March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

MikeMeech said:

Hi
If we are dealing between March and October 1940, the Zero's would not be even noticed unless the development and production timeline is moved forward magically. 15 pre-production A6M2s were sent to China in July 1940 and saw their first successful action on 13th September 1940, reinforced later by some production aircraft. They would have had a 'zero' impact in 1940 during the BoB period. 837 were produced between March 1939 to March 1942 period but mainly 1941 and 1942 not 1940 so for combat use not a 1940 aircraft really. Japanese pilots and aircraft may also had a problem adjusting to a sophisticated air defence system with rather more opposing aircraft than they met in the Far East in the real world of 1942.

Mike

Click to expand...

True. Enough Zeroes to equip a Staffel. With maybe enough replacements to keep the Staffel equipped through November.
But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Hurricanes in China 1940.

tomo pauk said:

Speed and time-to-altitude graphs are posted here (from the Docavia book on the D.520).
Granted, the 570 km/h lines for both Bf 109E and later D.520 (slightly better engine than the early D.520s, oil system cooling change, better exhausts) are a tad optimistic, to say at least.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing. If the speeds strike you as optimistic, what do you think would be more realistic? I'm rather unfamiliar with the D.520 so any more charts, basic info and numbers built from March - October 1940 would be greatly appreciated.

the D.520 production from November '39 to Armistice was around 435

Hmm, I did find this report comparing a Me 109E to the D.520: Rapport Sur L'Avion Messerschmidt 109

tomo pauk said:

Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.

Click to expand...

It was a neat little fighter, the best the French had once properly sorted.

Pilot opinion on it was very mixed.

It's ground handling and take-off and landing habits were nearly universally criticised.

In the air, sort of beauty and the beast. It was very nimble and crisp when aerobatted but also had some notable handling flaws.

Rate of turn was worse than the Hawk 75 or Martlet, roughly comparable with the Hurricane, better than the Spitfire I and clearly superior to the 109E.

Rate of roll was apparently exceptional, better than anything tested against in1939/1940, except the Hawk 75.

It was also good in a zoom climb and accelerated well in a dive - only a little behind the 109E and better than its French and British contemporaries.

However, the aircraft also had a nasty snap stall at almost any speed, which gave the pilot little warning of onset and resulted in at least two spins beforerecovery.

It had some directional instability and suffered oscillation when completing a manoeuvre. There was also a pronounced tendency to yaw/crab with changes in speed and power. Seems to me the tail surfaces were probably a bit small.

Several pilot accounts refer to it as underpowered, slow to accelerate and having a tendency to mush in manoeuvres at higher altitudes.

The Royal Bulgarian Air Force used their D.520s to good effect in defending Sofia.

tomo pauk said:

Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.

Click to expand...

No.

tomo pauk said:

Any love for the D.520? Longest range of all Western fighters, has a potent cannon, French (Docavia book) notes the speed figures in ballpark with Bf 109E.

Click to expand...

Really quick translation of snippets from Rapport Sur L'Avion Messerschmidt 109

V – Results

I) Messerschmidt 109 versus D.520

A-Performance

a) Level at low altitude (600 m) Substantially similar speeds. The test was carried out on the Messerschmidt with the radiator shutters open. Closing these flaps would have given it a slight advantage (20 to 30 km/h)

b) Climb to 5.500 m The Messerschmidt's climb rate is slightly higher. A quality favors it: the engine cools in a correct way, so that the D.520 had to reduce throttle every time due to the rise in temperature of the coolant (once at 4,500, the other time at 3,000) The climb time of the Messerschmidt to 5,000 m. is about 6' 20"

c) Level 5,500 Very similar speeds with a slight superiority to the Messerschmidt 109

Lessons

A - Performance

- Slightly higher level speed for the Messerschmidt at the working altitudes adopted.

- The Messerschmidt's fairly much higher rate of climb which, in combat, should be able to derive some advantage from it. Prolonged climbing maneuvers are therefore to be avoided for the Dewoitine 520 being pursued. It seemed that the Dewoitine 520 had an advantage in combat by switching to "Manual" and reducing its pitch slightly. This point should be checked systematically by a Group equipped with Dewoitine 520.

-Dive speed: the two planes hold each other noticeably

B – Combat handling

- The Dewoitine 520 in tight maneuvers of dogfighting tends to stall more than the Messerschmidt 109 assisted by its leading edge slots. The stall of the Dewoitine 520 is very brutal and always occurs to the left; it is therefore more serious in spinning combat on the right hand where the pilot of the Dewoitine 520 makes an almost complete barrel roll PG; consequently, the dogfight should preferably engage to the left, if at least the choice of direction of turn is possible.

- Following the engagements in rotating combat which ended in a brutal stall of the D520, it appeared that this stall, although easy to recover, led to the loss of control of the aircraft for a few moments and, as a result, of the field on the opponent. It is therefore dangerous, especially if the Messerschmidt 109 tends to have the advantage at this moment, to catch a stall to resume the spinning combat. It is better to transform the stall into a reversal as tight as possible, than the Messerschmidt carried away by its Speed can only follow with a very noticeable delay. The stall used from the exit then becomes a good clearing maneuver which, in some cases, can even allow the D520 to quickly regain the advantage afterwards.

- Apart from this question of stall, we can admit that the two planes are comparable from the maneuverability point of view: the engagements lasted a long time before a decisive advantage was taken on one side or the other. Nevertheless, the D520 must be considered more maneuverable because of its less strong reactions to the controls and in particular to the elevator at high speeds: the pilot of the Messerschmidt must use his trim wheel frequently; this maneuver is hard and inconvenient. The pilot of the D520 can on the contrary leave his horizontal stabilizer at an average position or at least use it in the smallest proportions; This has a definite advantage for the D520 when it comes to fast, high-speed evolutions
where strong dives alternate with chandelles.

- Nothing special to say about aiming stability for either aircraft. This stability is satisfactory except when the plane has a tendency to stall, especially in tight dogfights.

With regard more particularly to the holding of the equipment in combat, the Messerschmidt currently seems well developed (see appendix note). On the contrary, the D520 cools insufficiently when climbing; there were, moreover, systematic incidents involving the train and the micropump.

I think I'd pass on the D.520

Googled these:

Clayton Magnet said:

Hurricane IIA and Spitfire IIA armament would be almost tailor made for engaging a Zero. 160 rounds per second, loaded with (50%?) Mark VI De Wilde incendiary ammunition hitting an unarmoured airframe stuffed full of fuel.

Click to expand...

I was going to post this, De Wilde incendiary ammunition had a 1 in 5 chance of setting self sealing fuel tanks on fire from 200 yards when tested on Blenheim test aircraft, the unprotected Zero tanks would be 5 out of 5.

pinsog said:

Destroying a Zero wasn't a huge problem, it's being able to hit the thing that's the problem.

Click to expand...

I'm seriously starting to wonder how Japan lost, considering the Emil is approx 40mph faster and the MkII Spit 46 mph I'd suggest they would use that speed to dictate the fight and engaged and disengage at their choosing with the Zero being unable to do anything about it.

So the general consensus then, is that all A6Ms flew slow, couldn't perform basic aerobatics and instantly blew up if a bullet passed near it.

It must be asked then, what exactly shot down so many Allied aircraft in the Pacific theater?

GrauGeist said:

So the general consensus then, is that all A6Ms flew slow, couldn't perform basic acrobatics and instantly blew up if a bullet passed near it.

It must be asked then, what exactly shot down so many Allied aircraft in the Pacific theater?

Click to expand...

Nates and Claudes?

Shortround6 said:

Nates and Claudes?

Click to expand...

Must be - couldn't have been the Hayabusa, because you know it was comparable to the A6M...

GrauGeist said:

So the general consensus then, is that all A6Ms flew slow, couldn't perform basic acrobatics and instantly blew up if a bullet passed near it.

It must be asked then, what exactly shot down so many Allied aircraft in the Pacific theater?

Click to expand...

Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.

GrauGeist said:

Must be - couldn't have been the Hayabusa, because you know it was comparable to the A6M...

Click to expand...

It did outscore the Zero.

PAT303 said:

Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.

Click to expand...

Could you give me a reference on those numbers, please?

PAT303 said:

Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.

Click to expand...

The Me262 was a superlative high-speed turner, nothing could match it - BUT if the 262 were drug down into a slow turning fight, it had no chance of survival.

The A6M was the exact opposite.

It's obvious by now that you have an agenda that reaches past the A6M's merits...I'm not sure why you hate on Japanese aircraft so much, but you really should take some time to learn about the IJN's requirement that the A6M addressed, about the time period that it was born from and how it performed under those conditions.

You may also want to read about Nichizawa, who was killing F6F Hellcats with his A6M5 by late 1944...

PAT303 said:

I'm seriously starting to wonder how Japan lost, considering the Emil is approx 40mph faster and the MkII Spit 46 mph I'd suggest they would use that speed to dictate the fight and engaged and disengage at their choosing with the Zero being unable to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

If Japan had only faced Spitfire Mark V Tropicals they wouldn't have lost. In fact they probably would have lost more pilots in training than in actual combat.

I thought our BoB Zero would've been cruising at higher speed, given the reduced range (for the Zero).