Maneuverability vs Speed (1 Viewer)

[GrauGeist]

Compare this effort to to non-existent efforts of the Japanese, who had largely forgone designing liquid-cooled engines of any type whatsoever...

The Japanese had well over a half-dozen liquid cooled engine designs in the years leading up to and during WWII.

They preferred radial engined aircraft over liquid cooled due to manufacturing, weight allowance and operational maintenance points.

The Ha-201 engine in the Ki-64 had an unusual design as part of its unconventional configuration, but it was otherwise just two DB 601 engines coupled together, and the plane itself was a failed prototype.

The Ha201 was no more troublesome than the DB606, which did not live up to expectations in the Me261 or He177.

Did you know that Fokker's aircraft used radial engines almost exclusively?

Were you aware that PZL (Państwowe Zakłady Lotnicze) designs used radial engines almost exclusively?

How about the long list of other European aircraft manufacturers that incorporated radial engines in their designs?

 

[GregP]

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.

A longer time than helpful, if it's flawed design was ever fully fixed.

I have no objection to this statement in the scope of this discussion, that is what I will say about it.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think e focus on the last two years of the war because our aircraft were dominant at all.

We focus on the last two years because that's when we were past out first year and most of the fighting=learning for us was accomplished, on land, sea, and air. We outproduced the rest of the world collectively and fielded more war materiel than anyone else. We even supplied our allies with weapons.

In 1943 alone, we produced 54,100 combat aircraft. The Soviet Union and the UK together produced 39,400.

In 1944, we produced 74,100 combat aircraft. The Soviet Union and the UK together produced 51,100.

We could do that because: 1) we were not getting attacked every day, and 2) we were separated from Europe and Asia by large oceans, making a successful attack very unlikely to the point where nobody really even tried very hard to make it happen. The technology and logistics just weren't there for it.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

It looks like a there's transcription error, as the document had to go from Japanese to German to English.

Those range numbers are just way out of line with any of the other TAIC data or postwar data from Japanese sources. The Zero was a light aircraft, but it had a lot of frontal drag and the fuel consumption figures at that speed and altitude are too low to be believable, especially since the data refers to the the "Sakae 2/1 engine". If we use those range and resulting fuel consumption figures and apply them to the A6M3 with a Sakae 21 then it's calculated with (214usg fuel) range is about 3200km at 330kph TAS at 4000m which is easily sufficient to fly the Rabual->Guadalcanal->Rabual mission that the IJN said was too far for it:

The extremely long and fatiguing missions down the "Guadal Highway" (Gadaru Gaitō), as the Japanese nicknamed the Slot, adversely effected the Zero fighter escorts. To save fuel many pilots fought with their belly tanks attached, which reduced combat performance. Even so the fighter leaders set a maximum of 15 minutes over Guadalcanal. Most of the Rabaul Zeros, clipped-wing A6M3 Model 32s with 20 percent less range than the A6M2 Model 21s, could not even reach Guadalcanal and return. Work had only begun on the vital airstrip at Buin on southern Bougainville opposite Shortland Island and 300 miles from Guadalcanal. Until its completion set for late September, no Zero 32s could be used, and crippled aircraft enjoyed no refuge short of Buka. (Lundstrom 1st Team V2)

 

[Shortround6]

I don;t think e focus on the last two years of the war because our aircraft were dominant at all.

We focus on the last two years because that's when we were past out first year and most od the hard fighting for us was accomplished, on land, sea, and air. We outproduced teh rest of the world collectively and fielded more war materiel than anyone else. We even supplied our allies with weapons.

In 1943 alone, we produced 54,100 combat aircraft. The Soviet Union and the UK together produced 39,400.

In 1944, we produced 74,100 combat aircraft. The Soviet Union and the UK together produced 51,100.

We could do that because: 1) we were not getting attacked every day, and 2) we were separated from Europe and Asia by large oceans, making a successful attack very unlikely to the point where nobody really even tried very hard to make it happen. The technology and logistics just weren't there for it.

we could also do it because the size of industry and the size of the Population allowed us to do it.

Not all industries are in proportion but the size/scale of US industry allowed the US to out produce the rest of the world.

US Steel production had been well ahead of everybody else before the war, not being bombed helped but the Germans were never going to to come close and the rest of the Axis was pretty much a bad joke. One that cost a lot of lives.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

<undergoing edit>

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

You are completely missing (or misconstruing) the point Greg. I'm not in any way saying that the British night bombing didn't matter. I'm saying it is not relevant to the discussion we have been having about day fighters, and maneuverability vs. speed. You don't see planes getting into a lot of turn fights at night, unless there is something I'm unaware of. They are different (usually two crew, two engined) aircraft involved. It's a completely different scenario.

Night fighters are planes like Bf 110, Ju 88C, Mosquito, He 219 etc., usually equipped with radar because that is how planes see at night.

The A6M nor the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-84, N1K1, P-38, Spitfire, P-40, P-51, Wildcat, Hurricane etc. have very little to do with night combat.

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.

You are totally missing the point I was making, just saying. I'm not leaving out anybody's contributions. I really don't even get how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Japanese had well over a half-dozen liquid cooled engine designs in the years leading up to and during WWII.

They preferred radial engined aircraft over liquid cooled due to manufacturing, weight allowance and operational maintenance points.


The Ha201 was no more troublesome than the DB606, which did not live up to expectations in the Me261 or He177.

Did you know that Fokker's aircraft used radial engines almost exclusively?

Were you aware that PZL (Państwowe Zakłady Lotnicze) designs used radial engines almost exclusively?

How about the long list of other European aircraft manufacturers that incorporated radial engines in their designs?

Or the US Navy ...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It looks like a there's transcription error, as the document had to go from Japanese to German to English.

Those range numbers are just way out of line with any of the other TAIC data or postwar data from Japanese sources. The Zero was a light aircraft, but it had a lot of frontal drag and the fuel consumption figures at that speed and altitude are too low to be believable, especially since the data refers to the the "Sakae 2/1 engine". If we use those range and resulting fuel consumption figures and apply them to the A6M3 with a Sakae 21 then it's calculated with (214usg fuel) range is about 3200km at 330kph TAS at 4000m which is easily sufficient to fly the Rabual->Guadalcanal->Rabual mission that the IJN said was too far for it:

Do you think that any Bf 109, MC 200, MC 202, Spitfire I-V, Hurricane of any mark, Yak 1,7,9 or 3, or La 5 could have flown missions from Rabaul to Guadalcanal?

Do you understand the difference between sortie range and max range?

 

[SaparotRob]

I don;t think e focus on the last two years of the war because our aircraft were dominant at all.

We focus on the last two years because that's when we were past out first year and most od the hard fighting for us was accomplished, on land, sea, and air. We outproduced teh rest of the world collectively and fielded more war materiel than anyone else. We even supplied our allies with weapons.

In 1943 alone, we produced 54,100 combat aircraft. The Soviet Union and the UK together produced 39,400.

In 1944, we produced 74,100 combat aircraft. The Soviet Union and the UK together produced 51,100.

We could do that because: 1) we were not getting attacked every day, and 2) we were separated from Europe and Asia by large oceans, making a successful attack very unlikely to the point where nobody really even tried very hard to make it happen. The technology and logistics just weren't there for it.

I think the last two years get focussed on is because that's when everything got hot-rodded. Even jets are showing up. That gets the attention from a wider audience than fans of the Brewster Buffalo or the A5M.

 

[Shortround6]

The thing is that long range of the Zero and Oscar were not anywhere near as useful in NW Europe or Eastern Europe or the Med.
Not useless but not as useful.
And the change in speeds needed to transit combat areas often (but not always) considerably reduced the difference in the "book' figures.

A6M2 in early 1942 vs Yak Is?
Yak is faster, turns pretty good but not good enough and the A6M2s climb is not enough different to make the difference that the A6M2 enjoyed against the P-39s and P-40s.

And so on through the better Soviet and German fighters.
Yes you can find things like the I-24 but they were fading out in 1942.
The Japanese fighters are going to suffer from higher combat attrition. Not a lot but the lack of self sealing tanks is not just going down flames but not making back to base because the fuel leaked out from 1-2 hits that didn't set fire to the tanks. Plus the lack of even basic seatback protection.

You are trying to use 1940 fighters in 1942 and just because some forces were using 1940 aircraft in 1942 (MC 200) doesn't mean it is a good idea.

The Japanese aircraft also didn't have a lot of ammo for their guns. Unlike the pacific your were more likely to get into a 2nd engagement on long mission.
At times on eastern front (and other places more rarely) both sides were flying 3-4 times a day. They didn't have to fly for hours to get into a fight.
Using long range penetration fighters without protection and with limited ammo doesn't really bring that much to the table.

A few rear area raids are not going to end things. Destroying more enemy equipment/assets than they can afford to loose while loosing fewer assets of your own than you can replace (allowing for growth) is what wins long wars.

 

[RCAFson]

Do you think that any Bf 109, MC 200, MC 202, Spitfire I-V, Hurricane of any mark, Yak 1,7,9 or 3, or La 5 could have flown missions from Rabaul to Guadalcanal?

Do you understand the difference between sortie range and max range?

A Spitfire V with 170IG ferry tank or Hurricane with 2 x 90IG tanks could have flown a recon mission from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, but not a combat mission.

I do understand the difference between sortie range and max range, but apparently you don't. I've carefully and clearly explained how the IJN achieved extreme range with the Zero, and that was by flying overwater, low and slow, at extreme low RPM cruise which would not be possible in the ETO. The TAIC data and data from actual IJN long range missions is consistent with this.

Some of the things that the Zero did to extend range:

Usually twelve to eighteen Zeros, split into two chūtais above and behind on either flank, offered the rikkōs direct escort. They had the unenviable task of dealing with the hit-and-run attacks by the Grumman Wildcats. The absence of radios in the land-based Zeros forced relatively inflexible escort tactics. Citing its limited range (50 miles) and poor reliability, the fighter groups had ripped out all the radio equipment, including the mast and aerial, to save 18 kilograms of weight. The lack of radios prevented close coordination between escorts and bombers and proved most detrimental in the Solomon air battles.

how long was a typical mission?

The Imperial Navy faced immense problems prosecuting a successful air offensive against Guadalcanal, many of its own making. The nearest fully operational airfields to the target remained the cluster of bases around Rabaul: Vunakanau Field (Rabaul West) for the bombers and the fighter strip at Lakunai (Rabaul East) set beneath a massive volcano. All lay at least 560 miles from Guadalcanal, entailing strike missions of eight hours or more. The auxiliary field at Buka, 400 miles from Guadalcanal, was used only sporadically for lack of support facilities.

A simple calculation shows that a range of 560 miles x 2 = 1120miles/8 hours shows an average TAS of 140mph. Even if we allow 30min over Guadalcanal, then average cruise TAS is only ~150mph. The Guadalcanal missions were flown low and slow for most of the mission, with a cruise climb to combat altitude and then a low speed, low altitude cruise back to base.

As I've explained, the IJN could not fly the Guadalcanal missions using the A6M3 and thus the TAIC data for the A6M3 appears to be correct. The data purporting to show that a Sakae21 A6M with 900L of fuel could cruise 3700km at 330kph at 3000m is false. If it was true then the IJN would have been flying the Rabual to Guadalcanal missions in their A6M3s (with it's ~3200km range according to the aforementioned data)... but they didn't because they couldn't.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A Spitfire V with 170IG ferry tank or Hurricane with 2 x 90IG tanks could have flown a recon mission from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, but not a combat mission.

I knew you would bring that in! Ahahahahahahaha

I would say that is a Spitfire Mk V, which was not so great against a Zero even without any external tanks, tried to engage with an A6M while carrying a 170 imperial gallon ferry tank, boy, he would be in trouble. Can you jettison those in flight? What would the speed need to be? What is the maximum speed with one of those? How about in a Hurricane with 2 x 90 IG tanks?

I do understand the difference between sortie range and max range, but apparently you don't. I've carefully and clearly explained how the IJN achieved extreme range with the Zero, and that was by flying overwater, low and slow, at extreme low RPM cruise which would not be possible in the ETO. The TAIC data and data from actual IJN long range missions is consistent with this.

Some of the things that the Zero did to extend range:

I think this is about the A6M3, which we all already have noted, had a much shorter range.

I don't think you do understand any of this very well and that you are clearly out of your depth.

how long was a typical mission?

A simple calculation shows that a range of 560 miles x 2 = 1120miles/8 hours shows an average TAS of 140mph. Even if we allow 30min over Guadalcanal, then average cruise TAS is only ~150mph. The Guadalcanal missions were flown low and slow for most of the mission, with a cruise climb to combat altitude and then a low speed, low altitude cruise back to base.

Hilarious. Perhaps I should prefer your calculations to the actual WW2 era documents. But I think not.

As I've explained, the IJN could not fly the Guadalcanal missions using the A6M3 and thus the TAIC data for the A6M3 appears to be correct. The data purporting to show that a Sakae21 A6M with 900L of fuel could cruise 3700km at 330kph at 3000m is false. If it was true then the IJN would have been flying the Rabual to Guadalcanal missions in their A6M3s (with it's ~3200km range according to the aforementioned data)... but they didn't because they couldn't.

You have explained your theories, I find them amusing, and ridiculous.

 

[RCAFson]

I think this is about the A6M3, which we all already have noted, had a much shorter range.

No, it was referring specifically to the A6M2-21 that flew the actual missions to Guadalcanal.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The thing is that long range of the Zero and Oscar were not anywhere near as useful in NW Europe or Eastern Europe or the Med.
Not useless but not as useful.
And the change in speeds needed to transit combat areas often (but not always) considerably reduced the difference in the "book' figures.

I see 1200 mile range for A6M5 at 250 mph TAS. That looks pretty good to me. Almost 2000 miles at lower speed.

I know, you know, most other people here know (maybe with one exception I can think of) that planes fly further at lower speeds, usually. What you have asserted but not established is this notion that A6M would have to somehow fly much slower than any other fighters would. I.e. that the ratios are somehow different.

In other words, the basic benchmarks of range are roughly the same. Bf 109 (and most European or Russian fighters) about 400-500 miles. A6M2 about 1100 miles (at about 200 mph). A6M3 about 900 miles, A6M5 about 1200 at 250 mph or up to 2000 miles at lower speeds.

These ranges go down somewhat as flying speeds go up. But I don't believe that typical cruise speeds were vastly higher in the Med or Russian Front than they were in the Pacific or China. Or that they would go down considerably more for A6M than they would for Bf 109, MC 202, Yak 1, Spitfire V, Hurricane II, etc. In every case, the flight speed is often set by the bombers, who are in almost every case in 1942 are going to be flying at a maxiumo of around 200-250 mph, or considerably less.

In fact, I think it's a ridiculous and spurious claim. To imply that the Bf 109 had anywhere near the range of an A6M is naive if you are clueless, and just disingenuous if you actually know any of the data.

It is absurd to imply that the range figures for the A6M are only based on flying around at 140 knots. Thomas P has posted very clear data proving that it was not, in fact at those lower speeds the A6M range is vastly longer, up to 4000km!

Now of course, there were places where that kind of ultra long range at low speed over-water could have been very helpful for the Axis, North Atlantic, Bay of Biscay I'm looking at you. That would have been a BIG problem for the Allies.

But I'm not focusing on that so far. That is why I intentionally quoted the lower range figures for the A6M. I.e. the range at higher speeds.

A6M2 in early 1942 vs Yak Is?
Yak is faster, turns pretty good but not good enough and the A6M2s climb is not enough different to make the difference that the A6M2 enjoyed against the P-39s and P-40s.

I really like that match up.

A6M vs Yak1 in 1942 is a good match. A6M has better climb (and much steeper climbing angle, enough to do very tight loops), much better turn, is much more heavily armed, has of course, vastly better range, and it's worth noting, Yak (and LaGG 3, and La 5) had problems diving at high speeds. So a split-S escape isn't likely to happen. They will have to duke it out or die. I put my my money on the A6M more times than not.

Against that, Yak-1 has slightly better speed (maybe 10-30 mph depending on how 'clean', less if the pilot took the canopy off). He has a little bit of pilot armor and SS tanks. Maybe a slightly better gun (but one 20mm vs two for the A6M) and more cannon ammunition in the case of the A6M2. It is noteworthy that even the A6M2 carried 500 rounds per gun for their 7.7mm machine guns so even when they run out of cannon ammunition they can still fight, especially against a small plane like a Yak 1.

And so on through the better Soviet and German fighters.

Agreed! Though the German fighters probably had a better chance. I don't think any fighters in this period, except the faster 109G variants and maybe Fw 190, really have any significant advantage over A6M2 or A6M3.

Yes you can find things like the I-24 but they were fading out in 1942.
The Japanese fighters are going to suffer from higher combat attrition. Not a lot but the lack of self sealing tanks is not just going down flames but not making back to base because the fuel leaked out from 1-2 hits that didn't set fire to the tanks. Plus the lack of even basic seatback protection.

You are trying to use 1940 fighters in 1942 and just because some forces were using 1940 aircraft in 1942 (MC 200) doesn't mean it is a good idea.

A6M3 isn't a 1940 fighter. Two speed supercharger unlike any Soviet fighters at that time.

The Japanese aircraft also didn't have a lot of ammo for their guns. Unlike the pacific your were more likely to get into a 2nd engagement on long mission.

Neither did most Soviet fighters

At times on eastern front (and other places more rarely) both sides were flying 3-4 times a day. They didn't have to fly for hours to get into a fight.

They couldn't fly for hours to get into a fight.

Using long range penetration fighters without protection and with limited ammo doesn't really bring that much to the table.

A few rear area raids are not going to end things. Destroying more enemy equipment/assets than they can afford to loose while loosing fewer assets of your own than you can replace (allowing for growth) is what wins long wars.

See early Japanese victories in the Pacific on this.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

No, it was referring specifically to the A6M2-21 that flew the actual missions to Guadalcanal.

You have seen the data presented, you just refuse to believe it. That is why your claims here lack credibility.

 

[RCAFson]

I knew you would bring that in! Ahahahahahahaha

You brought it in and those were the only aircraft that you listed that could fly a mission from Rabual to Guadalcanal, but I guess you missed the part about it being a recon mission, not. combat mission.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You brought it in and those were the only aircraft that you listed that could fly a mission from Rabual to Guadalcanal, but I guess you missed the part about it being a recon mission, not. combat mission.

I agree, they could fly ONE recon mission with that fuel overload to Rabaul. After their next of kin were notified, I think (hope!) Allied leaders would come up with a different plan.

 

[RCAFson]

You have seen the data presented, you just refuse to believe it. That is why your claims here lack credibility.

LoL! You have been presented with abundant amounts of data from multiple sources, that all show that the A6M2-21 was only able to operate over Guadalcanal by flying low and slow over water and even then they were at the very extreme edge of their range.

 

[GregP]

You are completely missing (or misconstruing) the point Greg. I'm not in any way saying that the British night bombing didn't matter. I'm saying it is not relevant to the discussion we have been having about day fighters, and maneuverability vs. speed. You don't see planes getting into a lot of turn fights at night, unless there is something I'm unaware of. They are different (usually two crew, two engined) aircraft involved. It's a completely different scenario.

Night fighters are planes like Bf 110, Ju 88C, Mosquito, He 219 etc., usually equipped with radar because that is how planes see at night.

The A6M nor the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-84, N1K1, P-38, Spitfire, P-40, P-51, Wildcat, Hurricane etc. have very little to do with night combat.



You are totally missing the point I was making, just saying. I'm not leaving out anybody's contributions. I really don't even get how you came to that conclusion.

It is you who are missing the point.

The title of the thread Joblin started is Maneuverability versus Speed, not Day Fighters.

Sure, YOU have been talking about day fighters, but the thread isn't about day fighters. You just steered it there, likely because that is where your interest may lie. While that's OK and is surely a good discussion to have, it doesn't mean the entire thread is suddenly all about day fighters because you want it to be. If that is the case and that's all you want to talk about, start a "Day Fighter" thread. There will likely be lively discussion. I'd likely join in, too.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

LoL! You have been presented with abundant amounts of data from multiple sources, that all show that the A6M2-21 was only able to operate over Guadalcanal by flying low and slow over water and even then they were at the very extreme edge of their range.

I have seen many claims by you, including your repeated insistence that the A6M3 and the A6M2 have the same engine. This shows me that you are unfamiliar with this Theater or these aircraft. Your passionate insistence on being right anyway is noteworthy, but not convincing.

Without any irony you expect others reading the thread to buy into your 'simple calculations' rather than actual wartime data.

The hard data I already knew, as I'm very familiar with the early Pacific War. I'm not the one here arguing with any data points as anyone can see you doing upthread (and not data that i posted). And I repeat, none of the European fighters we've been comparing the A6M to could come anywhere near flying such a mission as Rabaul to Guadalcanal. It's about three times as long as a typical escort sortie a Bf 109, Yak 1 or Hurricane could fly.

I can see that you think you have a point, but it does not look like you actually do.