament, not necessarily in that order.

Also, I am not sure how much fighter vs fighter combat was going on at night anywhere in 1941-43, though there probably was some Mosquitos coming online by then to deal with the Ju 88s and Me 110s which were preying on the RAF bomber streams.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think it bears mentioning that, as brought up before, IJN and IJA fighters like the Zero and the Ki-43 tended to cruse at relatively low speeds to help with range. Even the Ki-84 had over a 1000 mile range--when cruising at about 220 mph I believe. And even that was faster than the Zero or Ki-43 cruised at. Range is one thing, how fast you're going when you're getting it is another.

I think when calculating the maximum range, which is never the operational range, the calculation is done based on the most efficient cruise speed. The only thing that matters there is to compare like with like.

When I'm talking about the real world, I'm talking for example of Japanese fighters hitting targets at Darwin or Port Morseby or Guadalcanal or in Naval battles, from much further away than expected, and often from too far away for Allied fighters to strike back. US-made Allied fighters which, by the way, had twice the range of a Bf 109.

When Spitfire Mk Vs were deployed to the Pacific, and they were not just sent to Darwin, they were relegated to CAP over airfields, since they were not deemed to have the range to carry out strikes.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

As I said, you can burn a lot less fuel when you cruse slowly, which the IJA and IJN could afford early in the Pacific War. It probably wouldn't work in the European Theater, or if a Zero of Ki-43 had to escort faster bomber or recon planes that showed up in the IJA and IJN later in the war.

To hammer that point home, B-29s were capable of cruising at around 300 mph TAS. That was a very high percentage of the top speed of a Zero or Ki-43-II. And almost as fast as a early Ki-43. That's where things like the Mustang excelled, because of power and aero allowing high cruse speeds but good fuel economy. If there was one area that the Zero or Ki-43 weren't cutting edge in, certainly after 1942, was aero.

Granted, the Pacific favored range, but as we well know now, the Zero and Ki-43 made a lot of sacrifices to get their range and combat speeds--sacrifices that ultimately came back to bite them once able to be exploited.

And yes, I'm well aware of the concept of horses for courses, and what worked in one theater of war might not work in another, which is the point I'm trying to bring up. Especially when an event or technology like the B-29 comes along that was a massive game changer.

 

[Spindash64]

I am curious as to the use of WER by RAF pilots on V-1 duty. Speed is paramount and you are over friendly territory. Does anyone have data on Merlin and Sabre engine life for that duty.

Iirc, British mustangs were also occasionally running up to 81" manifold pressure/25+lbs boost, when USAAF never cleared for more than 75". I'd wager Buzz Bomb chasing played a small hand in that difference

 

[yulzari]

Radar and the "class of 36" (OK, Nov 1935 and March of 1936) crossed over.
You not only had the problem of developing the radar itself but figuring out how to use it.
If the radar units cannot transmit or relay the information to the defending fighters it doesn't do much good.
Until you get the radar ground control system in place and trained you have to design and build older style fighters (fast climb) incase the war comes early and/or the radar and ground control system does not work.
Of course the British shot themselves in the foot with the fixed pitch props so the Class of 36 to over 9 minutes to reach 20,000ft. Which means even a 180mph bomber can cover over 27 miles while an already warmed up aircraft takes off and climbs to 20,000ft. BTW the Spitfire will end it's climb at just under 180mph (best climb speed) and while need several more minutes to work up to a higher speed and actually intercept the bombers.
Some of the 2 pitch prop planes took almost 11.5 minutes to reach 20,000ft. Adding fuel and giving the bombers another couple of minutes (14 minutes = 42 miles/180mph bomber. 210mph bomber can cover 49 miles).

Fitting the constant speed props cut the climb to under 8 minutes.

But you don't get to go back to 1935/36 and design British fighters to have Constant speed props that allow them to take-off and climb with the bigger the fuel load.
The Hurricane and Spitfire were both designed to take-off with the wooden fixed pitch props from existing airfields.
The 2 pitch prop cut the take off run by about 100yds (76%) and the distance to 50 ft by 300yds ((62%)
The constant speed props improved things even more but the fitting of basic armor and rudimentary self sealing and better radios and equipment (like receiver for blind landing approach) Cut into the performance a bit.

Now the crappy field performance of the class of 36 came in handy in later years when they used them as carrier fighters with little modification. If they had been designed with CS props in 1936 one wonders if they would have been given small wings for a bit more speed but less growth.

The fixed pitch airscrew played a role in the decision to include Gloster Gladiators as well as Hawker Hurricanes when sending fighters to France in 1939. Some of the fields were marginal for fixed pitch Hurricanes. As an aside, the Malta installation of Blenheim Bristol Mercuries in some of the defending Gladiators with their VP air screws made a very real difference to their RoC and may have allowed the full 6 gun installation allowed for in the wing fittings of Sea Gladiators (4 in the wings and 2 in the fuselage).

 

[SplitRz]

I am well aware, but how many day-fighters were accompanying RAF Bomber Command on their raids?

Circuses, Ramrods, Rhubarbs.

 

[RCAFson]

As I said, you can burn a lot less fuel when you cruse slowly, which the IJA and IJN could afford early in the Pacific War. It probably wouldn't work in the European Theater, or if a Zero of Ki-43 had to escort faster bomber or recon planes that showed up in the IJA and IJN later in the war.

To hammer that point home, B-29s were capable of cruising at around 300 mph TAS. That was a very high percentage of the top speed of a Zero or Ki-43-II. And almost as fast as a early Ki-43. That's where things like the Mustang excelled, because of power and aero allowing high cruse speeds but good fuel economy. If there was one area that the Zero or Ki-43 weren't cutting edge in, certainly after 1942, was aero.

Granted, the Pacific favored range, but as we well know now, the Zero and Ki-43 made a lot of sacrifices to get their range and combat speeds--sacrifices that ultimately came back to bite them once able to be exploited.

And yes, I'm well aware of the concept of horses for courses, and what worked in one theater of war might not work in another, which is the point I'm trying to bring up. Especially when an event or technology like the B-29 comes along that was a massive game changer.

Not only that, but in the ETO they often had to cruise at high altitudes, dodging flack concentrations, whereas in the PTO, cruising was generally over empty ocean at low altitude, and max econ cruise settings.

 

[SplitRz]

Roll rate alone doesn't neccessarily make for a fighter with the agility of a Zero.
Look at the P-40. Superior roll rate to a lot of fighters, and yet NO ONE hails its agility as a fighter. Most just seem to harp on it being an overweight turd that couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag.

Yes. and a BIG no, The P40 was also one of the tightest turning allied fighters and widely hailed as such....

"At medium and high speeds it was one of the tightest-turning early monoplane designs of the war," Higam 2004, p. 3

Its roll and turn was considered excellent. It lacked speed and rate of climb (though excellent in the dive) - in the irony of this increasingly diverted thread - that was its main Achilles heel against later versions of the 109 and against the 190.

By the end of 1942, no one with either sense or opportunity wasted time trying to win a turn-fight with Japanese fighters, whatever they were flying

"In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 could exceed its limitations and could out-maneuver and out-fight anything in the sky," said Flying Tiger ace David L. "Tex" Hill in a 2005 interview. "It was sturdy and handled well, except in a spin, but you never piloted a P-40 without wishing you had something a little better."

"I would evade being shot at accurately by pulling so much g-force...that you could feel the blood leaving the head and coming down over your eyes... And you would fly like that for as long as you could, knowing that if anyone was trying to get on your tail they were going through the same bleary vision that you had and you might get away... I had deliberately decided that any deficiency the Kittyhawk had was offset by aggression. And I'd done a little bit of boxing – I beat much better opponents simply by going for [them]. And I decided to use that in the air. And it paid off." — Nicky Barr, 3 Sqn RAAF

"The P-40 usually had an advantage over the Bf 109 in turning, dive speed and structural strength, was roughly equal in firepower but was slightly inferior in speed and outclassed in rate of climb and operational ceiling." Masell, Patrick. "The P-40 and the Zero".

"The P-40 was generally superior to early Italian fighter types, such as the Fiat G.50 Freccia and the Macchi C.200. Its performance against the Macchi C.202 Folgore elicited varying opinions. Some observers consider the Macchi C.202 superior. Caldwell, who scored victories against them in his P-40, felt that the Folgore was superior to the P-40 and the Bf 109 except that its armament of only two or four machine guns was inadequate. Other observers considered the two equally matched or favored the Folgore in aerobatic performance, such as turning radius. The aviation historian Walter J. Boyne wrote that over Africa, the P-40 and the Folgore were "equivalent".

I did some work with Walter J Boyne back in the late 90s, so I take his word on that.

 

[Shortround6]

Circuses, Ramrods, Rhubarbs.

Apparently they don't count because they weren't 8th AIr Force missions.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

As I said, you can burn a lot less fuel when you cruse slowly, which the IJA and IJN could afford early in the Pacific War. It probably wouldn't work in the European Theater, or if a Zero of Ki-43 had to escort faster bomber or recon planes that showed up in the IJA and IJN later in the war.

To hammer that point home, B-29s were capable of cruising at around 300 mph TAS. That was a very high percentage of the top speed of a Zero or Ki-43-II. And almost as fast as a early Ki-43. That's where things like the Mustang excelled, because of power and aero allowing high cruse speeds but good fuel economy. If there was one area that the Zero or Ki-43 weren't cutting edge in, certainly after 1942, was aero.

Granted, the Pacific favored range, but as we well know now, the Zero and Ki-43 made a lot of sacrifices to get their range and combat speeds--sacrifices that ultimately came back to bite them once able to be exploited.

And yes, I'm well aware of the concept of horses for courses, and what worked in one theater of war might not work in another, which is the point I'm trying to bring up. Especially when an event or technology like the B-29 comes along that was a massive game changer.

B-29, and the P-51D, were massive game changers, but they came very late in the war, on a large scale basically in 1944 right?

We were discussing 1942, or 1941- 1943.

I think the A6M having to cruise at very very slow speeds is often exaggerated around here. They did in fact escort fairly fast bombers on a pretty routine basis. G4M was fairly fast (top speed ~270 mph), about as fast as any Axis bomber being used around the time of Pedestal, and cruised at about 200-240 mph. The old Ki-21 made 300 mph and cruised at 240 mph. Ki-49 was 306 mph top speed and cruised at 220-270 mph. Ki-48 was 314 mph and cruised at 230-260 mph.

On the Allied side in 1942-1943, for comparison, the fastest planes were Marin Maryland (304 mph, cruise at 248 mph), Martin Baltimore (305 mph, cruise at 224 mph), and the fastest - Douglas DB-7 / A-20, top speed 325-350 mph, cruise at 280 mph (depending on subtype). But you also had Wellingtons (top speed 235 mph, cruise speed 180 mph), B-24s (top speed 297 mph, cruise speed 215 mph)

So this does help highlight the fact that cruising at a fairly slow speed was not unusual over the Med or over the Western desert. The battlefield where one would likely encounter enemy fighters was a fairly limited area... with sometimes vast areas in between. I think you can say the same thing about the Russian Front as well, to some extent.

On a personal note, I feel the need to re-iterate, though I know not a popular notion around here, that I think it's a problem especially with US fans of WW2 aircraft, to focus almost exclusively on the last two years of the war and the 'ultimate' aircraft, when evaluating the war itself. Nobody knew in early 1942 that the A6M or Japanese more generally were destined to be defeated. At that time, it certainly didn't look like it was a lock. For a fact, we know it did happen but it sure cost a lot of lives in Allied soldiers, sailors, and flight crews. And many hard lessons were learned along the way.

The victories of 1944-45 were by no means trivial either. I do think the P-51D and B-29 are extremely impressive aircraft. But we can perhaps admit that the outcome of the war was somewhat clearer by then.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Circuses, Ramrods, Rhubarbs.

I did mention some of those. But I don't think they compare in scope to the air battles associated with El Almaein, Pedestal, Stalingrad, Moscow

 

[RCAFson]

For the Zero in Europe thing.

The A6M2 held about 141 US gallons of fuel in internal tanks.

The Zero's secret was big drop tank (84-87 US gallons) and an absolutely miserly fuel burn at 180kts. 16.4 US gallons per hour.

Trouble is that at 190kts it went to 24.04 gph and at 200kts it went to 26.15gph. Still very good but with the tank gone and trying to cover hostile ground at much more than loiter speed you don't get anywhere near the ranges they got in the Pacific.

I think you might have the speeds wrong. According the TAIC data the A6M3/with DT, burned ~38usg/hr at 174knots/200mph at 1500ft. It used the same engine as the A6M2.
Speed for max range was 144mph at 1500ft and that burned about 21/usg/hr. IIRC, the A6M2 cruised a bit slower and got slightly better economy.

In the ETO, even with a DT the A6M2 would have had dramatically less range due to the need for high speed/high altitude cruise.

EDIT: The A6M2-21 did have the Sakae-12 engine, and it had longer range, (but obviously inferior performance at higher altitude compared to a Sakae-21 A6M3), as was common in the ETO. Francillion gives the endurance at maximum range as 12 hours and 1930 miles (1675nm) with a 90usg DT which works out to ~160mph, again at 1500ft. Fuel capacity was ~222usg (with DT) and consumption was ~18.5usg/hr.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yes. and a BIG no, The P40 was also one of the tightest turning allied fighters and widely hailed as such....

"At medium and high speeds it was one of the tightest-turning early monoplane designs of the war," Higam 2004, p. 3

Its roll and turn was considered excellent. It lacked speed and rate of climb (though excellent in the dive) - in the irony of this increasingly diverted thread - that was its main Achilles heel against later versions of the 109 and against the 190.

By the end of 1942, no one with either sense or opportunity wasted time trying to win a turn-fight with Japanese fighters, whatever they were flying

"In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 could exceed its limitations and could out-maneuver and out-fight anything in the sky," said Flying Tiger ace David L. "Tex" Hill in a 2005 interview. "It was sturdy and handled well, except in a spin, but you never piloted a P-40 without wishing you had something a little better."

"I would evade being shot at accurately by pulling so much g-force...that you could feel the blood leaving the head and coming down over your eyes... And you would fly like that for as long as you could, knowing that if anyone was trying to get on your tail they were going through the same bleary vision that you had and you might get away... I had deliberately decided that any deficiency the Kittyhawk had was offset by aggression. And I'd done a little bit of boxing – I beat much better opponents simply by going for [them]. And I decided to use that in the air. And it paid off." — Nicky Barr, 3 Sqn RAAF

"The P-40 usually had an advantage over the Bf 109 in turning, dive speed and structural strength, was roughly equal in firepower but was slightly inferior in speed and outclassed in rate of climb and operational ceiling." Masell, Patrick. "The P-40 and the Zero".

"The P-40 was generally superior to early Italian fighter types, such as the Fiat G.50 Freccia and the Macchi C.200. Its performance against the Macchi C.202 Folgore elicited varying opinions. Some observers consider the Macchi C.202 superior. Caldwell, who scored victories against them in his P-40, felt that the Folgore was superior to the P-40 and the Bf 109 except that its armament of only two or four machine guns was inadequate. Other observers considered the two equally matched or favored the Folgore in aerobatic performance, such as turning radius. The aviation historian Walter J. Boyne wrote that over Africa, the P-40 and the Folgore were "equivalent".

I did some work with Walter J Boyne back in the late 90s, so I take his word on that.

yes - I have several more similar pilot testimonials like that by the way if you ever want them. There were a few pilots who that flew P-40s who didn't like them, but it seems like most liked them a lot.

And keep in mind, for the 5 x US figher groups, one indpendent US squadron (99th FS / Tuskeegee) and two British squadrons (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) in North Africa, they got the merlin engine / V-1650-1 two stage engine, which raised their viable combat ceiling to about 20 - 22,000 ft (depending on the weight of the specific P-40, some were stripped). These planes can be shown to have done quite well against Bf 109s and MC 202s in the daily combat histories, in several cases they won one-sided victories against equivalent or larger Luftwaffe and RA formations, and rarely got trounced. In fact the only big defeat I was able to find of the F/L type P-40s in North Africa was one combat where the 33rd FG were attacked by Fw 190s which they had probably never seen before. But later the 325th FG and 79th more than held their own against Fw 190s in Sicily and Italy.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think you might have the speeds wrong. According the TAIC data the A6M3/with DT, burned ~38usg/hr at 174knots/200mph at 1500ft. It used the same engine as the A6M2.
Speed for max range was 144mph at 1500ft and that burned about 21/usg/hr. IIRC, the A6M2 cruised a bit slower and got slightly better economy.

In the ETO, even with a DT the A6M2 would have had dramatically less range due to the need for high speed/high altitude cruise.

Oh I'm sure they were outranged by hurricanes right?

Cruise speed for the A6M2 is given at 207 mph, but it could (and did) cruise at a higher speed.

The A6M3 actually had a different engine with a two-speed supercharger. It also carried much less fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

There are two aspects of maneuverability here.
Short term, at which the P-40 could probably hold it's own and long term, long is still a matter of seconds.
Once you are maneuvering, either horizontally or vertically (or both) you are bleeding off speed (energy).
Here is part of the problem with the P-40. It was underpowered for it's weight. It bleed off speed in maneuvers and took a while to recover. You can trade altitude for speed (energy) and this the P-40 did fairly well, but there is only so much altitude. Some other fighters (not all) can climb much better and either can use surplus power to help maintain speed or can climb to regain or store energy.

Now 1941-43 covers a lot of time and P-40 performance didn't stay the same. When using extra boost the power of the P-40 got a lot better.............but only at the lower altitudes.
So you could turn using the extra boost power at low altitudes and not descend as quickly. but at the higher altitudes ( above 15,000 for earlier than the M, leaving the F out for now) unless the P-40 was flying straight or diving it was going to loose speed quickly and it was going to take a while to get it back, unless it dove, in which case anything but a short dive took a while to recover altitude. So the P-40s combat maneuverability was rather dependent on the altitude it was at. A lot of other planes showed a similar change but few quite as marked as the P-40.

 

[Shortround6]

I did mention some of those. But I don't think they compare in scope to the air battles associated with El Almaein, Pedestal, Stalingrad, Moscow

But they were months long campaigns that wound up causing more losses than some of the more intense but shorter battles.
And in 1941 they would affect the evolution of the planes (on both sides) sooner than the battles of 1942.