P-38 vs P-47
- Thread starter daveT
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought the turning rate of the A6M was far faster at low speed?
Read the actual tests and you will see that the Zero was a far better aircraft than modern day people like to admit. Notice it says "the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all altitudes below 20,000".
Spitfire fans will say "it's not fair, that Spitfire had the big filter, cut speed etc etc" but if you HAVE to run a big filter to keep your engine from being killed by dust everyday then that is a drawback of your aircraft. The Zero and Ki43 seemed to work fine in bad conditions as did the P40 and Wildcat
Zero's flew 500 miles one way, shot down 27 Spitfires over their own territory, ran many more out of fuel over their own territory and lost only 4 Zero's while doing it. Impressive fighter the Zero was....
Shortround6
Major General
We are back to the same problem comparing the Australian Spitfires to any other plane of the time.
The Australian Spits seem to have Merlin 46 engines which, when limited to 9lbs of boost (which the Merlin 45 was not at the time/s in question) gave about 85-100hp LESS than a Merlin 45 at most altitudes up until about 18,000ft or so. It was the different engine and the 9lb boost limit that cut performance so badly. The Air filter didn't help but it was hardly the sole culprit. To give an idea of what was going on,
engine..........................sea level take off.....................9lb FTH..........................16lb FTH
Merlin 45............1185hp/12lbs/ 3000rpm........1210hp/18,000ft..............1515hp/11,000ft
Merlin 46.............1100hp/12lbs/3000rpm.........1100hp/22,000ft.............1415hp/14,000ft.
A Merlin 46 at sea level and at 9lbs of boost had just over 900hp and wouldn't make 1000hp until about 11,000ft.
Information is from at least two sources so may not line up well.
Why somebody (or group of somebodies) thought it was a good idea to ship a bunch of Spitfires with high altitude engines to Australia I don't know. Please note the Spitfire HF MK VI used the same engine except for the addition of a cabin blower to pressurize the cockpit.
The Australian Spits seem to have Merlin 46 engines which, when limited to 9lbs of boost (which the Merlin 45 was not at the time/s in question) gave about 85-100hp LESS than a Merlin 45 at most altitudes up until about 18,000ft or so. It was the different engine and the 9lb boost limit that cut performance so badly. The Air filter didn't help but it was hardly the sole culprit. To give an idea of what was going on,
engine..........................sea level take off.....................9lb FTH..........................16lb FTH
Merlin 45............1185hp/12lbs/ 3000rpm........1210hp/18,000ft..............1515hp/11,000ft
Merlin 46.............1100hp/12lbs/3000rpm.........1100hp/22,000ft.............1415hp/14,000ft.
A Merlin 46 at sea level and at 9lbs of boost had just over 900hp and wouldn't make 1000hp until about 11,000ft.
Information is from at least two sources so may not line up well.
Why somebody (or group of somebodies) thought it was a good idea to ship a bunch of Spitfires with high altitude engines to Australia I don't know. Please note the Spitfire HF MK VI used the same engine except for the addition of a cabin blower to pressurize the cockpit.
How would the regular Spitfire engine have handled combat in the upper 20's where the Japanese bombers were coming in? They probably, right or wrong, sent high altitude Spitfires because they were told that US P39 and P40's couldn't climb to the bombers altitude.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I think this test points out something alot of people miss when comparing aircraft. It's not always as simple as whats better a or b. Although there certainly are cases of one plane outclassing another hands down in just as many cases it depends what your opposition is and what your mission is.
The Spitfire was successful against German and Italian aircraft but had trouble against the Japanese. A contrast might be the p38 that was very successful against Japanese aircraft but had less success against German ones, at least when at higher altitudes in colder temperatures.
So what's the better fighter, the p38 or Spitfire?
I dunno. My reflexive reply would have been to say the Spitfire but after giving it some thought id say there is no right answer. It depends on the opposition and the mission.
wuzak
Captain
The Spitfire V with Merlin 45 would still comfortably climb to 30,000ft+ to deal with the bombers. And it would have a greater climb rate down low.
If they could have fitted the V with Merlin XXs they would have been even better off.
Shortround6
Major General
Except the standard Merlin 45 had a FTH about 6,000ft higher than the Allison used in the P-40s and P-39s for most of 1942. The Merlin 46 had an extra few thousand ft over the Merlin 45 but it cost the already mentioned 85-100hp at the lower altitudes. Taking a high altitude plane, not allowing it to use WEP and flying it thousands of feet below it's FTH is like fighting with one had tied behind your back. Which other planes were flying around at 14-18,000ft in combat at part throttle?
SEE power chart : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg
What altitude did the Betty's come in at? 23-24,000 feet?
Well, another one I can add to the list of puzzling WWII air war info
Never a dull moment in this hobby.
Actually, my opinion on the Zero is quite positive: It had a remarkably tight rate of turn at low speed, the ability to climb quite steep, an overall high rate of climb, and a speed of around 339 to 345 mph depending on source.
That was kind of what I was under the assumption of. As the speeds got lower, the A6M would be able to easily generate a tighter rate of turn than the Spitfire. I assume that above 20000', the Spitfire would have more power to hold it in the turn compared to the A6M?
Actually, all silliness aside, was the filter needed? I'm just curious as the V-1710 didn't need it, and neither did the Ki-43, A6M, F4F...
How do you think the P40's would have fared without the Spitfire escort?.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
In this case quite well as they did. The bf 109s were all oparating down low with ju52s. At lower altitude and the p40 isn't carrying any bombs it's a pretty even match between them.
Kevin J
Banned
The Tomahawk IIb in North Africa was fairly evenly matched against the Bf 109F-2/Trop and the Kittyhawk I against the the Bf 109F-4 Trop up to 15000 feet. After that when the Bf 109G comes along you need the Spitfire Vb/c for top cover.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
To be fair I should have mentioned that in this instance the p40s substantially outnumbered the 109s( always helps), so yes I'm sure they would have done just fine even without the Spitfire top cover.
Zero's flew 500 miles one way, shot down 27 Spitfires over their own territory, ran many more out of fuel over their own territory and lost only 4 Zero's while doing it. Impressive fighter the Zero was....[/QUOTE]
Zero's didn't shoot down 27 Spitfires, almost all of them were lost to prop governor failure causing the engines to over speed, coolant leaks or Clive Caldwell's insistence that all the aircraft form up in formation before they attacked which meant they were always tail chasing aircraft that matched their own speed so they ran out of fuel. The Spits sent to Darwin were deck cargo and were not protected resulting in the sea spray causing a lot of corrosion. Add to that a lack of spares, low boost engines and poor tactics and the results speak for themselves.
Zero's didn't shoot down 27 Spitfires, almost all of them were lost to prop governor failure causing the engines to over speed, coolant leaks or Clive Caldwell's insistence that all the aircraft form up in formation before they attacked which meant they were always tail chasing aircraft that matched their own speed so they ran out of fuel. The Spits sent to Darwin were deck cargo and were not protected resulting in the sea spray causing a lot of corrosion. Add to that a lack of spares, low boost engines and poor tactics and the results speak for themselves.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
I suspect the reason the V-1710 didn't use a filter was where the engine air inlet was located on the aircraft using the Allison engine.
Shortround6
Major General
Does it really matter?
The Merlin 45 would hold 6lb of boost to around 23,000ft and a Spit Vc with standard air intake was good for over 350mph at that altitude, in fact the standard Spit MK Vc was supposed to be good for 349mph at 26,000ft and was good for 1530fpm of climb at that altitude. The standard MK Vc was supposed to still climb at 1000fpm at 30,000ft (at least over England).
The FTH of the engines in the G4M-1 was 4,000 meters, (13,123 ft), Why the Spitfire would require the need for a special high altitude engine to combat the G4M-1 is a mystery.
Or it may be a case of the MK Vs with the Merlin 46 not being popular in Europe due to the lower performance under 20,000ft and the combat altitudes had shifted lower due the British tactics in the "lean into France" campaign so they thought they could unload the less popular Spit V/Merin 46 on the Australians?
I would say it matters. Here is why they used high altitude rated engines in the Spitfires
The Japanese are bombers are coming on at 27-29000 feet with Zero's above them.
The high altitude Spitfire V they were using, according to the test above "was 25 mph faster than a Zero at 26,000 feet" and "had a slightly higher rate of climb". If the high altitude Spitfire was only 25 mph faster and only had a "slightly higher rate of climb" and the enemy bombers are at 27-29,000 feet with Zero's above that, would you really want a lower altitude rated engine?
Zero's didn't shoot down 27 Spitfires, almost all of them were lost to prop governor failure causing the engines to over speed, coolant leaks or Clive Caldwell's insistence that all the aircraft form up in formation before they attacked which meant they were always tail chasing aircraft that matched their own speed so they ran out of fuel. The Spits sent to Darwin were deck cargo and were not protected resulting in the sea spray causing a lot of corrosion. Add to that a lack of spares, low boost engines and poor tactics and the results speak for themselves.[/QUOTE]
Notice he splits off Spitfires shot down vs engine failure. I believe of the 14 Spitfires lost on May 2, 10 ran out of fuel.
