GregP
Major
And your point is?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Basically the A6M2 has about 21% more fuel than 109 does if both have drop tanks.
And your point is?
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.
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 differenceI 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.
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).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.
Circuses, Ramrods, Rhubarbs.I am well aware, but how many day-fighters were accompanying RAF Bomber Command on their raids?
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.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.
Yes. and a BIG no, The P40 was also one of the tightest turning allied fighters and widely hailed as such....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.
Apparently they don't count because they weren't 8th AIr Force missions.Circuses, Ramrods, Rhubarbs.
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.
Circuses, Ramrods, Rhubarbs.
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.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.
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.
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.
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