That's just ridiculously insane. Absolutely no one thinks that...
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
I'm not going to ban you, why would ? I just want you to tone it down...
Then you are blind to it, sorry. It happens all over the internet. Even here from time to time. Not so much with informed knowledgable people like most of the members here.
Ascent
Senior Airman
I think the P-51 is considered to be over rated by some as a lot of people (not necessarily on this forum) consider it the best at everything when in fact in most areas it was good to adequate. What makes it a great aircraft is that it was good to adequate over Berlin.
It wasn't a better dogfighter than the Germans but it was a good enough dogfighter that it could hold its own when it had to and meant that there was nowhere the bombers couldn't go where they didn't have an escort.
It wasn't a better dogfighter than the Germans but it was a good enough dogfighter that it could hold its own when it had to and meant that there was nowhere the bombers couldn't go where they didn't have an escort.
Sorry, I disagree. I spend A LOT of time in aviation circles and even the most uninformed know better than this...
I kind of agree and kind of disagree. In terms of performance, it wasn't the best in any category except for range (and sometimes speed), but it was near the top in all categories. Whether it was a better dogfighter or not against the Germans depended a lot on which variations of each plane you're comparing. In some comparisons it was better, in some it wasn't as good. But our pilot's training, and a dwindling of experienced German pilots favored the Mustang drivers...
So do I...
I guess we agree to disagree, unless you want to argue, just to argue. Then I'm game...
Last edited:
You forgot Best Trainer !!I think everyone agrees it is one of the greatest aircraft ever built, but feel it is overrated because people put it on such a high pedestal that they forget there were many great planes contributing to the defeat of Germany.
You would think:
Best Fighter: P-51
Best Transport: P-51
Best Bomber: P-51
Best Seaplane: P-51
You get my drift...
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Did I say the range would drop 90% aside from a typo?
and lets not confuse range and radius. I have one source (and it may be in error) that gives a range of 1025nm (previous post was a typo) with 10 minutes of compat allowance. that is about 1180 statute miles, 10 minutes of combat allowance is worth roughly (91.14 gallons divided by 6=15.19 gallons) one hour at 180kt cruise ( 16.4 gallons an hour )for 207 miles further or 1387 miles.
I would note that is it quite possible to find some rather bizarre ranges for many American fighters where they use "yardstick ranges". They figure the fuel consumption at a certain speed and altitude and then divide that into the fuel capacity and take no account of fuel used up in warming up, take-off and climb to cruising altitude, nor is any reserve allowed.
The Zero will have longer range than the Spitfire, just based on the extra 40% internal fuel capacity. However most of these comparisons seem to be a Zero with 80 something gallon drop tank vs Spitfire (or p-40 or P-38) without drop tanks. The Japanese sometimes fought with the drop tank attached. It may have been empty or nearly so and this may not have been by choice but dictated by logistics (not enough spare tanks) but early 1942 the drag of the attached tank was not that big a handicap vs some of the aircraft they were fighting against. In Europe with better supply they might well drop the tank whenever they engaged.
The tactical problem with the drop tanks is if they are dropped when still part full the fighters who dropped the tanks have to turn for home or only accompany the bombers for a short period of time hopefully until the next relay of escort fighters arrive. Many times later bomb raids were escorted by a number of relays in succession. Early war tactics/methods may have been different.
The bay of Biscay attack plan is pretty much a use once or twice and then forget it. How long will it take for the Germans to put a radar unit at Brest and either track the attack for several hours or force it well out to sea on circuitous route? Such a detour will significantly reduce the bomb loads of the bombers and it will increase operational losses, engine failure on the way in could result in the loss of the bomber. Early British bombers not being very good at flying on one engine.
talk about spurious and disingenuous. a Spitfire had a range slightly over 400 miles and that included a warm-up and take-off allowance and no external tank.
The P-38 comparison takes a lot of swallowing too. P-38 was rated at 910 miles at 230mph at 12,000ft on internal fuel and that is after deducting 40 gallons for warm up and take off, 260 gallons internal. Hang a pair of of 75 gallon tanks underneath and the range goes to about 1300 miles and with a pair of 150 gallon tanks it goes 1870 miles. range with 300 gallon drop tanks goes to ridiculous. These ranges are for P-38F from the pilots manual.
wuzak
Captain
This shows an initial rate of climb for the Zero of 3,410ft/min and a time to 20,000ft in 6.84 minutes at military power. At rated (normal) power, the initial climb rate was 2,785ft/min and time to 20,000ft was 8.11 minutes.
Military power was at 2,600rpm and 40inHg MAP, normal power was 2,400rpm and 36inHg MAP. [Note that the critical altitudes for Military power was 6,100ft and 15,700ft and for normal power was 7,800ft and 15,500ft.]
This shows a maximum climb between 10,000ft and 15,000ft of 2,690ft/min (thought it actually says ft/s
) at an IAS of 130mph.
And this report on an A6M2 shows an initial climb of 2,710ft/min.
Note that on a long range escort mission there would be little need for a climb at military power.
Military power was at 2,600rpm and 40inHg MAP, normal power was 2,400rpm and 36inHg MAP. [Note that the critical altitudes for Military power was 6,100ft and 15,700ft and for normal power was 7,800ft and 15,500ft.]
This shows a maximum climb between 10,000ft and 15,000ft of 2,690ft/min (thought it actually says ft/s
) at an IAS of 130mph.And this report on an A6M2 shows an initial climb of 2,710ft/min.
Note that on a long range escort mission there would be little need for a climb at military power.
wuzak
Captain
The Spitfire Vs in Australia were defending Darwin. When an incoming raid was detected they had to climb hard, and fly quickly to intercept the Japanese attack. I very much doubt they were using power settings conducive to maximum range.
Sorry, I don't know. All what I know on the RAAF mission is from the Wildcat's message. IIRC the info on the 131 Sqn La Pallice mission is from one of Price's Spitfire books. All I can say that the Pilot's Notes for Spit VII and VIII says that for max range fly 170 mph IAS using 1,800 rpm and adjust the throttle to give the recommended speed, but do not exceed +7lb./sq.in. boost. Max obtained air miles was 7 AMPG, that was true at all heights from 10,000 to 25,000 ft and for Merlins 63 and 64. The notes says that the info for Merlin 66 and 71 will be given when available. Of course gallons are ImpG. Internal fuel load was 122 gal.
Last edited:
This shows an initial rate of climb for the Zero of 3,410ft/min and a time to 20,000ft in 6.84 minutes at military power. At rated (normal) power, the initial climb rate was 2,785ft/min and time to 20,000ft was 8.11 minutes.
Military power was at 2,600rpm and 40inHg MAP, normal power was 2,400rpm and 36inHg MAP. [Note that the critical altitudes for Military power was 6,100ft and 15,700ft and for normal power was 7,800ft and 15,500ft.]
This shows a maximum climb between 10,000ft and 15,000ft of 2,690ft/min (thought it actually says ft/s
And this report on an A6M2 shows an initial climb of 2,710ft/min.
Note that on a long range escort mission there would be little need for a climb at military power.
Climb rate of 4k + was probably at WEP and 2.7k was probably at normal (non military) power rating. In "routine" circumstances you only needed military power for takeoff depending on the aircraft. In a scramble or when enemy fighters appear above you of course WEP is indicated.
I have been challenged to provide better links than "some webpage" so I went to wwiiaircraftperformance.org and found some interesting stuff.
Here is Clive Caldwells report on the Zero vs. the Spitfire (Mk V). Clive was i think the squadron commander at Darwin. He basically said they had to boom and zoom (boom and climb) with a shallow high speed climb or climbing turn (very similar to how Bf 109s fought Spitfires or P-40s). Said the Spit was superior of course but it was a wartime article. He notes the Zero is strongly made and not flimsy.
1945 article about (a late model) Zero being tested against a Spitfire. Another comment that the Zero is 'strongly made and well designed'.
1942 report by the Navy on A6M2 says gross weight of 5,555 lbs. Says 1,175 mile range with internal fuel. Managed to get it up to 331 mph. Rate of climb 2,710 fpm at Sea Level and 1,760 fpm at 20k feet.
Very interesting 1943 report on A6m2 comparing it to a P-40K and P-43 notes that all up weight with a belly tank was 5,600 lbs. Altitude performance was not good above 16k feet. Fuel was 147 gals internal (2 x 55 gal wing tanks and a 37 gal fuselage tank) all unprotected. 88 gal external tank. They noted testing was done on 91 Octane fuel and the engine seemed to be designed for 100 octane - the top speed they managed was 289 mph and 2050 rpm at 15,000'. The A6M had no radio. climb rate went from 2,690 at 10,000 feet to 1,785 at 20,000. They noted a cruise speed of 245 TAS with a fuel consumption of 37 gallons per hour. Which means about 4 hours endurance on internal fuel or 980 miles at that speed. With external tank it's a bit over 6 hours flying time or 1470 miles.
Presumably, if you used internal fuel for takeoff, then external tank to fly up to altitude and form up, and fly to the edge of "Indian Country", then drop your external tank as soon as you saw enemy fighters, you would still have an impressive ~1,100 -1,200 mile range at a quite reasonable cruise speed of 245 mph. If you increased that speed to say, 280 once you got into "Indian Country" I suspect you would still have a good range and endurance.
They mentioned that the engine would flood in negative G.
Comparison between A6M2 and P-40K
They mention that the zero had poor controlability above 275 mph making it potentially vulnerable in a dive, and speculated that "maybe this is why they don't follow our planes even in shallow dives where they could keep up for a while".
One really interesting detail was that the P-40K apparently climbed faster than the A6M below 5,000 feet. Presumably on WEP 57" Hg (it just says 'full throttle and full rpm'). They did a kind of drag race where they put the A6M and the P-40 side by side at 200 mph and then went full throttle on both machines. Acceleration was the same for 7 seconds after which the P-40 "began to pull away very rapidly". 12 seconds later the P-40 was going 10 mph faster.
They also noted that the P-40K could fight the zero effectively via boom and zoom. "The Zero is of course, vastly superior in manevuerability. It was found that the P-40 can, however, effectively fight the zero without necessarily diving away. This is accomplished by proceeding away from the Zero on intitial pass at high speed until approximately one and a half miles away, at which time a maximum turn is begun back into the path of the pursing Zero. This turn can be completed just in time for the P-40 to pass through the path of the zero and barely miss a collision. If the Zero does not dodge from his own attack, the P-40 can fire a very effective head on burst in this manner. Of course, the Zero can take evasive action, but he cannot maneuver into such a position as to get effective fire into the P-40 without also getting return fire."
I found this amusing because this is exactly what I used to do when playing Il2 back in the day. If they do turn instead of playing chicken with a head-on pass then they are vulnerable to a deflection shot as you go by.
Speaking of the Mustang and Spit as compared to the Bf 109 G6- some interesting test results here. Many of you have probably already seen it but perhaps not all. Among other interesting tidbits to me, P-51 (Mustang III) faster by 30 mph at 16k feet and 50 mph at 30,000 feet. Bf 109 climbs better than P-51 up to 20k feet, after which the Mustang climbs slightly better. Mustang turns better, roll is the same, Mustang "steadily out dives" the Bf 109.
Spit IX superior in roll, turn, and climb, 25 mph faster from Sea Level to 16,000 feet, Bf 109 faster 16k-20k, Spit IX slightly (7 mph) faster above 20K feet. Bf 109 had significantly superior dive speed.
Of course they didn't mention acceleration which is another place I suspect the Bf 109 exceeds them. G-6 is also one of the least adept models though one of the most produced I think.
S
Last edited:
Here is another 1943 report on the "model II" Zero. not the Aleutian one I don't think as it metions it was flown "from an active combat zone" though I guess that could be Alaska. They said while testing they flew it 900 miles cross country and for 10 hours, and then 5 hours of 'general air work' including stalls, spins etc.
Weight once again is below what is usually reported at 5400 lbs. Sadly the report mentions they could not attain full power due to 'unknown power plant difficulties' they could only get to 2150 RPM instead of rated 2550. So no climb rate given. It mentions that it didn't have rudder or airleron trim tabs.
Mentions that the Zero had a "one shot fire extinguisher system" which is interesting.
Weight once again is below what is usually reported at 5400 lbs. Sadly the report mentions they could not attain full power due to 'unknown power plant difficulties' they could only get to 2150 RPM instead of rated 2550. So no climb rate given. It mentions that it didn't have rudder or airleron trim tabs.
Mentions that the Zero had a "one shot fire extinguisher system" which is interesting.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I will admit I am getting old and bit confused, especially on Japanese engines/aircraft as there is a LOT of conflicting information on them.
One of which is the proper ratings of the engines and the ability of them to operate on some WEP rating. Since the British and the Americans didn't always agree on what WEP rating should be (even on the same engine sometimes) trying to figure out what other nations were doing gets really tricky.
The Americans and the British got "lucky" (read a lot of hard work in there too) in that they had very good access to 100/130 fuel which really helped with WEP settings. However a number of the American air cooled radials never got a WEP rating or settings. Assuming that everybody got WEP settings is way off the mark.
Engines have a critical altitude, For the two speed R-1830 used in some early F4F-3s and some of the export wildcats that was 14,500ft and you had 1000hp. Engine is turning max rpm and throttle is wide open and supercharger is supplying all the air it can. Nothing you can do is going to give you more power above that altitude. Below that altitude when the Throttle is part closed, it is possible to open the throttle closer to max or to max and admit more air. This is the basis for WEP.
However it is subject to two/three things.
1. will the engine stand up to the extra power without breaking?
1/A. will the engine be able to dissipate the extra heat? Or will parts of the engine overheat and cook the oil. Oil that turns into cruncy lumps doesn't lubricate well.
2. Will the higher boost pressure with the fuel in use result in detonation in the cylinders? Detonation, if severe, can wreck an engine in seconds. In air-cooled radials entire cylinders have been known to part company with the engine.
For the US the P & W R-1830 never got a WEP rating (later engines were allowed to got to 1350hp but they had different cylinders with different cooling fins and other changes). The Wright R-1820 got either no WEP rating or a small one. This gets tricky as there are a number of different R-1820s with different crankcases, different crankshafts, different cylinders, etc. The 1300/1350hp version used in FM-2 wildcats used 20 studs per cylinder to hold them to the crankcase instead of the 16 studs on the 1200hp engines. Trying to get 1300/1350hp out of the early engine might be possible on a VERY short term basis. There were three different Wright R-2600s, none ever got a WEP rating.
For the Zero there were, to my understanding which may be wrong, three different basic engines. the original Sakae 12 with a single speed supercharger. The Sakae 21 with two speed supercharger and the Sakae 31 with two speed supercharger and water injection.
I would note that while some sources (mostly wartime) say that the Japanese engines were designed to run on 100 octane the Japanese never supplied fuel higher than 92 octane to forces in the field. Now I am willing to grant that since much of the Japanese fuel came from Indonesia and that fuel was high in aromatic compounds the fuel might have been a bit better when running rich. However it appears (welcome to correction) the Japanese had no way to measure this or to sort out batches of fuel into better or worse categories.
I would doubt that the original single speed engine had much in the way of a WEP rating. All single speed engines are a compromise and having more supercharger capacity than can be used normally is an expensive luxury.
Getting enough extra power to increase climb by 50% (3000fpm to 4500fpm) is rather unlikely. I would note that for the Spitfire V going from 2600-2650fpm to 3700fpm climb required going from 2850rpm and 9lbs of boost to 3000rpm and 16lbs of boost. (plane was ballasted to represent 4 20mm guns)
If your radial is already turing max rpm there is no gain there. 7 extra pounds of boost is 14in or about 35.6cm of manifold pressure.
Getting to 4700fps required a lighter plane, a cropped supercharger impeller (less power to drive) and 18lb of boost, but the cropped impeer could only supply the 18lbs of boost to 3800ft and in fact could not even supply 9lb boost much above 12,000ft.
Use of water injection on teh Sakae 31 can certainly be considered WEP, I don't know if there short term (5 min?) ratings on the early Sakae engines.
Please remember that one difference in British and US service between military power and WEP was that while military power short term (5 to 15 minutes) it did not require notation in log books or specially maintenance procedures. WEP did.
One of which is the proper ratings of the engines and the ability of them to operate on some WEP rating. Since the British and the Americans didn't always agree on what WEP rating should be (even on the same engine sometimes) trying to figure out what other nations were doing gets really tricky.
The Americans and the British got "lucky" (read a lot of hard work in there too) in that they had very good access to 100/130 fuel which really helped with WEP settings. However a number of the American air cooled radials never got a WEP rating or settings. Assuming that everybody got WEP settings is way off the mark.
Engines have a critical altitude, For the two speed R-1830 used in some early F4F-3s and some of the export wildcats that was 14,500ft and you had 1000hp. Engine is turning max rpm and throttle is wide open and supercharger is supplying all the air it can. Nothing you can do is going to give you more power above that altitude. Below that altitude when the Throttle is part closed, it is possible to open the throttle closer to max or to max and admit more air. This is the basis for WEP.
However it is subject to two/three things.
1. will the engine stand up to the extra power without breaking?
1/A. will the engine be able to dissipate the extra heat? Or will parts of the engine overheat and cook the oil. Oil that turns into cruncy lumps doesn't lubricate well.
2. Will the higher boost pressure with the fuel in use result in detonation in the cylinders? Detonation, if severe, can wreck an engine in seconds. In air-cooled radials entire cylinders have been known to part company with the engine.
For the US the P & W R-1830 never got a WEP rating (later engines were allowed to got to 1350hp but they had different cylinders with different cooling fins and other changes). The Wright R-1820 got either no WEP rating or a small one. This gets tricky as there are a number of different R-1820s with different crankcases, different crankshafts, different cylinders, etc. The 1300/1350hp version used in FM-2 wildcats used 20 studs per cylinder to hold them to the crankcase instead of the 16 studs on the 1200hp engines. Trying to get 1300/1350hp out of the early engine might be possible on a VERY short term basis. There were three different Wright R-2600s, none ever got a WEP rating.
For the Zero there were, to my understanding which may be wrong, three different basic engines. the original Sakae 12 with a single speed supercharger. The Sakae 21 with two speed supercharger and the Sakae 31 with two speed supercharger and water injection.
I would note that while some sources (mostly wartime) say that the Japanese engines were designed to run on 100 octane the Japanese never supplied fuel higher than 92 octane to forces in the field. Now I am willing to grant that since much of the Japanese fuel came from Indonesia and that fuel was high in aromatic compounds the fuel might have been a bit better when running rich. However it appears (welcome to correction) the Japanese had no way to measure this or to sort out batches of fuel into better or worse categories.
I would doubt that the original single speed engine had much in the way of a WEP rating. All single speed engines are a compromise and having more supercharger capacity than can be used normally is an expensive luxury.
Getting enough extra power to increase climb by 50% (3000fpm to 4500fpm) is rather unlikely. I would note that for the Spitfire V going from 2600-2650fpm to 3700fpm climb required going from 2850rpm and 9lbs of boost to 3000rpm and 16lbs of boost. (plane was ballasted to represent 4 20mm guns)
If your radial is already turing max rpm there is no gain there. 7 extra pounds of boost is 14in or about 35.6cm of manifold pressure.
Getting to 4700fps required a lighter plane, a cropped supercharger impeller (less power to drive) and 18lb of boost, but the cropped impeer could only supply the 18lbs of boost to 3800ft and in fact could not even supply 9lb boost much above 12,000ft.
Use of water injection on teh Sakae 31 can certainly be considered WEP, I don't know if there short term (5 min?) ratings on the early Sakae engines.
Please remember that one difference in British and US service between military power and WEP was that while military power short term (5 to 15 minutes) it did not require notation in log books or specially maintenance procedures. WEP did.
I can't say what for sure is or isn't a WEP setting on an A6M or what the precise difference is between military power and WEP for an A6M2, but I can observe tha:
1) It's clear they did not want to push the engine too hard for risk of blowing it, (as they needed to finish their testing and they didn't - I don't think- have any spares).
2) The second more detailed "competition" test while still interesting makes it pretty clear (I think) that they were not pushing the aircraft to it's limits, either because they were having some kind of engine / fuel problem or because they were being cautious per above, but 296 mph is not the top speed for an A6M2. The first test reflects what was probably the top speed (~ 331 mph).
From all the tests it looks like the Zero is pretty light (5600 lbs with a drop tank) - vs 5,900 for a Spitfire Mk 1 without a tank...and the Zero flew very far. ~240 mph cruise speed is pretty interesting too.
S
1) It's clear they did not want to push the engine too hard for risk of blowing it, (as they needed to finish their testing and they didn't - I don't think- have any spares).
2) The second more detailed "competition" test while still interesting makes it pretty clear (I think) that they were not pushing the aircraft to it's limits, either because they were having some kind of engine / fuel problem or because they were being cautious per above, but 296 mph is not the top speed for an A6M2. The first test reflects what was probably the top speed (~ 331 mph).
From all the tests it looks like the Zero is pretty light (5600 lbs with a drop tank) - vs 5,900 for a Spitfire Mk 1 without a tank...and the Zero flew very far. ~240 mph cruise speed is pretty interesting too.
S
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I have my doubts about 5600lbs with a full drop tank.
87 gallons at 6lbs per gallon is 522lbs.
One book says A6M2 went 3770lbs empty and 5555lbs gross ( I don't get worked up about 40-50lbs on these planes, especially with multiple conversions of metric to english units) with a useful load of 1430lbs, which doesn't add up but then there are two empty weights (empty and empty equipped).
I would note that the A6M3 is listed as 3913 empty, 5155lbs gross, 5750 normal load and 6331lbs overload.
The engine in the A6M3 is certainly heavier than in the A6M2 which accounts for most of the change in empty weight.
The A6M3 tested by the RAAF went 5650lbs without a belly tank. They tried to ballast for ammo.
Please note that full load of fuel (internal) with 87 gallon drop tank is 1368lbs which doesn't leave much for pilot, oil and ammo even if guns are included in the A6M2's 3770lb empty weight (most countries didn't include guns in empty weight but did in empty equiped or basic or some other term).
These captured examples were operated with some different limits to be sure. One test used 36in for "normal" and 40in for military power (5min) on the Sakae 21 while another used 35in on the Sakae 12. I would note that both seem more than a bit odd. The P & W R-1340 in a T-6 trainer used 36.5in for take-off for example.
87 gallons at 6lbs per gallon is 522lbs.
One book says A6M2 went 3770lbs empty and 5555lbs gross ( I don't get worked up about 40-50lbs on these planes, especially with multiple conversions of metric to english units) with a useful load of 1430lbs, which doesn't add up but then there are two empty weights (empty and empty equipped).
I would note that the A6M3 is listed as 3913 empty, 5155lbs gross, 5750 normal load and 6331lbs overload.
The engine in the A6M3 is certainly heavier than in the A6M2 which accounts for most of the change in empty weight.
The A6M3 tested by the RAAF went 5650lbs without a belly tank. They tried to ballast for ammo.
Please note that full load of fuel (internal) with 87 gallon drop tank is 1368lbs which doesn't leave much for pilot, oil and ammo even if guns are included in the A6M2's 3770lb empty weight (most countries didn't include guns in empty weight but did in empty equiped or basic or some other term).
These captured examples were operated with some different limits to be sure. One test used 36in for "normal" and 40in for military power (5min) on the Sakae 21 while another used 35in on the Sakae 12. I would note that both seem more than a bit odd. The P & W R-1340 in a T-6 trainer used 36.5in for take-off for example.
The report was pretty explicit about the weight, and I have no reason to assume they were wrong, whether you can square it or not. It also matches the other two reports.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks Juha2. So basically true air speed could vary from approximately 204-255mph and still obtain the same mileage (when allowing for the 15,000 foot change in altitude between 10,000-25,000 feet). By the way, could explain the difference between AMPG and MPG? I haven't seen that notation before....
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
By "second" you must be referring to the Battle of Leyte Gulf (Oct 23-26 1944). The Hellcat also "won" the Battle of the Philippine Sea, (June 19-20, 1944). These are two of the greatest sea battles in modern history where the Hellcat seized control of the air, allowing carrier attack squadrons to sink or damage a large majority of the enemy's remaining wartime fleet. It must also be stressed that during the Battle of Leyte Gulf countless allied ships were spared from Kamikaze attack, due in no small measure to the umbrella of aerial protection provided primarily by the Grumman fighter.
