Maneuverability vs Speed

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

I just don't like it when people come at me over things that seems spurious, though sometimes it is a misunderstanding.

To wit, in this discussion, "Speed vs, maneuverabilty", with the emerging subtext of Japanese vs. US and European fighters, I don't think night time bomber streams are really part of the conversation, at least during the part of the war we are discussing here.

Wellingtons weren't getting into dog-fights over Aachen at 3:00 am, that i am aware of. They did play an important role in attacking Axis shipping in the Mediterraean (and other areas) which I have discussed several times, including in this thread. But I was under the impression that air combat meant airplane vs airplane. If it's "maneuverability for bombers" then so be it.

(If you want to talk about night fighters or night-intruders I'm not sitting here trying to say not to)

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

I thought that the engine was moved back to maintain the CoG in the A6M3 because it was heavier and that reduced the size of the fuel tank reducing the range. However, I am not an expert, so please tell me if I have misunderstood.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing an important part of what frames an argument which proves or disproves a general point.

Reminder - the initial topic title.

Exceptions can always be found. And scale of operation DOES NOT equal or negate its strategic or historical importance or necessarily make it into some kind of concrete 'proof' of an argument one way or another. Pedestal for example. Highly strategically important. But in terms of aircraft employed in the scale of the previous two years of war and as an answer to this thread question? 34 allied aircraft destroyed. 70-80 German and Italian. Very specific circumstances and context. Tiny numbers compared to the wider operations and losses of daylight fighter/ bomber escort and support operations over occupied Europe, even by an RAF which was dedicating so much effort effort into the night bombing offensive: Ramrods, Circuses, Rodeos, Roadsteads and other post BoB RAF operations (these were not small operations in terms of sorties, timescale or losses incurred). That said, Operation Pedestal seems a pretty muddy example that doesn't seem to indicate much conclusively in any direction regarding the topic question as far as I can tell.

To drag things back to the title, I think the night offensive and night fighters do have some bearing on the debate and the clear answer to the question posed (which does not specify any particular part of the war but raised a generic question). A fighter is an aircraft which has the prime function of shooting down other aircraft, specifically (at this time), bombers or fighter bombers. A fighter only gets into combat with other fighters which are trying to prevent it from doing that! If it doesn't have speed and a rate of climb to allow it to intercept those bomber aircraft in the first place, its manoeuvrability is largely irrelevant either way. And if it has superior speed, it also is much more likely to have the important option to dictate the terms of combat and refuse to engage in a dogfight with slower fighters and, again, go after the things carrying bombs, rockets or torpedoes instead.

A nightfighter might not be sparring in the same way as a dayfighter, but the opposing aircraft had to be both intercepted, and then potentially, as per a daylight interception, followed through their defensive maneuvers. Hence why so much was made of a bombers ability to safely perform a tight 'corkscrew', and why so much was made of the importance of fitting Beaufighters with belts rather than drums for their cannons to save the bashed head and hands of the Nav/radOps being slung around trying to reload in a sharply manoeuvring aircraft on the tail of a jinking target. Why was a Blenheim an ineffective night-fighter? Too slow. Why was the Mosquito such and effective night fighter, bomber and intruder? High speed - (and good manoeuvrability). Why did Short Sterling pilots reputedly admire the ability of their bomber to be able to out-turn nightfighter ME110s?

All germane to the topic title.

Manoeuvrability is important. But I don't think many fighter pilots would would trade having a 15% advantage in speed for a 15% advantage in turn or roll over an opponent, all other things being equal. And that includes the Zero. And once the initial lessons of its performance had been learned, that went on to be proved in practice.

Hoc loco mortuus sum

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

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?

Click to expand...

OK. Makes sense. I didn't completely read the thread since it is getting long-winded.

My mistake. Cheers.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

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?

Click to expand...

Same engine, different dash number, to me. Yes, the dash number makes a difference, but it's still a V-1650.

In the case of the Sakae 12 versus the Sakae 21, the only REAL difference is the Sakae 12 has a single-stage supercharger and the Sakae 21 had a 2-stage supercharger. Makes a pretty big difference in altitude performance. Not so much around sea level. The 940 hp versus 1,150 isn't much, but if you sustain it to 20,000 feet, it runs into a lot. The 940 hp Sakae 12 was likely down to under 650 hp t 19,000 feet, while the Sakae 21 was still about 980 hp. That's about 50% more power. Makes a difference.

The second stage added, I'm sure, about 150 pounds and the engine might have been moved rearward to compensate for correct CG. I don't really know as I have not studied the A6M-2 versus A6M-3 models much. I have mostly looked at the A6M-5 Model 52 since the Planes of Fame flies one. It has a few, but very few changes to make it better for our pilots.

1) It has English instrument that are painted to resemble the originals. The authorized pilots know where the needles are supposed to be in normal operation.
2) The pilot's seat was moved backward by 6 inches to allow for taller pilots than the WWII original pilot cadre was.
3) They removed the original rudder pedals which pivoted in the middle... making using toe brakes iffy when turning. They installed a set of F8F Bearcat rudder pedals that move straight fore and aft when used, and the brakes are easy to operate now.
4) We don't really use the original oxygen bottles, but we left them in the aircraft for authenticity. I'm not sure they still operate as a system ... but, knowing these guys, they well might in a pinch. They are pretty much sticklers for authenticity, especially on the Zero. They have a few SAE bolts replacing metric hardware, but not if the metric hardware is still good. If it gets bad, then they replace it with SAE.

I'm not too sure what's wrong with the metric guys, but there is no excuse for having a metric bolt be more than twice as expensive as an AN-grade SAE bolt of the same general size. You cannot tell me it costs them twice as much to make it as it costs us ... it's almost the same bolt with difference threads. Try making metric hardware price-competitive and maybe we will change over finally. If we had a market for it, we'd make them in metric ourselves. But the market is pretty bare for AN-grade hardware in metric.

I have friends with Yak-52s and THEY have gone to SAE hardware for cost savings. Nobody here can figure out why metric stuff is so expensive in aviation-grade hardware. It doesn't make much sense, seemingly. It ain't rocket science. It's metallurgy, and it works the same for English units and well as metric units, so it shouldn't cost twice as much just because it is metric.

I have no problem with metric as a long-time rider of European motorcycles. I rode Montesa, Bultaco, Ossa, Beta, SWM, Yamaha, and Honda trials motorcycles for decades. But, those weren't aviation-grade fasteners and they were still expensive since they came on a slow boat from Europe and dribbled in a few at a time. Nothing worse than O-rings from Montesa. I think they made them from damp cardboard egg cartons. Guaranteed to leak. Great bikes. Not so great rubber parts and springs. I think I never got more than 1 season from a Montesa kick starter return spring. I usually had 3 -5 spares lying in the toolbox. Sorry for the soapbox. Pet peeve.

GregP said:

In the case of the Sakae 12 versus the Sakae 21, the only REAL difference is the Sakae 12 has a single-stage single speed supercharger and the Sakae 21 had a 2-stage two speed supercharger.

Click to expand...

Fixed it. We all have guilty of that one

I believe, but could be wrong that the supercharger was bigger in addition to the supercharger drive gear set up. Not sure if they changed the cooling fins or anything else like a bigger carb to handle the larger airflow.

going up in HP by 20% for take-off, and raising the FTH by 1800metes might be doable but is seems like a lot for just a 2 speed drive.
For perspective the engine in the F4F made 6.2% more power for take-off and 20hp more 685ft lower but used a two stage supercharger and the 3 speed (including neutral) dive set up,
And intercooler. and did it about 92% of the displacement.

Thanks Shortround! Appreciate that. I know the Sakae 21 and 31 share most components and are very close to if not the same power rating.

This link: Zero Facts and Figures says two-stage in the A6M-3 section. But, 2-speed it well might be. I didn't really think about it when I quoted their data.

SplitRz said:

I think you're missing an important part of what frames an argument which proves or disproves a general point.

Reminder - the initial topic title.

Exceptions can always be found. And scale of operation DOES NOT equal or negate its strategic or historical importance or necessarily make it into some kind of concrete 'proof' of an argument one way or another. Pedestal for example. Highly strategically important. But in terms of aircraft employed in the scale of the previous two years of war and as an answer to this thread question? 34 allied aircraft destroyed. 70-80 German and Italian. Very specific circumstances and context. Tiny numbers compared to the wider operations and losses of daylight fighter/ bomber escort and support operations over occupied Europe, even by an RAF which was dedicating so much effort effort into the night bombing offensive: Ramrods, Circuses, Rodeos, Roadsteads and other post BoB RAF operations (these were not small operations in terms of sorties, timescale or losses incurred). That said, Operation Pedestal seems a pretty muddy example that doesn't seem to indicate much conclusively in any direction regarding the topic question as far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

The thing about Pedestal is that it was a huge fight - not so much in terms of casualties or losses but the quite large numbers (hundreds) of planes involved - most of them trying to sink the ships. And extremely consequential in the outcome. The relevance to the A6M part of this discussion is that due to the short range of the 'good' German and Italian fighters, they could not escort the bombers until the final day, which meant the bombing attacks were less effective. If they had the range of the A6M that might have gone differently. I don't like the ramifications if the Germans captured Malta.

Second El Alamein, and Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad, and Kursk, the invasions of Sicily and Italy were massive land and / or naval battles, over which very intensive air battles took place which had even more planes involved, but lasted far longer than the fighting during Pedestal or the other convoy fights.

And unlike the Ramrods, Circuises etc., had definitive consquential results in the overall outcome of the war.

This matters because some fighters characteristics (including speed and maneuverability) turned out to be more or less suited to attrition war vs decisive battles.

SplitRz said:

To drag things back to the title, I think the night offensive and night fighters do have some bearing on the debate and the clear answer to the question posed (which does not specify any particular part of the war but raised a generic question). A fighter is an aircraft which has the prime function of shooting down other aircraft, specifically (at this time), bombers or fighter bombers. A fighter only gets into combat with other fighters which are trying to prevent it from doing that! If it doesn't have speed and a rate of climb to allow it to intercept those bomber aircraft in the first place, its manoeuvrability is largely irrelevant either way. And if it has superior speed, it also is much more likely to have the important option to dictate the terms of combat and refuse to engage in a dogfight with slower fighters and, again, go after the things carrying bombs, rockets or torpedoes instead.

A nightfighter might not be sparring in the same way as a dayfighter, but the opposing aircraft had to be both intercepted, and then potentially, as per a daylight interception, followed through their defensive maneuvers. Hence why so much was made of a bombers ability to safely perform a tight 'corkscrew', and why so much was made of the importance of fitting Beaufighters with belts rather than drums for their cannons to save the bashed head and hands of the Nav/radOps being slung around trying to reload in a sharply manoeuvring aircraft on the tail of a jinking target. Why was a Blenheim an ineffective night-fighter? Too slow. Why was the Mosquito such and effective night fighter, bomber and intruder? High speed - (and good manoeuvrability). Why did Short Sterling pilots reputedly admire the ability of their bomber to be able to out-turn nightfighter ME110s?

Click to expand...

Night combat is interesting, and you may feel free to discuss it at your hearts content. I don't think it's very relevant to the OP because discussion though because maneuverability was not so much of a factor at night, corkscrewing Sterlings notwithstanding. I don't think it's relevant to the debate (also started by the OP poster) about Japanese vs European planes because the Japanese made relatively few night fighters.

SplitRz said:

All germane to the topic title.

Click to expand...

You make a fair point but I personally don't buy it. I still stand by 1941-1943, most of the air combat was not in NW Europe, and almost all of the consequential air combat was in the other Theaters of War. If you want we can dive into the numbers, I don't mind.

SplitRz said:

Manoeuvrability is important. But I don't think many fighter pilots would would trade having a 15% advantage in speed for a 15% advantage in turn or roll over an opponent, all other things being equal. And that includes the Zero. And once the initial lessons of its performance had been learned, that went on to be proved in practice.

Click to expand...

Speed is important but it's not the only thing that mattered. The P-51A and P-43 were faster planes than the P-40, but pilots in China preferred the latter (and it did better). The P-39 was faster than the Wildcat, but pilots on Guadalcanal preferred the Wildcat (and it did better). The P-38 was faster than the Spitfire Mk V in the Med, but pilots preferred the Spitfire (and it did better).

SplitRz said:

Hoc loco mortuus sum

Click to expand...

Fortasse nimium rigidus eras

GregP said:

Thanks Shortround! Appreciate that. I know the Sakae 21 and 31 share most components and are very close to if not the same power rating.

This link: Zero Facts and Figures says two-stage in the A6M-3 section. But, 2-speed it well might be. I didn't really think about it when I quoted their data.

Click to expand...

It was two speed, and a two speed engine makes a big difference, in speed, altitude performance, and fuel economy.

SplitRz said:

I think you're missing an important part of what frames an argument which proves or disproves a general point.

Reminder - the initial topic title.

To drag things back to the title, I think the night offensive and night fighters do have some bearing on the debate and the clear answer to the question posed (which does not specify any particular part of the war but raised a generic question). A fighter is an aircraft which has the prime function of shooting down other aircraft, specifically (at this time), bombers or fighter bombers. A fighter only gets into combat with other fighters which are trying to prevent it from doing that! If it doesn't have speed and a rate of climb to allow it to intercept those bomber aircraft in the first place, its manoeuvrability is largely irrelevant either way. And if it has superior speed, it also is much more likely to have the important option to dictate the terms of combat and refuse to engage in a dogfight with slower fighters and, again, go after the things carrying bombs, rockets or torpedoes instead.

A nightfighter might not be sparring in the same way as a dayfighter, but the opposing aircraft had to be both intercepted, and then potentially, as per a daylight interception, followed through their defensive maneuvers. Hence why so much was made of a bombers ability to safely perform a tight 'corkscrew', and why so much was made of the importance of fitting Beaufighters with belts rather than drums for their cannons to save the bashed head and hands of the Nav/radOps being slung around trying to reload in a sharply manoeuvring aircraft on the tail of a jinking target. Why was a Blenheim an ineffective night-fighter? Too slow. Why was the Mosquito such and effective night fighter, bomber and intruder? High speed - (and good manoeuvrability). Why did Short Sterling pilots reputedly admire the ability of their bomber to be able to out-turn nightfighter ME110s?

All germane to the topic title.

Click to expand...

Yes, night fighting and configurations beyond single-engine are relevant to my question, from my perspective. The intended scope of this topic covers all types of combat between aircraft in WWII, and to a lesser extent, the years following the Mukden Incident, in addition to potentially providing some leeway for the months/year(s?) immediately following the war, maybe. I did make the topic with mid-to-high altitude combat in mind, which admittedly, would disfavor Japanese aircraft, though discussion of lower altitude combat, such as supporting ground forces against low-flying aircraft such as dive bombers, would also be acceptable. The primary focus is generally on interceptors, fighters and aircraft of similar roles.

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

So you're taking into consideration designs during WWII? In that case, the most significant engines of that type in the Japanese arsenal for that relatively large time period were usually French or German licensed. Japan had a few middling interwar engine designs, and, from what I have found, one latewar prototype. Would you know of a comprehensive list of Japanese liquid cooled, in-line engine designs. GregP 's resource he provided me is quite comprehensive, but translation for the engine list seems odd in some parts, perhaps machine-translated, so sifting through it is somewhat inconvenient. At the end of the day, Soviet engine development wasn't behind Japan's, especially not in this area, and this was the previous point of contention.

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

Does this disprove my comment on Japan's relatively lacking aircraft engine development? It still demonstrates that their industry was unable to support the en-masse production and maintenance of such advanced engine designs.

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

The latter aircraft managed to enter mass-production at the very least, even a few years before the Ki-64 made its first flight.

GrauGeist said:

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?

Click to expand...

Considering the fact that you decided to include manufacturers of two secondary powers as your examples, I'm willing to bet that this extensive list of yours would largely comprise of manufacturers of secondary and 'tertiary' powers, if the latter designation had any real meaning in this time period. Was Japan a secondary power? What of the FW-190, Hurricane, Spitfire, P-40, Mig-1/3, and D.520? Even the rather middling Italian Isotta Fraschini Delta could still allow aircraft it powered to achieve level flight speeds rivaling, if not exceeding those of any frontline Japanese aircraft. In all honesty, this section of your post makes the positive reactions it garnered all the more puzzling.

JoblinTheGoblin said:

Yes, night fighting and configurations beyond single-engine are relevant to my question, from my perspective. The intended scope of this topic covers all types of combat between aircraft in WWII, and to a lesser extent, the years following the Mukden Incident, in addition to potentially providing some leeway for the months/year(s?) immediately following the war, maybe. I did make the topic with mid-to-high altitude combat in mind, which admittedly, would disfavor Japanese aircraft, though discussion of lower altitude combat, such as supporting ground forces against low-flying aircraft such as dive bombers, would also be acceptable. The primary focus is generally on interceptors, fighters and aircraft of similar roles.

So you're taking into consideration designs during WWII? In that case, the most significant engines of that type in the Japanese arsenal for that relatively large time period were usually French or German licensed. Japan had a few middling interwar engine designs, and, from what I have found, one latewar prototype. Would you know of a comprehensive list of Japanese liquid cooled, in-line engine designs. GregP 's resource he provided me is quite comprehensive, but translation for the engine list seems odd in some parts, perhaps machine-translated, so sifting through it is somewhat inconvenient. At the end of the day, Soviet engine development wasn't behind Japan's, especially not in this area, and this was the previous point of contention.

Does this disprove my comment on Japan's relatively lacking aircraft engine development? It still demonstrates that their industry was unable to support the en-masse production and maintenance of such advanced engine designs.

The latter aircraft managed to enter mass-production at the very least, even a few years before the Ki-64 made its first flight.

Considering the fact that you decided to include manufacturers of two secondary powers as your examples, I'm willing to bet that this extensive list of yours would largely comprise of manufacturers of secondary and 'tertiary' powers, if the latter designation had any real meaning in this time period. Was Japan a secondary power? What of the FW-190, Hurricane, Spitfire, P-40, Mig-1/3, and D.520? Even the rather middling Italian Isotta Fraschini Delta could still allow aircraft it powered to achieve level flight speeds rivaling, if not exceeding those of any frontline Japanese aircraft. In all honesty, this section of your post makes the positive reactions it garnered all the more puzzling.

Click to expand...

Late war Japanese aircraft were on a par with the best fighters found anywhere in the world.

Their shortcoming was gambling on a limited and violent war that would force the Allies to bargain for a negotiated peace. Just like the Germans.
They did not have the manufacturing capacity nor an ample raw material supply for a protracted war. Just like the Germans.

But I see where you're going with this: the Japanese were second rate, vastly inferior to Europeans and moving the goalposts around to preserve that notion is imperative.

By your argument:
The fact that the Japanese aircraft designs were based on requirements dictated by their environment must be dismissed.
The fact that the Japanese preferred radials to inlines must be dismissed, since Europeans (in some people's minds) preferred liquid cooled engines.

Trying to claim the Poland and Dutch aircraft manufacturers were "second rate" is rather interesting, since the various aircraft they produced were considered world class depending on the time of model introduction.

And this is the last I'll reply to your "second rate" mentality drivel, so good day and GFYS.

GrauGeist said:

Late war Japanese aircraft were on a par with the best fighters found anywhere in the world.

Click to expand...

In some aspects, perhaps.

GrauGeist said:

Their shortcoming was gambling on a limited and violent war that would force the Allies to bargain for a negotiated peace. Just like the Germans.
They did not have the manufacturing capacity nor an ample raw material supply for a protracted war. Just like the Germans.

Click to expand...

It's a debate for another time, and I'll put that out there to prevent yet another derailment of the thread, but the Germans arguably had a slightly better opportunity to have achieved negotiated peace with both the British and Soviets, though much luck, more than they already had, would be an essential part of this.

GrauGeist said:

But I see where you're going with this: the Japanese were second rate, vastly inferior to Europeans and moving the goalposts around to preserve that notion is imperative.

Click to expand...

In some areas, they came close. In others, like level flight speed, jet and rocket technology, and liquid-cooled in-line engines (the focus of this part of the thread), they were clearly behind.

GrauGeist said:

By your argument:
The fact that the Japanese aircraft designs were based on requirements dictated by their environment must be dismissed.

Click to expand...

What about these requirements? The Germans were not necessarily in the most optimal situation either, certainly not after D-Day and Operation Bagration.

GrauGeist said:

The fact that the Japanese preferred radials to inlines must be dismissed, since Europeans (in some people's minds) preferred liquid cooled engines.

Click to expand...

Wild_Bill_Kelso had made the claim that Soviet engine technology was behind Japan's. I countered by providing Soviet liquid cooled engines as an example of an area where they were ahead of the Japanese. That is objective fact. Indigenous designs / developments on foreign technologies of higher horsepower, powering faster aircraft. All I was trying to prove is that the technology of one of the strongest powers in the world then, was not inferior across the board.

GrauGeist said:

Trying to claim the Poland and Dutch aircraft manufacturers were "second rate" is rather interesting, since the various aircraft they produced were considered world class depending on the time of model introduction.

Click to expand...

Now that's outright misinterpretation of my argument. Secondary power does not mean second rate, it's just that the larger primary powers would generally have a greater capacity for R&D, though this is not entirely a strict rule. The cases of Dutch and Polish aircraft manufacturing proves this, for they generally relied on British or French engines, among other foreign technologies, and their aircraft were not the fastest or most powerful in terms of horsepower, armament or other aspects of aircraft technology.

GrauGeist said:

And this is the last I'll reply to your "second rate" mentality drivel, so good day and GFYS.

Click to expand...

All I can say in response to this is, after you.

Sigh

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Sigh

Click to expand...

Right?

SplitRz said:

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.

Click to expand...

Amazing.
I've been here since 2007 and I have never seen so many positive posts about the P40 in one thread, in a long time.
FWIW guys, I like the P40, too. What I posted earlier is basically a culmative of what I've been reading from those that bother to comment on the subject since I've been here.

Elvis said:

Amazing.
I've been here since 2007 and I have never seen so many positive posts about the P40 in one thread, in a long time.
FWIW guys, I like the P40, too. What I posted earlier is basically a culmative of what I've been reading from those that bother to comment on the subject since I've been here.

Click to expand...

Cool. There seems to be A LOT of comment on this thread about what people 'like' and how they 'feel' about the subjects being discussed.

I 'like' the look of an aircraft from an aesthetical perspective. I can 'feel' that it might have been maligned or misused, have interesting engineering or conception. But I'm not sure that my feelings help anyone answer a question like the one posted here though. I hope my comments are neither positive of negative, but hopefully objective.

[the rest hear is a generic comment and not addressed to you]

Given I wasn't born in 1920 and didn't get to fly one of these aircraft, and even those that did are nearly all gone, I'm left looking at them in museums and reading about them. It always seems to me that the performance and function of an aircraft can only really be best compared or analysed by looking as far as possible at the historical record - starting with the observations of the people who actually flew and used them or flew against them. Then there's the record of operation losses and causes and the simple evidence of what actually happened.

Did the CR42, one of the most manoeuvrable aircraft of WW2, sweep faster aircraft from the skies over the Med? How did the RAF Gladiators fare over France? Did the Russians find the turn rate and roll of the I-15 compensated for speed against the 109 over Spain? What specific extenuating factors managed to make a slow fighter like the Fulmar so successful over the Med? What improvement in aspects of performance were pilots and the RAF calling for as a direct result of combat experience? What was the RAF experience over Europe, flying hard turning Spitfire Vs against faster and better rolling 190s...? What was the collective experience of the warring nations in their respective zones of combat, and what direction did that propel design?

That seems to have been lost a long time back in this thread. It seems to me that straw-man arguments being made resulting in creep and wrangling about largely irrelevant details in which people 'fact' their perceived opponents up the jacksie with technical minutiae. Threads here have a habit of wandering far and wide, alas!

In the context of the original question, the P40 is an interesting one that seems incredibly relevant to me, because, its a clear example of an aircraft fighting at an ever increasing disadvantage as a fighter, because, although it was more manoeuvrable than most of its opponents over North Africa and the Med, and could outdive them, being outpaced and outclimbed was considered by its own pilots to put it at an overall disadvantage. Its a doubly relevant example, because the P40 over the PTO in the early years had something of the opposite experience: A speed advantage (a marked one if it could take advantage of a dive and maintain high speed), heavier armament and rugged construction could place it at marked advantage over aircraft that could both out-turn or roll it at low speeds and outclimb it.

Anyway, I'm prodding a thread which deserves to RIP.

I'm now going to use my superior body-weight to dive away.

Lokking at the info provided in this thread the overall thing looks to be that earlier war aircraft relied more on manoeuvre
than later war aircraft.

This looks to be mainly due to firepower. The smaller, lighter planes had zoom but not enough boom so staying on target was important
to be able to put enough shots in.

As the war went on the larger framed or newer, larger framed planes could carry more cannons / MG's giving a sharp boom element
coupled with better zoom.

For example - Wildcat 4 x .5 MG with 450 rounds per gun - 1800 rounds.
Hellcat 6 x .5 MG with 400 rounds per gun - 2400 rounds or 4 x .5 MG with 400 rounds per gun plus 2 x 20mm cannon
with 225 rounds per gun.

Speed increases and for many, better climb rates helped with the zoom factor.

The other factor is armour and self sealing tanks. Aircraft could take a hit without necessarily falling to bits.
Aircraft without all these improvements were not going to survive for long.

Boom and zoom in this case also applies to ground attack. Planes that could remain controllable in high speed dives and turn / climb fast
were dangerous as ground attack weapons. Shturmovik vs Mosquito for instance.

SplitRz said:

Cool. There seems to be A LOT of comment on this thread about what people 'like' and how they 'feel' about the subjects being discussed.

I 'like' the look of an aircraft from an aesthetical perspective. I can 'feel' that it might have been maligned or misused, have interesting engineering or conception. But I'm not sure that my feelings help anyone answer a question like the one posted here though. I hope my comments are neither positive of negative, but hopefully objective.

[the rest hear is a generic comment and not addressed to you]

Given I wasn't born in 1920 and didn't get to fly one of these aircraft, and even those that did are nearly all gone, I'm left looking at them in museums and reading about them. It always seems to me that the performance and function of an aircraft can only really be best compared or analysed by looking as far as possible at the historical record - starting with the observations of the people who actually flew and used them or flew against them. Then there's the record of operation losses and causes and the simple evidence of what actually happened.

Did the CR42, one of the most manoeuvrable aircraft of WW2, sweep faster aircraft from the skies over the Med? How did the RAF Gladiators fare over France? Did the Russians find the turn rate and roll of the I-15 compensated for speed against the 109 over Spain?

Click to expand...

As I've already pointed out - Spit V, 30-40 mph slower than the P-38, did better in the Med. P-40, 30 mph slower than the P-51A and P-43, did better in China. F4F Wildcat, 50 mph slower than the P-39, did better in the Solomons.

There is a point where speed drops below those of the competitors, where it becomes decisive. 270 mph biplanes (or sesquiplanes) could not compete with 330-350 mph fighters. But there is also a point where agility or turn rate really helps. It's complex, you can't just apply a simple linear formula to it.

SplitRz said:

What specific extenuating factors managed to make a slow fighter like the Fulmar so successful over the Med?

Click to expand...

I would strongly debate whether the Fulmar was actually successful over the Med. It was unable to catch many of the bombers it was tasked with intercepting (Ju 88 in particular, but also in some incidents SM.79s) and it could not contend with the better land based fighters of it's era, such as the Bf 109F or MC 202. Did a little better against the CR 42.

SplitRz said:

What improvement in aspects of performance were pilots and the RAF calling for as a direct result of combat experience? What was the RAF experience over Europe, flying hard turning Spitfire Vs against faster and better rolling 190s...? What was the collective experience of the warring nations in their respective zones of combat, and what direction did that propel design?

That seems to have been lost a long time back in this thread. It seems to me that straw-man arguments being made resulting in creep and wrangling about largely irrelevant details in which people 'fact' their perceived opponents up the jacksie with technical minutiae. Threads here have a habit of wandering far and wide, alas!

Click to expand...

Sometimes trying to pare down a discussion to a simple number like top speed ends up being misleading. A serious discussion about aviation history will almost inevitably be somewhat far ranging. But also yes without a doubt, people often try to lead threads into dead ends or derails to suit their agendas.

SplitRz said:

In the context of the original question, the P40 is an interesting one that seems incredibly relevant to me, because, its a clear example of an aircraft fighting at an ever increasing disadvantage as a fighter, because, although it was more manoeuvrable than most of its opponents over North Africa and the Med, and could outdive them, being outpaced and outclimbed was considered by its own pilots to put it at an overall disadvantage. Its a doubly relevant example, because the P40 over the PTO in the early years had something of the opposite experience: A speed advantage (a marked one if it could take advantage of a dive and maintain high speed), heavier armament and rugged construction could place it at marked advantage over aircraft that could both out-turn or roll it at low speeds and outclimb it.

Click to expand...

And yet, it's clear that the P-40 was one of the most effective fighters, probably the single most effective fighter, in the Med, and was used successfully as a fighter into 1944. Unlike, for example, the Hurricane, which had the turning ability but not the roll and dive, and was also slower.

SplitRz said:

Anyway, I'm prodding a thread which deserves to RIP.

I'm now going to use my superior body-weight to dive away.

Click to expand...

Yeah the forum would be so much better if all the threads quietly wound down to silence...

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

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?

Click to expand...

Give me a MkV Spit and free reign to do what I want and I'd give it a red hot go.