Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

Fair observation, but you also see some highly successful late war fighters like the Yak 3 which were probably close in agility to many of the Early War types.
Another example are the late model P-38s with their combat flaps and boosted ailerons.

Generally though, we can probably say that all jet fighters are 'boom and zoom' compared to earlier war types. So in that sense, the trend ultimately moved in that direction at the end of the war.

Among the post-war jets however, once again, speed vs. agility become competing design elements. Which is better, a MiG 15 or an F-86? A MiG 25 or an F-16?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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

You won't make it to Rabaul!

 

[PAT303]

You won't make it to Rabaul!

How far are we talking?, I'd clean up a squadron of MkVa's, nice paint, cover the gun muzzles, 33-33G rear tanks with bob weights correcting the handling, 96G main tank, 13-13G leading edge with a 90G DT, I'd chat with RR about how lean I could run the Merlin using the SU injection carby and give them a run at 200mph at 12-15,000ft.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

How far are we talking?, I'd clean up a squadron of MkVa's, nice paint, cover the gun muzzles, 33-33G rear tanks with bob weights correcting the handling, 96G main tank, 13-13G leading edge with a 90G DT, I'd chat with RR about how lean I could run the Merlin using the SU injection carby and give them a run at 200mph at 12-15,000ft.

1000 km there, 1000 km back. And you'll need some fuel to fight with. Can you fight with the 90G DT on?

 

[RCAFson]

How far are we talking?, I'd clean up a squadron of MkVa's, nice paint, cover the gun muzzles, 33-33G rear tanks with bob weights correcting the handling, 96G main tank, 13-13G leading edge with a 90G DT, I'd chat with RR about how lean I could run the Merlin using the SU injection carby and give them a run at 200mph at 12-15,000ft.

This was the longest range escort mission flown by a Spitfire, AFAIK:

Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.

On the 27th of Nov 1944, five spitfires from No. 549 sqn RAF and 2 spitfires from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF in conjuction with 4 B-25's from No. 2 sqn RAAF plus an ASR Catalina, attacked and destroyed a Japanese radar station at Cape Lore on Portuguese Timor. The raid was a round trip of some 850...

ww2aircraft.net

The Mk VIII data card:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_VIII_Trop_ADS.jpg

shows a range on internal fuel of 740 miles at 20K ft, with a 23IG allowance for warmup, TO and climb. Range with the 90IG DT was 1265 miles at 20k ft, again with an allowance for warmup, TO and climb.

So a mission from Rabaul to Guadalcanal was possible in a Spitfire VIII but it would be a bit nerve wracking on the flight back. OTOH, the range could be stretched a bit by using the low speed, low RPM cruise, as used by the IJN.

90IG DTs were used in combat.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Spit VIII had much better range than a Spit V. But if I'm reading that right, "a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours." wouldn't quite cut it to Rabaul from Guadalcanal. Maybe 2/3 of the way there and back.

Unless he means 850 miles each way.

 

[Ovod]

This was the longest range escort mission flown by a Spitfire, AFAIK:

Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.

On the 27th of Nov 1944, five spitfires from No. 549 sqn RAF and 2 spitfires from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF in conjuction with 4 B-25's from No. 2 sqn RAAF plus an ASR Catalina, attacked and destroyed a Japanese radar station at Cape Lore on Portuguese Timor. The raid was a round trip of some 850...

ww2aircraft.net

The Mk VIII data card:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_VIII_Trop_ADS.jpg

shows a range on internal fuel of 740 miles at 20K ft, with a 23IG allowance for warmup, TO and climb. Range with the 90IG DT was 1265 miles at 20k ft, again with an allowance for warmup, TO and climb.

So a mission from Rabaul to Guadalcanal was possible in a Spitfire VIII but it would be a bit nerve wracking on the flight back. OTOH, the range could be stretched a bit by using the low speed, low RPM cruise, as used by the IJN.

90IG DTs were used in combat.

That chart you posted for the Spitfire, the 1265 mile figure looks suspiciously like the ferry range for the aircraft - which would imply that the maximum combat radius would be around 420 miles (for many aircraft combat radius is often around 1/3 of its ferry range). As Wild Bill pointed out, the Spitfire would only reach about 65% of the distance and then they would have to turn back.

 

[Vincenzo]

Spit VIII had much better range than a Spit V. But if I'm reading that right, "a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours." wouldn't quite cut it to Rabaul from Guadalcanal. Maybe 2/3 of the way there and back.

Unless he means 850 miles each way.

english is not my language but round trip and 4.5 hours is clear, for me is 850 included the back way

 

[BarnOwlLover]

IMO, the simple truth is this as far as fighter evolution during World War II--the focus went from traditional agility and lightness to speed, climb rate and firepower. The reason for this, in simplest terms, was due to bomber/recon plane design. Bomber and recon planes realized that speed could be life. The result is that they got larger and more powerful (more powerful, often larger/heavier engines, and more fuel for those engines as well as a desire for increased range).

This meant that fighters had to get faster though similar means, and even with radar, the speeds of possible bomber and recon planes shortened intercept windows, hence speeds, climb rates and power rose, to the detriment of traditional low speed agility. However, even fighters did see the advantages of sacrificing that in favor of speed, agility at higher speeds, climb rate and firepower. Not to mention that as all planes got faster, firepower increased, due to the narrower windows of keeping on target in a maneuvering fight.

Of course, more and heavier machine guns and cannons did also mean more weight, which goes in concert with the power increases.

This, of course, is a big generalization. However, even early on this trend was realized. The genesis of the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest began in 1938. Even the IJA/IJN realized at about the same time that things were starting to change, as they realized they needed fast point interceptors to protect territory. I do think that they (and some others as well) got caught out by how fast things changed.

And as to the assertion that the Zero was a "1940" fighter, well, one, it first entered service that year, if we want to be fair and accurate. Secondly, if it was serving in the European Theater, it's performance, especially in terms of speed and even climb, would've been good for 1940, but by 1942, it would've been obsolescent, if not obsolete.

In the Pacific, the Zero was helped by the fact that, one, most western powers weren't fielding the "latest and greatest" like they were in Europe. Overmatch against the Zero in terms of performance didn't fully happen for the USN/USMC until the Corsair and Hellcat entered service. Also for the British Commonwealth, the Spitfire VIII didn't enter service until sometime in the second half of 1943--months after it entered service in the European Theater. Also for the USAAF, Allison powered P-51s and A-36 fighter/dive bombers didn't show up in the CBI until about the same time in numbers.

Some of this was also due to the Allies agreement/mentality of "defeat Germany first if possible" edict. And understandably so, since it was felt that Germany was the more dangerous foe at the time. How much of that was accurate and how much was still rooted in old prejudices/biases, is up for debate.

Fact is that Japan in some areas weren't far behind the Allies or even Germany, in some areas they were. As mentioned, Japan did realize that fast interceptors were needed as soon as 1938. Problem was that existing programs took priority, and the interceptors' development also had some problems--though they weren't unique in that, as several air arms had problems with developing the first 400+ mph fighters.

Japan also had the issue of sort of having to play catch up with the western world in terms of industrialization. This wasn't for lack of smarts or talent. But until Admiral Perry showed up, Japan was largely isolated from the rest of the world, and they were decades behind much of the rest of the world as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Also, as far as infantry, the IJA was one of the first armies to widely use machine guns for infantry support. Though, oddly, during World War II, they didn't widely field submachine guns, which were ideal for jungle warfare at the time.

So as far as the Japan vs the world deal, they did lag behind in several areas during World War II. Some of this was partially also to the IJN getting favor for a lot of raw materials, such as steel for warships vs the IJA for tanks, for example. But for Japan being an island nation who's defensive and offensive operations would likely be heavily naval based, this did make sense. However, I do think that we should give them a bit more credit from a talent and smarts standpoint. Though if you're limited with what you have to work with, you're limited with what you have to work with.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

english is not my language but round trip and 4.5 hours is clear, for me is 850 included the back way

If a Spit VIII can make a 850 miles target strike (i.e. 1700 miles total distance) in anything close to a combat configuration (as distinct from carrying big ferry tanks etc.) I will be amazed and very impressed.

From my understanding of the operational histories, Spit V was considered an interceptor only, due to range. Spit VIII was considered 'medium' range like the P-40 or F4F. Not as long as a P-38 for example, or an F4U. And I don't think either P-38 or F4U could make a strike that long.

The famous P-38 assassination strike against Admiral Yamomoto was 600 miles one way and 400 miles back (to a provisional remote strip). They had to take huge 330 gallon tanks (each plane carried one 330 gallon and one 165 gallon tank) and would have been unable to fight A6M with that load if they had encountered them. This was right at the very limit of the operational range of the P-38, they barely pulled it off.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

IMO, the simple truth is this as far as fighter evolution during World War II--the focus went from traditional agility and lightness to speed, climb rate and firepower. The reason for this, in simplest terms, was due to bomber/recon plane design. Bomber and recon planes realized that speed could be life. The result is that they got larger and more powerful (more powerful, often larger/heavier engines, and more fuel for those engines as well as a desire for increased range).

This meant that fighters had to get faster though similar means, and even with radar, the speeds of possible bomber and recon planes shortened intercept windows, hence speeds, climb rates and power rose, to the detriment of traditional low speed agility. However, even fighters did see the advantages of sacrificing that in favor of speed, agility at higher speeds, climb rate and firepower. Not to mention that as all planes got faster, firepower increased, due to the narrower windows of keeping on target in a maneuvering fight.

Of course, more and heavier machine guns and cannons did also mean more weight, which goes in concert with the power increases.

Right, I think all this is true.

This, of course, is a big generalization. However, even early on this trend was realized. The genesis of the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest began in 1938. Even the IJA/IJN realized at about the same time that things were starting to change, as they realized they needed fast point interceptors to protect territory. I do think that they (and some others as well) got caught out by how fast things changed.

This is where I part ways with you - slightly. I would say this - rather than the shift to high flying, heavy, fast, not necessarily super maneuverable planes being inevitable, some kind of innate progression, I would say it is directly tied to the changing nature of the war.

Like you said, the fighters follow the bombers and the recon planes.

In NW Europe, the Strategic bombing campaign got into gear in 1944. high flying, powerful, heavily armed daylight bombers needed heavy long range fighter escort that could fly fast and high. The Allies also had shorter range fighters, Typhoons, Tempests, Spitfires, and (normally high altitude) P-47s repurposed, and in Italy the old P-40s, which either did the CAS themselves as fighter bombers, and / or protected the frontal aviation over the tactical war. The Western Allies had the advantage here in the tactical war because the Luftwaffe was forced to commit most of what they had to defense against the Strategic bombing campaign.

In the Pacific, similarly, the B-29 raids started up in 1944. These are even faster, longer ranged, potentially higher flying, more heavily armed and more capable than the B-17s and B-24s flying over Europe. By this time, the tactical / naval war in the Pacific is winding down. There are still some big battles, but the USN now has the IJN badly outnumbered and their new tactical fighters, the F6F and F4U, have the older Japaense fighter types outmatched. The Japanese suddenly have to figure out how to contend with B-29s and their (new to the Theater) escorts like P-51Ds and late model P-38s. This is one of the reasons the IJA and IJN started trying to make some really fast and high flying planes, though they never managed to really make a good B-29 killer.

But the big deviation from this trend is the Soviet Union. They never did concentrate on super fast, super high flying, heavily armed but not as agile fighters. Instead, they focused on small, light, (comparatively) lightly armed, and very agile frontal air superiority fighters like the Yak-3 and the La 5FN / La 7. This is because for them, the main war was not a Strategic Bombing campaign, but it was (still) a tactical war. The fighters follow the bombers, the bombers follow the war.

That is also my point about 1941-1943, this is when the tipping point of the war came for the Allies, IMO, and we started to see the shift - except in Russia - toward the Strategic war rather than the tactical.

As proof that this was an adaptation to the war and not inevitable, I again point out the continued competition among 3rd and 4th Gen jets over maneuverability vs speed (and now with 5th Gen, stealth)

And as to the assertion that the Zero was a "1940" fighter, well, one, it first entered service that year, if we want to be fair and accurate. Secondly, if it was serving in the European Theater, it's performance, especially in terms of speed and even climb, would've been good for 1940, but by 1942, it would've been obsolescent, if not obsolete.

In the Pacific, the Zero was helped by the fact that, one, most western powers weren't fielding the "latest and greatest" like they were in Europe. Overmatch against the Zero in terms of performance didn't fully happen for the USN/USMC until the Corsair and Hellcat entered service. Also for the British Commonwealth, the Spitfire VIII didn't enter service until sometime in the second half of 1943--months after it entered service in the European Theater. Also for the USAAF, Allison powered P-51s and A-36 fighter/dive bombers didn't show up in the CBI until about the same time in numbers.

The Spit VIII was probably a match for an A6M2 or M3 when it arrived, but the F4U and F6F weren't delayed, they got there as soon as they could make them. For most of 1943 the F4F and older army types were still holding the line. The Allison P-51 and A-36 didn't have a good record in China / Burma, the dominant US type in the CBI continued to be the P-40. In the Pacific the most important army type was the P-38.

Some of this was also due to the Allies agreement/mentality of "defeat Germany first if possible" edict. And understandably so, since it was felt that Germany was the more dangerous foe at the time. How much of that was accurate and how much was still rooted in old prejudices/biases, is up for debate.

Fact is that Japan in some areas weren't far behind the Allies or even Germany, in some areas they were. As mentioned, Japan did realize that fast interceptors were needed as soon as 1938. Problem was that existing programs took priority, and the interceptors' development also had some problems--though they weren't unique in that, as several air arms had problems with developing the first 400+ mph fighters.

In theory it was "Germany First" but in fact the US put a huge amount of assets, like most of their Navy, into the Pacific. Precisely because the Japanese were such a tough fight and a direct threat to the nation.

Japan also had the issue of sort of having to play catch up with the western world in terms of industrialization. This wasn't for lack of smarts or talent. But until Admiral Perry showed up, Japan was largely isolated from the rest of the world, and they were decades behind much of the rest of the world as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Agreed

Also, as far as infantry, the IJA was one of the first armies to widely use machine guns for infantry support. Though, oddly, during World War II, they didn't widely field submachine guns, which were ideal for jungle warfare at the time.

So as far as the Japan vs the world deal, they did lag behind in several areas during World War II. Some of this was partially also to the IJN getting favor for a lot of raw materials, such as steel for warships vs the IJA for tanks, for example. But for Japan being an island nation who's defensive and offensive operations would likely be heavily naval based, this did make sense. However, I do think that we should give them a bit more credit from a talent and smarts standpoint. Though if you're limited with what you have to work with, you're limited with what you have to work with.

Japanese Army was quite effective, as you can see clearly from their smashing victories against the British in Malaya and the US in the Philippines. But they seem to have kind of frozen in time. obviously the navy was a higher priority for development, but as you noted there was an odd pause in the crucial year. A6M5 should have come out when the A6M3 did. J2M and N1K1, B6N and B7N etc. should have been developed much more quickly than they were. Same with Ki-67 bomber, Ki-44 (avalable, but not in enough numbers) and Ki-84 for the Army. There was a weird kind of complacency in the crucial turning point moments of the war that you also see with the Germans, IMO. This is when the British, Americans and Soviets were pushing hardest for new kit.

 

[RCAFson]

That chart you posted for the Spitfire, the 1265 mile figure looks suspiciously like the ferry range for the aircraft - which would imply that the maximum combat radius would be around 420 miles (for many aircraft combat radius is often around 1/3 of its ferry range). As Wild Bill pointed out, the Spitfire would only reach about 65% of the distance and then they would have to turn back.

The range figures in the data card are range at altitude with an allowance for warmup, take off and climb and cruise at 20K ft, in a fully armed aircraft, which isn't quite the same as a ferry range. Any allowance for combat would reduce the usable range; a mission from Rabual to Guadalcanal would mean that the combat allowance could only ~5min. The range with the same fuel load could be extended, using the Sakai's methods (low altitude, low RPM cruise to combat zone ) and other IJN decisions, such as removing the radios and radio masts, and this would increase the combat allowance as well.

The combat radius is a variable depending on the desired time in the combat zone.

But yes, most (especially Allied) AFs would not consider the Spitfire VIII as being mission capable for a Rabual to Guadalcanal mission, using typical mission planning criteria. Of course the same would be true for the A6M2-21 using the same criteria. If we give the RAAF/RAF the A6M2-21 and they produce a data card for it, it's range at 20K ft, with allowances for warmup, TO and climb and a cruise at a similar speed would not be much, if at all, greater than the Spitfire VIII.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I agree with Ovod, 420 miles is probably closer to the absolute maximum range for a Spit VIII with external tanks and overload fuel, like in the Yamamoto scenario. Realistic sortie range where you might expect to encounter fighters (with external tanks of some kind) is probably about half that.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

(And we know, conversely, that the A6M2 did in fact make multiple raids all the way 600 miles from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. The A6M3 probably couldn't do that far, but the M5 could and maybe a little then some)

 

[Shortround6]

The A6M3 probably couldn't do that far, but the M5 could and maybe a little then some)

Ok, we have one basic A6M2 with one fuel capacity.

We have TWO A6M3s and each one has a different fuel capacity and a few other differences, like wing span. diving speed and so on

Then we have a plethora of A6M5s. Same engine most the same fuel but more armaments set ups than the Bf 109.

For the A6M3 you had the short wing Hamp/Hap model 32 with about 22 gal less fuel than the A6M2 due to the new engine. How much of the 8in movement of the firewall was due to center of gravity and how much just that there was more stuff behind the basic engine may be subject to question. Most accounts say they tried to keep the same overall length with the longer engine that forced the firewall back.
Now the next model is the backwards numbered A6M3 model 22 The last A6M2s were the model 21) which restored the wing tips of the A6M2 and added a 12 gal tank in each wing pretty much restoring the original range. Now the first of these don't leave the production line until Dec 1942. at some point in 1943 they and a cockpit controlled rudder trim tab. and also the long barreled Type 99 MK 2 model 3 cannon.

The A6M5 entered service in Sept/Oct 1943 (just in time for the F6F).
The 371st A6M5 was fitted with a CO2 system to try to protect the fuel system (all 4 wing tanks)

The A6M5a with the 125 round belt feeds show up with after the 747 A6M5 model 52s. By this time you are close to 1944 or in 1944.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yeah the A6M3 history is a bit complex and confusing. I gather the second mark (A6M3-22) did have a bit more fuel again right?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Among the post-war jets however, once again, speed vs. agility become competing design elements. Which is better, a MiG 15 or an F-86? A MiG 25 or an F-16?

Once missiles come into the picture, it's less about maneuvering or speed, and more about detection and ECM capabilities. The era of gun-only jets wasn't long, about 10 years. At jet speeds missiles became a must. MiG-15 against F-86, we're still talking OK Corral, but once sensor- and missile-ranges ramp up in the 70s, it's more about the suite than the plane itself.

Speed does matter in terms of getting into position to take the shot, and also in terms of getting your planes where they need to be, but in modern combat with all-aspect missiles, I'm not sure either speed or agility matter as much as electronics, outside of positioning itself.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

No, it's just that we were discussing day fighters. Night fighters are a very different context, and usually, different aircraft too (typically though not always twin engine aircraft). Maneuverability isn't so much of an issue with nighttime air combat either.

Corkscrew Port – Go!

Corkscrew Port – Go! ……………then the fear of the unknown entered the Crews’ minds. Has the Fighter seen the Aircraft? Will it Attack? How many Night-Fighters are…

masterbombercraig.wordpress.com

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Once missiles come into the picture, it's less about maneuvering or speed, and more about detection and ECM capabilities. The era of gun-only jets wasn't long, about 10 years. At jet speeds missiles became a must. MiG-15 against F-86, we're still talking OK Corral, but once sensor- and missile-ranges ramp up in the 70s, it's more about the suite than the plane itself.

Speed does matter in terms of getting into position to take the shot, and also in terms of getting your planes where they need to be, but in modern combat with all-aspect missiles, I'm not sure either speed or agility matter as much as electronics, outside of positioning itself.

Well we keep thinking both guns and maneuverability are over, but we have learned several times we were wrong. I assume you have read about what happened in Vietnam which led to the creation of the Top Gun school, and the re-introduction of the gun to the F4 Phantom etc.

I would also note that several modern jets fighters - F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Grippen, Su-30 are all considered highly maneuverable or even 'hyper-maneuverable'. I think the Chinese J-20 as well though I am not as familiar with Chinese types.

Agility in a jet fighter can still help (I think) with evading missiles, with nap of the earth flying and for air combat when the missiles are used up.

I know we have an F-15 pilot on the forum maybe he can chime in on this?

Now days another element is in the mix - human control (or not). I suspect that will last longer than people think as well.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One thing i believe we will see more of in the not too distant future, are some formidable countermeasures against missiles by using drones or autonomous flying vehicles of various types (not not missiles exactly)