Maneuverability vs Speed

[RCAFson]

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!

That data is seriously flawed as I've shown and is completely at odds with actual mission data, IJN use of the A6M3, and TAIC data drawn from IJN sources and US flight tests of captured aircraft. It's also at odds with data from Francillion and other authors regarding IJN aircraft.

But as usual you find the most outlier data and then cling to it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

That data is seriously flawed as I've shown and is completely at odds with actual mission data, IJN use of the A6M3, and TAIC data drawn from IJN sources and US flight tests of captured aircraft. It's also at odds with data from Francillion and other authors regarding IJN aircraft.

But as usual you find the most outlier data and then cling to it.

You have, as usual, done a STIRLING job of thoroughly convincing yourself of what you already wanted to believe.

Conferring this fervent conviction to others is going to be your big challenge, and I suspect has been for a long time...

 

[RCAFson]

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.

You're acting as troll here. I edited my prior posts and informed you of that.

Flying a low and slow cruise over water in the PTO, without any radio equipment, is not exactly how things were done in the ETO.

We could take any number of ETO fighters and strip them of armour, SS tanks and radio, then stuff them full of fuel, then fly them low and slow and emulate an A6M2-21's range.

 

[RCAFson]

You have, as usual, done a STIRLING job of thoroughly convincing yourself of what you already wanted to believe.

Conferring this fervent conviction to others is going to be your big challenge, and I suspect has been for a long time...

Troll.

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

You do know GregP has, like, ya' know, his own personal A6M5. It's the only one with matching numbers.

EDIT: my bad I thought it was Greg you called a troll. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

 

[Shortround6]

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

we are going around in circles here.
The Yak-1 from 1942 had the M-105PF-1 engine, 1210hp for take-off, 1260hp at 800 meters and 1180hp at 2700 meters.
Speed was around 314 at sea level and 364mph at 3800meters, so go ahead, knock 20mph off, still leaves 20-30 mph over the A6M2.
Climb for the A6M2 was 7 min 27sec to 6000meters, Yak-1 was 5.4 min to 5000 meters, sure doesn't look a much difference in climb.

The A6M2 does not have more cannon ammo, it has the same number of shells. The Soviet cannon fired about 50% faster and was easier to hit with.
We have four different firing times.

Both planes with all guns. 7 seconds
A6M2 with only machine guns and Yak with both guns. 2 more seconds.
A6M2 with only machine guns and Yak with 12.7 gun. 7 more seconds.
A6M2 with only machine guns and Yak empty. Maybe 16-18 more seconds.
If the A6M2 has survived.
The 12.7mm gun is putting out almost 2 1/2 times as much metal as the two Japanese machineguns and the bullets are moving faster (easier to hit with) and have more kinetic energy per weight of bullet.
The soviet 12.7mm even synchronized is putting out about 60% more bullets than a single US .50 in the fuselage, and the bullets are heavier.

Now I can find 7 different performance lists for YAK 1s with two different engines and several different armament set ups. I can also find several different specs for Yak-7s in 1942.

If you are only flying 100-150miles (if that) to escort your bombers on ground support or to do bomb/rocket/strafe ground targets why is 300-400 mile range a big advantage?

Soviets did have trouble with quality control and meeting published specs, some of this was getting better in 1942.

 

[GregP]

They DID have the same engine, a Nakajima Sakae.

The A6M-2 had a Model 12 (940 hp) and the A6M-3 had a Model 21 (1,130 hp). They were different dash numbers, but both are Nakajima Sakae engines. Same size, same engine mount locations, much the same weight, same propeller. Same prop shaft splines. Same crankshaft, etc.

 

[GregP]

You do know GregP has, like, ya' know, his own personal A6M5. It's the only one with matching numbers.

EDIT: my bad I thought it was Greg you called a troll. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

The A6M5 Model 52 I am very familiar with belongs to the Planes of Fame Museum. It flies, but not what I would call regularly. It flies maybe 2 - 4 times per year, depending.

During major overhaul I helped with control surface disassembly and clean-up prior to recovering the surfaces with Ceconite fabric. My task was to remove the existing fabric and clean up the elevator, rudder, and both ailerons prior to recovering them. I have seen it completely disassembled and in various stages of overhaul.

It is magnificent, but it surely isn't mine. Wish it were because then I'd get to fly it! Wouldn't we all like to do that?

Yes, I have a pilot's license. No, I don't fly their warbirds. Big bucket of money between me and that.

Cheers.

 

[RCAFson]

Saburo Sakai:

From then on we flew literally day and night to stretch the range
of our planes. Apart from its range, the Zero was designed to remain
in the air on a single flight for a maximum of six or seven hours, We
stretched this figure to from ten to twelve hours, and did so on mass
formation flights. I personally established the record low consumption
of less than seventeen gallons* per hour; on the average our pilots
reduced their consumption from thirty-five gallons per hour to only
eighteen. The Zero carried a normal fuel load of some 182* gallons.

'To conserve fuel, we cruised at only 115 knots at 12,000-feet altitude.
Under normal full-power conditions, the Zero was capable of 275 knots
and, when over-boosted for short emergencies, could reach its
maximum speed of about 300 knots. On our long-range flights we
lowered propeller revolutions to only 1,700 to 1,850 rpm, and throttled
the air control valve to its leanest mixture. This furnished us the
absolute minimum of power and speed, and we hung on the fringe of
losing engine power at any time and stalling, (from: Samurai! page 38)

So Sakai and the IJN was able to establish a nominal, no allowance, no reserve, endurance of ~11 hours. If we assume that this was 115knots IAS we get 143knots TAS and a range of ~1573 NM. Subtracting 17IG for warmup, TO and climb, we get a range of 1430nm @ 143 knots at 12000ft for Sakai and about 1300nm for the average pilot.

*Imperial gallons, nominal full internal capacity and external (DT) = 186.5IG (Francillion)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They DID have the same engine, a Nakajima Sakae.

The A6M-2 had a Model 12 (940 hp) and the A6M-3 had a Model 21 (1,130 hp). They were different dash numbers, but both are Nakajima Sakae engines. Same size, same engine mount locations, much the same weight, same propeller. Same prop shaft splines. Same crankshaft, etc.

He specifically wrote model 12 twice, the second time after the error was pointed out. Engine model does make a big difference. Is V-1650-1 the same as V-1650-3? is Merlin X vs Merlin XX vs Merlin 60 the same engine?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

We could take any number of ETO fighters and strip them of armour, SS tanks and radio, then stuff them full of fuel, then fly them low and slow and emulate an A6M2-21's range.

Show me any evidence of Spit V, Bf 109, MC 202, Hurricane, Yak 1, La 5 flying 4,000 km without ferry tanks. At any speed or altitude. I'll wait.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

Who else talked about night fighters in this thread other than the absurd exchange between you and I right here?

What role does maneuverability have with night fighters?

Pretending I was somehow disrespecting or discounting the RAF night bombing campaign is ludicrous. We have been talking exclusively about single crew, mostly single engine (with the exception of the P-38) fighters through the whole thread.

AND, I will point out, that in 1942, the actual amount of AIR COMBAT, as in aircraft fighting EACH OTHER not just dropping bombs, was still much greater at Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk, El Alamein, Malta, Pedestal, and the various battles in the Pacific than it was during said night bombing campaign. If you want we can dive into the number of claims etc.

Though it would certainly be pointless to do so.

 

[SplitRz]

The thread has (had!) a title and a topic

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.

A little bit of creep can be fun. But when it becomes a sematic showdown, I find it frustrating to keep getting alerts, only to discover that the topic went out the window about five pages back.

You have, as usual, done a STIRLING job of thoroughly convincing yourself of what you already wanted to believe.

Conferring this fervent conviction to others is going to be your big challenge, and I suspect has been for a long time...

I'm sorry, but a wee look in the mirror is required, pot calling kettle etc. I don't have a strong opinion either way in your spat as to who's assertions carry the day, but RCAFson's points seem well expressed to me, and seemingly arguable, whether you agree with them or not. The ad hominems aren't needed.

Play nice chaps!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Saburo Sakai:




So Sakai and the IJN was able to establish a nominal, no allowance, no reserve, endurance of ~11 hours. If we assume that this was 115knots IAS we get 143knots TAS and a range of ~1573 NM. Subtracting 17IG for warmup, TO and climb, we get a range of 1430nm @ 143 knots at 12000ft for Sakai and about 1300nm for the average pilot.

*Imperial gallons, nominal full internal capacity and external (DT) = 186.5IG (Francillion)

That is only one flight configuration. Nowhere in there does it say that this is the only cruise speed the A6M could use. All WW2 fighter aircraft could cruise at various speeds. The 1573 nautical mile range is considerably more than the higher speed range I was quoting,

This is just cherry picking on your part, which is typical of your posts.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The thread has (had!) a title and a topic

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.

A little bit of creep can be fun. But when it becomes a sematic showdown, I find it frustrating to keep getting alerts, only to discover that the topic went out the window about five pages back.

I'm sorry, but a wee look in the mirror is required, pot calling kettle etc. I don't have a strong opinion either way in your spat as to who's assertions carry the day, but RCAFson's points seem well expressed to me, and seemingly arguable, whether you agree with them or not. The ad hominems aren't needed.

Play nice chaps!

I disagree, and have had many such discussions with RCAF, with whom most conversations with anyone inevitably become 'semantic showdowns'.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

we are going around in circles here.
The Yak-1 from 1942 had the M-105PF-1 engine, 1210hp for take-off, 1260hp at 800 meters and 1180hp at 2700 meters.
Speed was around 314 at sea level and 364mph at 3800meters, so go ahead, knock 20mph off, still leaves 20-30 mph over the A6M2.
Climb for the A6M2 was 7 min 27sec to 6000meters, Yak-1 was 5.4 min to 5000 meters, sure doesn't look a much difference in climb.

The A6M2 does not have more cannon ammo, it has the same number of shells. The Soviet cannon fired about 50% faster and was easier to hit with.
We have four different firing times.

Both planes with all guns. 7 seconds
A6M2 with only machine guns and Yak with both guns. 2 more seconds.
A6M2 with only machine guns and Yak with 12.7 gun. 7 more seconds.
A6M2 with only machine guns and Yak empty. Maybe 16-18 more seconds.
If the A6M2 has survived.
The 12.7mm gun is putting out almost 2 1/2 times as much metal as the two Japanese machineguns and the bullets are moving faster (easier to hit with) and have more kinetic energy per weight of bullet.
The soviet 12.7mm even synchronized is putting out about 60% more bullets than a single US .50 in the fuselage, and the bullets are heavier.

Now I can find 7 different performance lists for YAK 1s with two different engines and several different armament set ups. I can also find several different specs for Yak-7s in 1942.

If you are only flying 100-150miles (if that) to escort your bombers on ground support or to do bomb/rocket/strafe ground targets why is 300-400 mile range a big advantage?

Soviets did have trouble with quality control and meeting published specs, some of this was getting better in 1942.

Whether having much longer range matters is a separate (and worthy) discussion. Right now we are stuck with the (I think spurious) debate about whether the A6M did in fact have much longer range than typical European interceptor / frontal air superiority types, which it very clearly did. Whether it matters is a bit more of a subjective discussion but worth exploring.

As is the qualitative comparison of Yak 1 or Yak 7 with A6M, which is I also think is worth having. Yes you are right there was a lot of variation in performance for Soviet fighters at this time, it sometimes came down to the individual factory where they were produced.

The automatic assumption that the Japanese aircraft were inferior to European at this stage of the war is on pretty weak ground. It should be more carefully examined.

 

[SplitRz]

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.

Theres a lot to unpack here. I think in your rush to include lots of diverse assertions to your argument, you lose focus and whether deliberately or not, you risk giving that impression (Ramrods Circuses and Rhubarbs as an example of a little course correction!)

I disagree, and have had many such discussions with RCAF, with whom most conversations with anyone inevitably become 'semantic showdowns'.

Come on, 'it takes two to tango', as they say!

You seem to have a habit of throwing a lot of blanket assertions into an argument once your blood is up. Personally, I much prefer debates in which information is exchanged in a way that allows all parties to reflect and exchange without egos taking over. You say you know your subject area when it comes to the Zero. Maybe you do, maybe you don't - not my area of particular expertise to be the judge, so at the moment I'm open to both sides of the argument. But when you make absolutist statements like 'Hurricane etc have very little to do with night combat', you risk undermining the credibility of earlier stridently expressed points, and it makes me wonder what else you might be over asserting. FYI - Hawker Hurricane night intruders

This isn't a verbal slap-down btw! I generally like your posts. Just take a bit of advice from an old bu&&er who's learned the hard way

 

[SaparotRob]

The A6M5 Model 52 I am very familiar with belongs to the Planes of Fame Museum. It flies, but not what I would call regularly. It flies maybe 2 - 4 times per year, depending.

During major overhaul I helped with control surface disassembly and clean-up prior to recovering the surfaces with Ceconite fabric. My task was to remove the existing fabric and clean up the elevator, rudder, and both ailerons prior to recovering them. I have seen it completely disassembled and in various stages of overhaul.

It is magnificent, but it surely isn't mine. Wish it were because then I'd get to fly it! Wouldn't we all like to do that?

Yes, I have a pilot's license. No, I don't fly their warbirds. Big bucket of money between me and that.

Cheers.

That's why I said "uhm, like, ya' know.." Close enough.

 

[GregP]

Who else talked about night fighters in this thread other than the absurd exchange between you and I right here?

What role does maneuverability have with night fighters?

Pretending I was somehow disrespecting or discounting the RAF night bombing campaign is ludicrous. We have been talking exclusively about single crew, mostly single engine (with the exception of the P-38) fighters through the whole thread.

AND, I will point out, that in 1942, the actual amount of AIR COMBAT, as in aircraft fighting EACH OTHER not just dropping bombs, was still much greater at Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk, El Alamein, Malta, Pedestal, and the various battles in the Pacific than it was during said night bombing campaign. If you want we can dive into the number of claims etc.

Though it would certainly be pointless to do so.

Did I mention night fighters? I think I said the RAF went to night bombing after early attempts as unescorted daylight bombing. I didn't mention night fighters at all, though they are certainly within the definition of WWII aerial combat. Everyone on all sides used them.

You said something about that not being in the definition of aerial combat when Reluctant Poster mentioned your view of only day fighters as being a bit narrow, and the only person using the word "absurd" is you.

This isn't the "Wild Bill Kelso" forum, its ww2aircraft.net and caters to almost all military aviation without specifically excluding civil aviation.

C'mon guy, the war was over in 1945. Don't start one in here because you want to control the narrative on somebody else's thread. Roll with it an get along. You'll be less stressed and happier. That can't be a bad outcome.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Theres a lot to unpack here. I think in your rush to include lots of diverse assertions to your argument, you lose focus and whether deliberately or not, you risk giving that impression (Ramrods Circuses and Rhubarbs as an example of a little course correction!)

Come on, 'it takes two to tango', as they say!

You seem to have a habit of throwing a lot of blanket assertions into an argument once your blood is up. Personally, I much prefer debates in which information is exchanged in a way that allows all parties to reflect and exchange without egos taking over. You say you know your subject area when it comes to the Zero. Maybe you do, maybe you don't - not my area of particular expertise to be the judge, so at the moment I'm open to both sides of the argument. But when you make absolutist statements like 'Hurricane etc have very little to do with night combat', you risk undermining the credibility of earlier stridently expressed points, and it makes me wonder what else you might be over asserting. FYI - Hawker Hurricane night intruders

This isn't a verbal slap-down btw! I generally like your posts. Just take a bit of advice from an old bu&&er who's learned the hard way

Sure, I acknowledged Rhubarbs, I also noted Dieppe, the raid on Eindhoven etc., but things like 'night intruder' missions, or night fighter interceptions of bomber streams, don't, I think, compare seriously with the level of air to air combat going on during the daylight in the key battles of 1941-43. Later, when you have Mosquitos stalking German night fighters, you are getting into something closer to what the thread was about, but I also don't really think maneuverability as defined in this thread is really as much of a factor for night fighters.

I stick to my 'broad' assertion that nighttime air combat was not on the same scale for air to air engagements, in 1941-1943, as daytime combat was. I also don't think it is sincere to imply that by leaving out the night bombing campaign, when I noted that most of the big air battles during that specific time frame were not in Northwest Europe, I was somehow dismissive of the RAF. I just don't think it fits the context of what we were discussing, and the point raised was a an (attempted) 'gotcha' which was meant to distract from the actual point being made.

Which point was that we, especially in the US, tend to focus over much on air combat in 1944-1945 when discussing WW2. British enthusiasts will also mention 1940 and the Battle of Britian, a little bit Battle of France. But I think we all tend to ignore the very important air component of the various pivotal battles of this midwar period represented by the 41-43 date range. This comes up over and over in discussions on here - for example in long threads about the significance of air power at Second El Alamein (very important), about the Pedeastal and other convoy battles, and in the naval battles in the Pacific.