Maneuverability vs Speed

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Let's not forget that Europe is a pretty small place compared to the Pacific.

That's true, but this is a separate issue. Some people were making the claim (or at least the implication) that the 109 could... maybe.... almost.... match the range of the Zero, because the Zero's range was only achieved by flying at 150 mph etc. Which is absolute b.s.

I would also note the following three distances

Lae to Guadalcanal - 1480 km
Malta to Cairo -1700 km
Leningrad to Stalingrad - 1680 km
 
Yes I've been to the UK, secondly having another 20 minutes of fuel will allow flexibility to organise and manage your fighters when raids come in and the weather plays no part, home chain was still able to plot bomber forces building up before they crossed the channel, with only 85G of fuel fighter command had to wait till the last minute to launch because they didn't have the fuel to loiter, the reason they wanted very high RoC, with an extra 30G internal you don't need it, once the incoming bombers turn for England launch your fighters and have them at 25,000ft ready to pounce the moment the enemy force is over mainland England.
 
I'm going to agree with you here, you only have to look at the endless numbers of youtube video's to see almost all of them focus on high dash P47's, L series onwards P38's and D series Mustangs when talking about the air war, not the trials and tribulations that made up the slug fest from 1940-43 that got them there.
 
Note the speeds at altitudes:

Zeke 32 (Hamp) 102C (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
Zeke 52 TAIC 102D (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

The data is your post is wrong.
 
Lundstrom:

(It seems that the the above range is in NM)
Limitations of the A6M2-21 over Guadalcanal:


And unlike the ETO the cruise out and back was over water.
 
And how accurate is TAIC analysis of captured machines under structured testing versus actual operational elements in theater?
I suspect that things like Vmax and WEP might be a bit tough to accurately determine on a captured aircraft, but fuel consumption should be easier to do. In any event TAIC used captured aircraft manuals where possible:


The TAIC data seems to conform well to actual aircraft range and performance as per IJN combat reports.
 
Considering the RAF went to mostly might missions fairly soon after trying unescorted daylight bombing, you likely ARE defining air combat too narrowly. You might recall the U.S.A. in the ETO flew 754,818 sorties amd dropped 1,456,423 tons of bombs. The British flew 687,462 sorties and dropped 1,307,117 tons of bombs. That's pretty darned even, any way you cut it. 57.2% to 47.3% of sorties, and the bomb tonnage was even closer.

I'd say leaving out half of the bomber sorties and tons of bombs dropped is not a good idea. But, hey, that's my opinion. Yours, as the saying goes, may vary.

But, if you're going to leave out half of the discussion concerning the most important ally we had in the war, maybe you won't find much agreement out there. Maybe, that is. Perhaps you will, after all. Stranger things are happening.

Arguably, the Soviet Union was the most important ally. But that's because when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, they committed half or more of their aerial resources to the task, and they were NOT fighting in the west. But, if you mean an active cooperation ally, that would be Great Britain. Try not to leave out their rather impressive contributions. I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Just saying.
 
It takes ~13 USgal for the A6M2 for WUTO and climb to 13,123 ft.

The fuel usage/SFC for best range at 168mphIAS/205mphTAS at 13,123 ft was .48 lb/BHP-hr

"The reason for (most of) the discrepancy between the 2 reports are the speeds and altitudes at which the tests for the range were flown.

In the TAIC Report No.38 (the one I posted) the flight was at 168mphIAS/205mphTAS at 13,123 ft, using optimum weak mixture cruise for maximum range (with DT) of 2298 miles, for a flight time of 11.2 hrs under these conditions.

The ranges in the TAIC No.102D graph on pg.1 were flown with Normal power (the maximum sustained rich mixture setting) at an unspecified altitude. Obviously the power setting and rich mixture would increase the fuel usage a lot and decrease the range by a lot.

The maximum range (with DT) in the TAIC No.102D chart at the bottom of pg.2 was flown at 143mphIAS/146mphTAS at 1,500 ft for a range of 1844 miles, with a flight time of 12.6 hrs. 143mphIAS at 1,500 ft would be 175mphTAS at 13,123 ft. If we figure the ~same fuel usage per hour at 143mphIAS/175mphTAS 13,123 ft we get 175mphTAS x 12.6 hrs = 2205 miles for the range.

I figure that one or the other test was off a bit either in measurement, or assumed best economic settings. Or possibly the range value in Report No.38 was calculated with no allowance for climb to altitude.

Since this gives only 98 miles difference in range I think we can assume the numbers are fairly consistent?"

The A6M5 tested in TAIC report No.38 carried 237.7 USgal of fuel total with DT.

The A6M2 and A6M5 used 11-12 USgal for WUTO and climb to 13,123 ft. NOTE that the range from the TAIC No.102D chart at the bottom of pg.2 was flown at 1,500 ft. So maybe only 7 USgal used for WUTO and climb to 1,500 ft?

The Sakae 12 and 21 use ~.48 lb/BHP-hr in weak mixture cruise, and ~.56 lb/BHP-hr in rich mixture cruise.

The numbers for the TAIC report No.38 were generated in 1945 using a fully functional A6M5.

As far as I can work out the numbers are good.
 
Last edited:
Catching the other guy napping and destroying their planes on the ground is air-war 101, part of how it's done.
Well, I did bring it up in the context of a fair comparison of combat capabilities between two aircraft.
There aren't many things that can be said about the combat capabilities of smouldering wrecks that didn't make it to the air.
I misinterpreted your statement, taking 'annihilated' as being synonymous with 'dominated' or similar, though still, my previous point stands, at least partially. There were still other factors I touched on in my previous post besides the technical capabilities of the Japanese aircraft that would have allowed such crushing victories, among them overwhelming numbers and pilot training.
I never considered the factor in bold before. I am largely in agreement with your points here.
I must admit my shortcomings in this aspect of the war especially, as discussion or sources on this particular issue are somewhat difficult to find. Even if there were adequate pilots assigned to those areas, would they have had the necessary training and experience to take full advantage of their equipment and as well as they could have under different circumstances? This question concerns the RAF and RAAF pilots especially, as criticism is often levied at them specifically.
What of the AM-35? It managed to reach production as an engine powering the rather fast Mig-1, however little that aircraft contributed to the war, and it had further improvements that distinguished it from its predecessor. Compare this effort to to non-existent efforts of the Japanese, who had largely forgone designing liquid-cooled engines of any type whatsoever.
...it if was for the valid reasons you have mentioned here. Even so, I have never heard of any attempts by the Japanese to make any further improvements to the engines they had licensed from the Germans unlike the Soviets with their licensed engine(s), nor any attempts to design their own, for that matter, and issues with complexity are mentioned frequently as a reason for the Japanese largely avoiding this type of engine. This deficiency, an inability to mass-produce "complex" designs, paints a rather dim image of Japanese technical ability in regards to aircraft engines. The Ha-201 engine in the Ki-64 had an unusual design as part of its unconventional configuration, but it was otherwise a pair of DB 601 engines coupled together, and the plane itself was a failed prototype regardless.
I will acknowledge this, at the very least.
The Homare was also a bit more powerful than the Shvestov 82, though it took longer to fully 'debug'.
A longer time than helpful, if it's flawed design was ever fully fixed.
See above, this is basically a red herring. It's also worth repeating, as GrauGeist already pointed out, it was normal for engine designers to copy foreign designs, and was done all over the world by every major power including the US and UK.
I have no objection to this statement in the scope of this discussion, that is what I will say about it.
Yeah, wise. I don't think you are on very solid ground, though precise performance figures on Japanese fighters are still debated and we don't seem to have very good sources on them.
Apparently, large amounts of documentation was destroyed, both towards the war's end and afterwards, though I'm not certain how much this applies to the case of the Ki-98 exclusively.
I guess I must retract my statement, if only because the PTO, beyond all Japanese aircraft in truth, is largely overshadowed by the ETO.
You seem like a smart guy, you write pretty well and have a sense of humor, but you are making assertions (Japanese were inferior to Europeanz and the Nazis made the best stuff!!!) which are a little creepy, and not supported by the facts.
I suppose I should have brought up the British Gloster Whittle as opposed to German jet aircraft as my example previously...still, the first aircraft to exceed 1000kph was the German rocket-powered Me 163A "V4" aircraft, and a variant of the German V2 rocket was the first man-made object ever to break the Karman Line and reach space. These examples are relevant to WWII aviation I would say, as well as this topic, especially the former, and the Japanese had nothing comparable in terms of speed or jet/rocket technology, which doesn't speak well to Japanese aviation as being anywhere near 'the pinnacle' ever, as that article that I can't find claims (and I swear it exists, or existed, however irrelevant of a source it may be). I will walk back my claim that Japan wasn't a major power, in that its navy appeared to outweigh those of the other powers such as France or Italy, and was fairly competent. It's army still seems to be of a lower standard in comparison, less so compared to Italy however.
Which by your own admission, you aren't really up to speed on.
I guess I would have to agree with that view somewhat.
To defend my intentions, I will say that I wanted inquiring about the reasons behind the seemingly slower speeds and weaker engines of Japanese fighters, and why they are held in high regard, especially for their maneuverability, when the other powers were producing increasingly faster aircraft, and did not place as much emphasis on maneuverability, largely, at the very least. In addition to this, I also wanted to discuss the claim that the Japanese, the IJA especially, favored maneuverability, and range, over speed, a claim that has been brought up here and elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking at TAIC 38:


and there's no info regarding range. On page 10 it states that the test aircraft was not fitted with a DT or DT shackles.
 
Lower right corner in the red outline box.



330 km/hr at 4 km altitude, or 205 mph at 13,123 ft
900 liters, or 237.7 USgal (so max internal fuel plus 1x large or 2x small DT)
3700 km, or 2298 miles range
0/52 = A6M5 Model 2 (52? not sure how the guys at TAIC expressed the sub-model in those days)
 
As I wrote, the FC had certain thought-out nterception procedures, the convoy battles of July 1940 reinforced the thinking when so many of the British pilots who parachuted into the sea died, the British sea rescue system was still quite undeveloped compared to the German system, starting with personal equipment. And the endurance of Hurricane Mk. I or Spitfire Mk. I was not hopeless. On 9 Sept 1940 Spits of 66 Sqn durations sorties were 1 h to 1 ½ h including a climb to 22,000 feet and an aerial battle or two, some managed to rally after the first battle, others continued as lonely hunters. More fuel would have been nice as would four 20 mm cannon with 150 rpg, more protection etc, but with 1030 hp engine one could not get all niceties, and especially late during the Battle, against fighter bombers and heavily escorted Ju 88 raids heavier interceptors would have been a bad choice.
 
Last edited:
Hey RCAFson,

Huh . . . interesting. I just looked at the copy of TAIC Report No.38 you linked, and as you say it does not have the above page in it.

I know I found it online at one of the usual sites for these kind of reports, and it had the label "TAIC No.38" in the title, but I do not remember where I got it from.

However, I just found a different copy at the NDL Digital Collection website. Go to page 209 of the document displayed at:

"https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/4009762/1/1"

Apparently it is actually part of the SSBS document pile.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread