Rising Sun warbirds

Rich, your posts are always great!

Our 'disagreement' seems to be the interpretation of the report, so here is what I understand by reading the document:

A - vs USAAF planes
1 - all tested planes, except the F4F, are faster than the zero in level flight
2 - Zero can outturn/outmanoeuvre all tested planes below 300 mph at any height, except P38F above 20.000 ft where zero is superior only in slow speed turns.
3 - Zero has better zoom acceleration/climb/dive than any other type
4 - Sustained climb relative performances depends on the opponent aircraft :
- vs P38F the zero is better up to 18.000 ft, then the P38 is better
- vs P39 the Zero is less performing up to 12.500 ft and better above that height
- vs P51 (Allison engine) the zero walks away in climb up to 15.000 ft, no test above because of P51 engine problems. P51 is much faster than zero in level flight and in dive. (this is no surprise, the P51 and zero are almost at the opposite concept of fighter planes. Also it is clear that the P51 was basically a prototype, still far away from his real potential)

About relative acceleration, it is not clear if the tests are started at the optimal speed for the US fighters or for the zero (being the starting speed always different it may be that the test is run at optimal speed for the US fighters)

- P40 was not tested because of engine problems (question: this test was important, why they did not get another P40 or a replacement engine? Maybe because, knowing the performance of the P40 vs P38-P39, they could extrapolate the results? And so, why they did not even put a line of comment about that?)

B - vs USNAVY planes
The chapters of Zero vs F4F and F4U are not detailed (and you explained the reason why), but the summary seems very clear :
- vs F4F : the zero is always superior or equal to the Wildcat
- vs F4U : the Corsair is almost always superior to the Zero
btw, is there any copy of the Navy pilots detailed report? In the first page they say 'Navy pilots handled the trials against F4F-4 and F4U-1', so it seems likely that this team had prepared a detailed report for the Navy.

In summary, I believe that my original impression " ... is superior or holding well in comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair " is correct.

This, as I had made clear, is valid as a 41-42 snapshot, we all know that the Jap plane was not significantly improved afterwards, while P38, P51 and F4U were strongly developed.

This was my reading of the official document, where do you disagree?


To follow instead are the comments about my speculations:

R Leonard said:

I believe the point was to remind USAAF pilots to avoid engaging in low speed turning contests and keep their
speed above the A6M2s optimal performance envelope (or maybe I've just read too many of these reports
or talked to too many pilots).

Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense, point is that 300 mph is quite a high speed for 1941-42, normally far above the normal cruise speed and flight envelope.
It became 'normal' with the next generation of fighters, and we all agree that the Zero did not kept the improvement pace.

R Leonard said:

One has to ask oneself, if you're going to repair an enemy aircraft in order to test its capabilities, does it
not make sense to repair it to the highest operational extent possible? And if you're going to test it, are you
not going to push to see exactly what it will do? Would any other courses provide the performance information
in which you're interested?

Click to expand...

R Leonard said:

I don't suppose that Eddie Sanders being the Assistant Flight Test Officer at Anacostia NAS might imply that
he knew a little bit about how to wrest the available performance out of an aircraft? Flight Test was where
USN aircraft types were put through their paces prior acceptance. Sanders was in charge of testing
fighter types. Further, when #4593 was tested against the F4F and the F4U, Sanders was flying the USN
types. Flying the A6M2 was Cdr Fred Trapnell ("Mister Test Pilot") who was head of Flight Test, was USN
jet pilot # 1, established the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent NAS, and started the test pilot school there.
And our unidentified USAAF pilots from Eglin Field? What do you suppose was their unit mission? Having
had some exposure to USN test pilots (plural) from that era, I would observe that these are not average
pilots, but rather some folks who really knew what they were doing and were very serious about it.

Click to expand...

Look, I don't mean to say that US test pilots were not exceptional pilots or that the team did not take seriously the job.
Fact is that planes performances depends on many parameters, and assuming that a Mitsubishi test team (pilot+service engineers) with thousands of hours in the type knows how to manage a zero better than a USAAF or NAVY test team is not offensive and not irrealistic. Unless we assume that Jap test teams were inferior professionals.
For sure the US teams knew every tip and trick of P39, P40 etc. (best manifold pressure, mixture, prop pitch, trim settings etc. for every flight condition) and fly the planes at their best, PERHAPS they simply had no time to learn all the tips and tricks for the zero.

Look at this quote from another thread posted by wmaxt:
"Belive it or not I have a comparison (From Doc's page I think) that shows two Spit IX and P-38F. The Spits out turned it but the P-38 was right in the middle of the 2 Spits performance curves, who had different Prop reduction ratios."
If this 'small' difference in settings is enough to make the difference in performances, why should we absolutely exclude that the tested zero was not optimally tuned?

cheers
sandro

I like Japanese planes...in truth I like all planes.

My favorite Japanese fighter was the Nakajima Ki-84 "Hayate" (allied code name "Frank"). What a shame it had so many manufacturing problems.
One of those too little too late deals. A fine looking ship with the muscle to
back it up.

It was designed to replace the Hayabusa and required the maneuverability
of the Hayabusa with the speed and climb of the Shoki.
Also it had to have heavy guns,amour protection and self-sealing tanks.
A maximum speed of 400 to 420 mph and able to operate 250 miles from base with a combat rating of one hour and thirty minutes and wing loading of no more than 34.8 lbs/sq ft.
It was to use the Army version of the NK9A Homare radial and have two 20mm and two .50cal guns.

But it never made the speed 394@21800 ft, but could dive at 496mph in test flights.

F4D said:

I like Japanese planes...in truth I like all planes.

My favorite Japanese fighter was the Nakajima Ki-84 "Hayate" (allied code name "Frank"). What a shame it had so many manufacturing problems.
One of those too little too late deals. A fine looking ship with the muscle to
back it up.

It was designed to replace the Hayabusa and required the maneuverability
of the Hayabusa with the speed and climb of the Shoki.
Also it had to have heavy guns,amour protection and self-sealing tanks.
A maximum speed of 400 to 420 mph and able to operate 250 miles from base with a combat rating of one hour and thirty minutes and wing loading of no more than 34.8 lbs/sq ft.
It was to use the Army version of the NK9A Homare radial and have two 20mm and two .50cal guns.

But it never made the speed 394@21800 ft, but could dive at 496mph in test flights.

Click to expand...

The Frank was a great aircraft, I think it was probably the best fighter to come out of Japan during WW2, but it definetly didn't have the maneuvability of the Oscar.

The Frank was a great aircraft, I think it was probably the best fighter to come out of Japan during WW2, but it definetly didn't have the maneuvability of the Oscar.

Click to expand...

It did fall short of many of the design specs I listed but was a great bird.
I would have liked to have seen the Ki-83 go beyond the test phase. It could have been something.
Oh well... jets did them all in anyway.

Our 'disagreement' seems to be the interpretation of the report, so here is what I
understand by reading the document:

A - vs USAAF planes
1 - all tested planes, except the F4F, are faster than the zero in level flight
2 - Zero can outturn/outmanoeuvre all tested planes below 300 mph at any height,
except P38F above 20.000 ft where zero is superior only in slow speed turns.
3 - Zero has better zoom acceleration/climb/dive than any other type
4 - Sustained climb relative performances depends on the opponent aircraft :
- vs P38F the zero is better up to 18.000 ft, then the P38 is better
- vs P39 the Zero is less performing up to 12.500 ft and better above that height
- vs P51 (Allison engine) the zero walks away in climb up to 15.000 ft, no test above because
of P51 engine problems. P51 is much faster than zero in level flight and in dive. (this is no
surprise, the P51 and zero are almost at the opposite concept of fighter planes.
Also it is clear that the P51 was basically a prototype, still far away from his real
potential)

Click to expand...

I recall reading somewhere that this was, indeed, a straight P-51.

About relative acceleration, it is not clear if the tests are started at the optimal speed for
the US fighters or for the zero (being the starting speed always different it may be that
the test is run at optimal speed for the US fighters)

Click to expand...

Something I wondered about, too. There are references though to starting from a
common speed.

-P40 was not tested because of engine problems (question: this test was important, why
they did not get another P40 or a replacement engine? Maybe because, knowing the
performance of the P40 vs P38-P39, they could extrapolate the results? And so, why they
did not even put a line of comment about that?)

Click to expand...

Having some idea how these things work, the tests were conducted at North Island NAS,
a place not particularly known for having spare P-40s lying around, The gents from Eglin
AAF undoubtedly brought their own planes with them from Florida and when the P-40
decided not to cooperate, then they were just out of luck. Even if they could locate a
nearby P-40 unit, I seriously doubt the CO would be willing to loan one of his planes to
some hot-shot test pilot from Florida to fly in some sort of flight test at a naval air station.

B - vs USNAVY planes
The chapters of Zero vs F4F and F4U are not detailed (and you explained the reason
why), but the summary seems very clear :
- vs F4F : the zero is always superior or equal to the Wildcat
- vs F4U : the Corsair is almost always superior to the Zero
btw, is there any copy of the Navy pilots detailed report? In the first page they say 'Navy
pilots handled the trials against F4F-4 and F4U-1', so it seems likely that this team had
prepared a detailed report for the Navy.

Click to expand...

I have been unable to find a report specifically giving the results of tests against USN
types.

In summary, I believe that my original impression " ... is superior or holding well in
comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair " is correct.

This, as I had made clear, is valid as a 41-42 snapshot, we all know that the Jap plane
was not significantly improved afterwards, while P38, P51 and F4U were strongly
developed.

This was my reading of the official document, where do you disagree?

Click to expand...

I don't know if I would actually use the word "disagree." Certainly, the results of the
tests were clear. I suspect the difference is in the interpretation of the purpose of the
report. I tend to put more of a 1942 era spin on it, having gone over this and other
reports in detail with some who actually flew this plane and had more than a modicum of
experience in the arena of flying against A6Ms. In short, while possessing detailed
comparisons, mostly relating to climb performance, it is the intent of the report that is of
significance.

The purpose of the report is to identify for the USAAF pilot who might find himself in
those Pacific Theater areas where he will encounter some, to say the least, difficulties in
dealing with the A6M problem. It also points the way to avoid those situations in which
the A6M is in its optimal performance envelope and play to what strengths one's own
aircraft might enjoy.

There are features in the report that are at odds with the reality of air combat in the
Pacific. For example, and especially in the 1941-1942 period (at least in the USN end
of the business with which I, admittedly, am most familiar) most air-to-air fighter
engagements were fought at 10,000 feet or less. This is primarily due to the nature of
air-to-ship strikes. The attacker must get down to where the ships are, therefore the
defending CAP or the strike escorts must meet in that area where the attack group is
moving towards its final attack position. You see this over and over again at Coral Sea,
Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz (although there is the rare exception such
as the Japanese strike escort breaking off from their charges and attacking the Enterprise
strike group as they passed each other during the Santa Cruz action). So for the most
part, in actual action, these fighters are finding themselves at, when compared to air-to-air
action in Europe, relatively low altitudes. Performance at 20,000 feet is interesting, but it
was not the, then, norm in the Pacific. The purpose of achieving these higher altitude in
the Pacific was to get above ones adversaries so as to accumulate the speed advantage of
an overhead approach.

Thus the opening sections of the report (Conclusions, Recommendations, Offensive and
Defensive Tactics, and, then, later, the Flying Characteristics section) are what are
important, the effective rules of the game for fighter pilots to remember in order to, at the
least, survive encounters with the A6M. All that follows is the background from which
these conclusions were drawn; providing specific information on where one's aircraft
might be at some particular advantage or disadvantage. For example, one might note the
surprising performance in climb of the P-39 versus the A6M at altitudes below 15000
feet, hardly what one would expect from an aircraft with a reputation as a clunker. Too
bad there's no discussion of relative maneuverability between the two types.

R Leonard wrote:

I believe the point was to remind USAAF pilots to avoid engaging in low speed
turning contests and keep their speed above the A6M2s optimal performance
envelope (or maybe I've just read too many of these reports or talked to too
many pilots).

Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense, point is that 300 mph is quite a high speed for 1941-42,
normally far above the normal cruise speed and flight envelope. It became 'normal'
with the next generation of fighters, and we all agree that the Zero did not kept the
improvement pace.

Click to expand...

But was 300 plus miles per hour unusual for combat situations in the fighters of the day?
Well, bearing in mind that max speed test are generally run at each aircraft starts the
timed run at its optimal performance altitude and configuration, off hand, I'd say no, 300
mph was not unusual.

Let's see, rated top speeds for 1942 types . . .

A6M2 – 335 mph
Ki-27 – 295 mph
Ki-43 – 310 mph
F4F-4 – 320 mph
F4U-1 – 425 mph
P-38F – 405 mph
P-39D – 370 mph
P-40F – 360 mph
P-51 – 382 mph

(quick and dirty source:
http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft/edito/1969.html#204549
with kph converted to mph at
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/conversions.html
and rounded to nearest 5.)

What the report does not come out and say, but the inference that should be drawn, is that
the A6M pilot will probably not try to exceed 300 mph, knowing the limitations of his
own aircraft. So, he would try to keep the fight at somewhat less that that in order to
maintain his maneuver advantage. The report repeats the over 300 mph maneuver
problem in several places and advises pilots to keep their speed at or above 300. When
the report says not to dog fight with an A6M, this speed vs maneuverability issue is
exactly what it is talking about, not getting down in a lower speed, turn and burn contest
from which, in most cases, only the A6M would emerge.

Look, I don't mean to say that US test pilots were not exceptional pilots or that the team did not take seriously the job. Fact is that planes performances depends on many
parameters, and assuming that a Mitsubishi test team (pilot+service engineers) with
thousands of hours in the type knows how to manage a zero better than a USAAF or
NAVY test team is not offensive and not irrealistic. Unless we assume that Jap test teams
were inferior professionals.

For sure the US teams knew every tip and trick of P39, P40 etc. (best manifold pressure,
mixture, prop pitch, trim settings etc. for every flight condition) and fly the planes at their
best, PERHAPS they simply had no time to learn all the tips and tricks for the zero.

Look at this quote from another thread posted by wmaxt:
"Belive it or not I have a comparison (From Doc's page I think) that shows two Spit IX
and P-38F. The Spits out turned it but the P-38 was right in the middle of the 2 Spits
performance curves, who had different Prop reduction ratios."

If this 'small' difference in settings is enough to make the difference in performances, why
should we absolutely exclude that the tested zero was not optimally tuned?

Click to expand...

While it is certainly possible for an experienced Japanese aviator to squeeze a bit more
out of this airplane than did the Americans, I'd point out that they were able to wrest a
top speed of 326 mph out of it (see above for rated speed). They were able to, however
vaguely referenced in the report, demonstrate the low speed maneuverability
superiority of the A6M. They were able to demonstrate the relative climb advantages or
disadvantages. They were able to demonstrate it's weak point of poor high speed
handling. And importantly, all of these held true historically. I guess I fail to see the
significance of whether so and so pilot knew 100% of the tricks of trade of the A6M or
the significance of whether the airframe was at 98% as opposed to 100%. Even if the
pilot's performance was less than an IJN pilot with "thousands of hours in type" or if the
aircraft is only 99% restored, they certainly proved the A6Ms efficacy, or lack thereof, in
these tests; which was the entire point of the exercise.

What they did not prove, of course, and certainly NOT what I perceive you to be
presenting, was that the Zero was some super plane, for it certainly was not. There is
always the bottom line . . . if the A6M was in your words, "I believe that my original impression
' ... is superior or holding well in comparison to the US planes, except with the Corsair' is correct"
how come it did not, historically, in action, turn in a better performance than it did? If a nice
pristine Japanese maintained A6M2, that hadn't been dragged out of a bog and rebuilt by
apparently unskilled USN wrench twisters, was so great and the typical Japanese pilot so good
and so experienced as to wring out 100% of the aircraft's performance, why was it that against
the F4F, the one plane in this report that it clearly cited as out performed by the A6M2 (the one
that was not 100% mechanically and flown by pilots who couldn't have been able to figure
out its finer points), up through the Battle of Midway, before US numbers and tactics started
to really make a difference, the F4F pilots out scored the A6M pilots 1.167 to 1? If the Japanese
maintenance was so good and its pilots so talented why could they not achieve better that
what was essentially a 1 for 1 tradeoff; a trade off the US could stand a lot longer than the
Japanese? Was there some other factor or factors at work? In light of the report, what do
you suppose is the explanation?


Regards,

Rich

Hmmm also good info there. I agree with your ideas that it must be different factors involvoved. I believe a major factor was the way the Japanese fought. If I recall in the beginning of the war they would only launch if there were bombers in the air. The US fighters could travel around and not even see a Japanese fighter. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Also Japanese tactics may have been involved in this.

My last thought on this is the Japanese aircraft such as the Zero were just not as good as some people like to think. If they were then why did they not shoot down more US aircraft? Simple they were not as good.

The lack of kills by the Zero is more due to the lack of targets. After wiping out allied airpower in the region in the opening weeks of the war, there wasnt much left to shoot down. The Zero's were on the carriers, and after Pearl Harbor, up to Coral Sea, they only had two operations where they encountered significant (if you can call it that) opposition. They had operations in the Indian Ocean and against Darwin. Neither involved much air-to-air combat. By European standards, it could hardly qualify as a skirmish. It wasnt untill April/May 1942 that the AAF finally had enough fighters in Australia to actually put a squadron in the air at the same time.

A better measure of the Zero would be its kill ratio. For the first 6 months of the war, Over the PI and Java, they did well.

The Ki-84 is also my favorite of the Japanese aircraft. It may not of had the maneuverability of the Oscar, but it was still a match for any Allied fighter in a dogfight. And the Oscar lacked its speed, firepower, durability, etc. etc. In fact, I think the Ki-84 might have been my favorite of all single-engined fighters.

A better measure of the Zero would be its kill ratio. For the first 6 months of the war, Over the PI and Java, they did well.

Click to expand...

And just how well was that, against what opposition?

Rich

They had success against the P40's, and some Hurricanes that ended up in Sumatra.

Numbers?

Im at work now. I dont have access to the book that has the numbers.

"Bloody Shambles" a two volume set. Ever see it?

syscom3 said:

They had success against the P40's, and some Hurricanes that ended up in Sumatra.

Click to expand...

R Leonard said:

Numbers?

Click to expand...

Right.....

Here we go again

Here is an amazing wesite.....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html

I found in there a table for 1942 Kills/ Losses

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s)....

FEAF
LOSSES
Jan - 0
Feb - 44
Mar - 12
Apr - 0
May - 32
Jun - 28
Jul - 11
Aug - 11
Sep - 10
Oct - 0
Nov - 32
Dec - 8

FEAF
KILLS
Jan 0
Feb 20
Mar 14
Apr 14
May 14
Jun 20
Jul 4
Aug 41
Sep 0
Oct 6
Nov 25
Dec 54

For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations.

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943).

You were saying?!?

Thanks Flyboy. Great find.

If you look at the figures for Jan 42-May 42 (first 6 months of the war), the numbers were 88 losses and 62 kills.

Im looking for more info on actual Japanese loss's. Ive got some good leads im checking into.

syscom3 said:

If you look at the figures for Jan 42-May 42 (first 6 months of the war), the numbers were 88 losses and 62 kills.

Click to expand...

And that was probably the worse of times, retreating out of the PI, developing tactics, ect. Not bad for P-39s and P-40s and "green" pilots!

Heres an ultra rare color photo of a Wildcat about to be shot down. I dont think anyone has seen this before. The Zero was observed to easily maneuver to the tail of the F4F and get into shooting position. The F4F didnt have enough altitude to dive away, so its fate is sealed.

Actually, this was taken at Chino 2004. A demonstration of the Zero vs P40 and F4F. No matter how good the Wildcat and Warhawk were, if they were caught on the deck without a good head of speed, they were in serious trouble. The Zero also demonstrated its maneuverablity by easily getting out of the way of a P40 or F4F on its tail.

The Thatch weave was also demonstrated. If the F4F pilots were diciplined, they could stay out of trouble.

Note - they had both Chino Zero's take off at the same time as the P40's. The Zero's were up at 1000 ft with a full 360 turn before the P40's were in gear up condition!

Saw a similar demonstration at Chino in 1982. One of the first Zeros restored back to flying condition did a demonstration with an F6F. When the F6F slowed down and turned with the Zero, the Zero easily turned inside of him. This went on for about 5 minutes, then suddenly the F6F went vertical and started using a Yo-Yo to get inside the Zero. When the Zero attempted to go vertical, you could see the F6F just overpowered the Zero. A similar demostration was done with a Corsair, but the F4U stayed right with the Zero. I don't remember who the pilots were, but one of them might of been Steve Hinton.

Interesting.

I think I was at that airshow. I vaguely remember being at Chino right when the Zero was unveiled to the public. 1982 or 1983.

I need to go through the photo albums and see if I have anything.

I would venture to guess that Steve Hinton was one of them. I have a 45 minute video of mock combat with Steve Hinton flying the Corsair and Steve Barber flying our Zero. It was footage for a movie called "The Intrepid Story".