Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Shortround6]

Every aircraft will have a DO NOT EXCEED speed, to include an F4F. It is shown in flight manuals as VNE and is usually indicted as a red line on airspeed indicators. It is the speed at which structural damage to the airframe can occur if abrupt maneuvers are attempted or if flown in turbulent air. Even though we know the F4F was built like a tank, given the right circumstances, you can bend or break the airframe.

Back in WW2 some parameters like VNE were sometimes not indicted in the flight manual or marked on the airspeed indicator

I could be wrong but I think the F4F was the last Navy plane to be tested with a terminal velocity dive.
Test pilot took the plane up to a certain altitude and then dove down vertical or near vertical until the plane simply didn't go any faster (drag equaled thrust/gravity) and the pilot pulled out. Quite often a special test pilot was hired to do this test instead of the regular company test pilot/s. The Navy also required every design to perform a 10 turn spin to the right and a ten turn spin to the left.
The Corsair was supposed to be the first plane that didn't have to pass these tests although they tried more than once.
With planes that had the speed of the Corsair there simply wasn't enough altitude to perform these tests like they did with the biplanes and first generation monoplanes. The tests, like the spin tests, took a lot more altitude per turn of spin. The dive test was running into compressibility.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I could be wrong but I think the F4F was the last Navy plane to be tested with a terminal velocity dive.
Test pilot took the plane up to a certain altitude and then dove down vertical or near vertical until the plane simply didn't go any faster (drag equaled thrust/gravity) and the pilot pulled out. Quite often a special test pilot was hired to do this test instead of the regular company test pilot/s. The Navy also required every design to perform a 10 turn spin to the right and a ten turn spin to the left.
The Corsair was supposed to be the first plane that didn't have to pass these tests although they tried more than once.
With planes that had the speed of the Corsair there simply wasn't enough altitude to perform these tests like they did with the biplanes and first generation monoplanes. The tests, like the spin tests, took a lot more altitude per turn of spin. The dive test was running into compressibility.

I believe you're correct although I remember reading that Bob Hall, Grumman's Chief Test Pilot did do some terminal velocity dive tests. I don't know if that was before or after he became Chief Test Pilot.

 

[pinsog]

Ah, nothing like a spirited discussion. Yes, time frame and "which version of the plane?" does matter, and answering that in detail would require pretty much a battle-by-battle accounting. My list is only a gross generalization, quickly compiled, primarily intended to answer the charge that anybody thinks that maneuverability was the Zero's only advantage. It wasn't. But on balance, the Wildcat had some crucial advantages itself. Having a working radio was actually a pretty big deal that a lot of people (most?) are unaware of.

If I recall, the F4F-4 was the version that first incorporated armor, but the dash 3 planes were retrofitted as quickly as they could get 'er done, and that process began in September 1941. I don't know how quickly they completed the job.

As for the charge that the results of training and tactics should not be credited to the airframe, there is some justice to that, but the tactics would not have worked with a plane that simply did not have any redeeming qualities. For example, I doubt that even Jimmy Thach could have figured out a way to beat Zeroes with Buffaloes. (I could be wrong, but that's my guess.)

As for the Zero's roll rate, some people seem to think that things just HAPPEN beyond a certain threshold or amount of time. Like that a Zero simply couldn't roll if was going 1mph above some magic number. My source said that roll rate began to fall off above 180 knots, which is actually 207mph, but that is only a gross generality. It may be more fair to say that at 300mph (which would be easily achieved during a diving attack) the Zero's ailerons were very, very difficult to move. The Wildcat's apparently were not (or at least not to anything like the same degree). So, at high speeds that's a Wildcat advantage. (Both planes had a top speed in level flight of about 330mph.)

The F4F-4 had a top speed more like 318 mph and that may have been optimistic. The climb rate was a joke, a bad joke, a bad off color joke with a horrible punch line.

Your 100% correct that the Zeros roll rate slowly got worse, but you need to be able to get over 300 mph for this to help you. With the, at best, top speed of an F4F-4 at around 318 mph you simply didn't have the power to stay above a speed where you could out turn the Zero. Now a P38 was a different story, with a top speed of 390-414 mph or so it could absolutely stay above 300 mph all day long.

But even if a Zero is going fast enough he can't roll, he can still loop and I have read that this was actually their favorite way to get on another fighters tail. They simply loop up and over and drop down on the heavier fighter that can't follow the loop

 

[pinsog]

I could be wrong but I think the F4F was the last Navy plane to be tested with a terminal velocity dive.
Test pilot took the plane up to a certain altitude and then dove down vertical or near vertical until the plane simply didn't go any faster (drag equaled thrust/gravity) and the pilot pulled out. Quite often a special test pilot was hired to do this test instead of the regular company test pilot/s. The Navy also required every design to perform a 10 turn spin to the right and a ten turn spin to the left.
The Corsair was supposed to be the first plane that didn't have to pass these tests although they tried more than once.
With planes that had the speed of the Corsair there simply wasn't enough altitude to perform these tests like they did with the biplanes and first generation monoplanes. The tests, like the spin tests, took a lot more altitude per turn of spin. The dive test was running into compressibility.

They did a terminal dive test on the XF5F skyrocket. I think it was a 505 mph straight down power dive. I can give the date after I get home. They did it a couple of times a day or so apart. Don't know if they did it on the Wildcat or not

 

[NTGray]

The F4F-4 had a top speed more like 318 mph and that may have been optimistic. The climb rate was a joke, a bad joke, a bad off color joke with a horrible punch line.

Your 100% correct that the Zeros roll rate slowly got worse, but you need to be able to get over 300 mph for this to help you. With the, at best, top speed of an F4F-4 at around 318 mph you simply didn't have the power to stay above a speed where you could out turn the Zero.

True, but don't forget that 300+ mph could also be attained in a dive, which was why a (relatively) safe attack tactic would be to bounce a flight of Zeroes from above (coastwatchers or radar could provide enough advance warning for the Wildcats to launch and get up high enough). The Zeroes then could not follow the Wildcats to counterattack, or if they tried, they couldn't follow the Cats in turns. But mostly they just couldn't follow because the Cats could dive faster in any case.

 

[pinsog]

True, but don't forget that 300+ mph could also be attained in a dive, which was why a (relatively) safe attack tactic would be to bounce a flight of Zeroes from above (coastwatchers or radar could provide enough advance warning for the Wildcats to launch and get up high enough). The Zeroes then could not follow the Wildcats to counterattack, or if they tried, they couldn't follow the Cats in turns. But mostly they just couldn't follow because the Cats could dive faster in any case.

Actually the Wildcat wasn't faster in a dive. I think I can find the test, but they were about equal in top speed in a dive. I was shocked as I always thought the Wildcat was faster going down hill. I'll look for the test when I get home.
But if they were diving the Wildcat could get up to where it could out turn the Zero, until of course you ran out of altitude

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F4F-4 had a top speed more like 318 mph and that may have been optimistic. The climb rate was a joke, a bad joke, a bad off color joke with a horrible punch line.

Your 100% correct that the Zeros roll rate slowly got worse, but you need to be able to get over 300 mph for this to help you. With the, at best, top speed of an F4F-4 at around 318 mph you simply didn't have the power to stay above a speed where you could out turn the Zero. Now a P38 was a different story, with a top speed of 390-414 mph or so it could absolutely stay above 300 mph all day long.

But even if a Zero is going fast enough he can't roll, he can still loop and I have read that this was actually their favorite way to get on another fighters tail. They simply loop up and over and drop down on the heavier fighter that can't follow the loop

A few things - understand that the Zero's controls got PROGRESSIVELY stiff, there wasn't a magic number when suddenly the aircraft couldn't maneuver, and this was probably true about any pitch movements. So take that into consideration with what the physical ability of your average IJN Zero pilot was capable of. Even with your so called loop maneuver, if any Zero pilot was doing this on his own or fighting without team coordination, in the end he was not going to win.

Despite anything you can say about the F4F, the Zero "should have" blown it out of the sky, but as it's been beat to death so many times, tactics and the ruggedness of the aircraft made it capable of taking on the Zero and this is evident in the end results.

Now did it have a 6:1 kill ratio over the Zero during the Guadalcanal campaign? I don't believe so. Over the Zero I believe the average would be like 2:1 or 3:1 depending where and when you're talking about. Because the Zero did not overwhelm it's opponents over places like Guadalcanal and Darwin, it failed it's mission. The Zero (IJN, or for that matter the JAAF) needed at least (IMO) a 4:1 or 5:1 kill ratio to maintain aerial superiority.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually the Wildcat wasn't faster in a dive. I think I can find the test, but they were about equal in top speed in a dive. I was shocked as I always thought the Wildcat was faster going down hill. I'll look for the test when I get home.
But if they were diving the Wildcat could get up to where it could out turn the Zero, until of course you ran out of altitude

Reference? I believe the Zero had a top diving speed of 410mph. Any abrupt maneuvers in the dive would more than likely cause structural damage.

 

[nuuumannn]

My list is only a gross generalization, quickly compiled, primarily intended to answer the charge that anybody thinks that maneuverability was the Zero's only advantage. It wasn't. But on balance, the Wildcat had some crucial advantages itself.

And this sums up your entire approach, picking and choosing evidence and misusing evidence to support your own hypothesis. I see an inverse P-39 Groundhog emerging where one or two people are making claims based on bias and picking and choosing info in support and the rest expending posts in disproving those claims. Mitsubishi A6M Groundhoggo.

Here's what the experts said following the tests with the Akutan Zero.

"The Zero was superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 ft, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, the two planes were equal in level speed. In a dive the two planes were equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cut out in pushovers. There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero."

The next is recommendations, which were, naturally, taken literally.

"In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (excepting that the allowable acceleration of the F4F is greater than that of the Zero). however, advantage should be taken wherever possible of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers in rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two."

To counter this recommendation, the Japanese came up with a counter tactic, which was outlined in a memo of November 1942 regarding tactics used by fighter pilots. This was as follows: "If the Zero pilot was making a bean attack or slightly from below or even level, he would fire a clearing shot and make a descending turn roll, usually to the left as if breaking off the attack. Expecting the Wildcat pilot to pursue the diving Zero, the Japanese pilot had already started a steep climb for another attack and rolling in on the wildcat with advantage from above."

This was taken from Bob Mikesh in the previously mentioned Zero book.

 

[pinsog]

Reference? I believe the Zero had a top diving speed of 410mph. Any abrupt maneuvers in the dive would more than likely cause structural damage.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK - you're comparing the FM-2 to the Zeke 52 - so ask yourself - did any of them fight over Guadlcanal?

 

[pinsog]

It isn't exactly what I remembered, wrong models, it is the Zeke 52 vs FM2 Wildcat, not an early Zero vs an F4F-4 so regard the info as you see fit.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It isn't exactly what I remembered, wrong models, it is the Zeke 52 vs FM2 Wildcat, not an early Zero vs an F4F-4 so regard the info as you see fit.

Fair enough, but as stated, even at it's top diving speed, I doubt the Zero was going to do any abrupt maneuvers without risking structural damage, I'd bet dollars to donuts the F4F didn't have that issue

 

[Just Schmidt]

And this sums up your entire approach, picking and choosing evidence and misusing evidence to support your own hypothesis. I see an inverse P-39 Groundhog emerging where one or two people are making claims based on bias and picking and choosing info in support and the rest expending posts in disproving those claims. Mitsubishi A6M Groundhoggo.

Or perhaps the groundzero? The one with self combusting nut sacks?

 

[NTGray]

And this sums up your entire approach, picking and choosing evidence and misusing evidence to support your own hypothesis. I see an inverse P-39 Groundhog emerging where one or two people are making claims based on bias and picking and choosing info in support.

Ah, no. Really.
I may be guilty of quick and sloppy at times (my mom complained that that was how I built my model airplanes), but I never knowingly cherry-pick the data. I just take what I find, judge how likely it is to be reliable, and then lay it out.

A few posts upstream somebody says I am wrong about the Cat diving faster than a Zero. OK, if he's right, that's new information and I will incorporate in in future comments if necessary. But I'm not the sort of guy to cry "Fake News!" if I don't want something to be true. If I'm shown to be wrong, then I'm wrong, and I'll admit it.

 

[pinsog]

A few things - understand that the Zero's controls got PROGRESSIVELY stiff, there wasn't a magic number when suddenly the aircraft couldn't maneuver, and this was probably true about any pitch movements. So take that into consideration with what the physical ability of your average IJN Zero pilot was capable of. Even with your so called loop maneuver, if any Zero pilot was doing this on his own or fighting without team coordination, in the end he was not going to win.

Despite anything you can say about the F4F, the Zero "should have" blown it out of the sky, but as it's been beat to death so many times, tactics and the ruggedness of the aircraft made it capable of taking on the Zero and this is evident in the end results.

Now did it have a 6:1 kill ratio over the Zero during the Guadalcanal campaign? I don't believe so. Over the Zero I believe the average would be like 2:1 or 3:1 depending where and when you're talking about. Because the Zero did not overwhelm it's opponents over places like Guadalcanal and Darwin, it failed it's mission. The Zero (IJN, or for that matter the JAAF) needed at least (IMO) a 4:1 or 5:1 kill ratio to maintain aerial superiority.

Oh I agree. I have stated in other threads that I know what the Wildcat did, but it defies explanation of how it did it. One of the aces at Guadalcanal stated that they should have been easily wiped out and he didn't understand why they didn't. I think I read that in the 2nd book of the First Team. The only thing that I can come up with that tipped the balance in favor of the Wildcat was the 50 was a great balance of hitting power, rounds per gun per minute, amount of ammo carried and the thorough teaching of deflection shooting in the US Navy.

 

[pinsog]

Ah, no. Really.
I may be guilty of quick and sloppy at times (my mom complained that that was how I built my model airplanes), but I never knowingly cherry-pick the data. I just take what I find, judge how likely it is to be reliable, and then lay it out.

A few posts upstream somebody says I am wrong about the Cat diving faster than a Zero. OK, if he's right, that's new information and I will incorporate in in future comments if necessary. But I'm not the sort of guy to cry "Fake News!" if I don't want something to be true. If I'm shown to be wrong, then I'm wrong, and I'll admit it.

My info on diving turned out to be Zero 52 vs FM2, instead of Zero 21 or 32 vs F4F-4 so feel free to process that info how you like. I will not disagree with your claim because my info was of different models of those airplanes than we were discussing

 

[nuuumannn]

If I'm shown to be wrong, then I'm wrong, and I'll admit it.

Glad to hear. You have refused to acknowledge that the Zero was eventually fitted with both armour and self sealing tanks, repeatedly stating it didn't have these things, but of course too late to have made a difference, which goes back to the issue of the Japanese not acting fast enough, not a fault of the aircraft's. Also you refuse to acknowledge that the Zero was the better carrier based aircraft between 1940 and 1942 out all frontline carrier aircraft, but you have acknowledged that it was far more than your initial assessment of the type, which I guess could be considered progress.

It was a clever design to have met the specification, which Nakajima believed was impossible to fulfil, so didn't bother, although the Ki-43 mirrored the A6M in many ways. It certainly was flawed, but it can be stated that it was expertly executed despite its flaws, which led it to do very well indeed, even unexpectedly so in the hands of highly motivated and highly trained aircrew. Having said that, its merits were not enough to save it as its career grew longer, those flaws becoming increasingly apparent and detrimental to the type, but the final argument about them has to be that the Japanese, again and not for the last time, dropped the ball and failed to get its replacement into service in good time, so it was kept at the front line for far longer than what was intended, exposing its weaknesses time and again.

It's no wonder that the aircraft has, in Japan at least come to symbolise and characterise the entire Japanese effort in WW2 and is held up in some reverence as a result. Not surprisingly, there are museums all over Japan with A6Ms in them.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh I agree. I have stated in other threads that I know what the Wildcat did, but it defies explanation of how it did it. One of the aces at Guadalcanal stated that they should have been easily wiped out and he didn't understand why they didn't. I think I read that in the 2nd book of the First Team. The only thing that I can come up with that tipped the balance in favor of the Wildcat was the 50 was a great balance of hitting power, rounds per gun per minute, amount of ammo carried and the thorough teaching of deflection shooting in the US Navy.

And teamwork

 

[buffnut453]

And teamwork

IMHO, that's the absolutely key ingredient. One-vs-1, the Zero outperformed the F4F as shown in the test reports and various trials. However, air combat is seldom 1-vs-1. I don't think that USN training was any better than that of the IJN during the first year or 2 of the war. So the only logical explanation for the Wildcat's success lies in the tactics employed. That includes provision of early warning to enable the Wildcats to respond to incoming raids, as well as the techniques developed by the pilots themselves to counter the considerable threat posed by the A6M.