The one most over-rated plane of WWII

[GrauGeist]

Early Japanese radios were plagued with RFI from the ignition system, I suspect improper shielding and/or grounding being the culprit.
I am not sure if that issue was ever corrected.

 

[SaparotRob]

Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?

 

[pbehn]

I found this post on this forum thread Spitfire Mk I, II and IIa's - Prop fittings There was a lot going on at the time which looks to me like 54 squadron doing R&D for the Spitfire MkI and the later Spitfire Mk II

The Supplement to the Merlin II Handbook for the Series III, IV & X Engines Revised and printed in March 1940 by RR gives the following options for propellers.
Fixed pitch Airscrew
Two-pitch Airscrew
Variable Pitch Airscrew, Rotol Internal Cylinder
Variable Pitch Airscrew, De Havilland with centrifugal weights
Variable Pitch Airscrew, Rotol External Cylinder, feathering & non feathering types.
Variable Pitch Airscrew, De Havilland Hydromatic, feathering type.
From a table of airscrew types in another publication the early Spitfires were fitted with the following Dowty props. as follows:-
Spitfire I RX5/4 magnesium blades
Spitfire II RX5/1 magnesium blades
Spitfire II RX5/3 Jablo or Hydulignum
These were all constant speed peopellers.
Mention is also made of Spitfire D being fitted with both RX and RS props with Weybridge blades.

​

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But what do you know about the radios? Since a radio is part of the airplane

A radio is "an accessory" that is used to enhance the mission. From a tactical standpoint it is a necessary but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?

It did

 

[GrauGeist]

The KI-43's one main drawback, was it's armament.
It only had two cowl-mounted rifle caliber machine guns: 7.7mm, later upgraded to 12mm.
Had it possessed even two more machine guns (let alone canon, like the A6M), it would have been a more potent adversary.
As it was, the Hayabusa was dangerous to an Allied fighter, but came up short against Allied bombers.

 

[SaparotRob]

Thanks GrauGeist. Maybe I should have said the Ki-43 was the best fighter of WW 1. Same armament.
Did the Ki-43 suffer the same high speed control issues the A6M2 did?

 

[pbehn]

A radio is "an accessory" that is used to enhance the mission. From a tactical standpoint it is a necessary but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.

Radios were new at the time, veterans will have been used to not having them and they spent most of their time out of range of ground / ship based radio anyway, so maybe not as much as a disadvantage as for some others.

 

[buffnut453]

The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway.

Please tell that to Hurricane pilot Billy Drake of 1 Sqn whose life was saved by seat armour when he was shot down over France on 13 May 1940. Paul Richey's famous account of the Battle of France, "Fighter Pilot" also mentions his squadron CO acquiring armour plate and fitting it to the Hurricanes of 1 Sqn during the Phoney War. These accounts suggest RAF fighter squadrons were adding armour plate long before the Battle of Britain.

 

[pbehn]

Please tell that to Hurricane pilot Billy Drake of 1 Sqn whose life was saved by seat armour when he was shot down over France on 13 May 1940. Paul Richey's famous account of the Battle of France, "Fighter Pilot" also mentions his squadron CO acquiring armour plate and fitting it to the Hurricanes of 1 Sqn during the Phoney War. These accounts suggest RAF fighter squadrons were adding armour plate long before the Battle of Britain.

Even on this thread it is easy to see how things get confused. There is an assumption that nothing happened in the phoney war, maybe not on the ground but not true in the air. The whole battle of France and the Low Countries lasted 10 weeks and Dunkerque came before its conclusion. MikeMeech's posts are obviously true but they are about what was planned, not what actually happened. AFIK some Hurricanes were sent to France in the Phoney war without armour but by the time the actual Battle of France started they were kitted out with rear armour for the pilot, 100 Octane fuel and variable pitch props.

 

[NTGray]

A radio is "an accessory". . . but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.

Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance. You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.

So, getting back to the radios, if you have two opposing "teams," both flying identical airplanes except one team's planes have radios and the other team's don't, the planes with radios give that team a major advantage toward winning the battle, because the leader of that team can give specific, detailed instructions to his other pilots. So I definitely count the Wildcat radios as a point in that plane's favor.

 

[pbehn]

Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance. You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.

The downward sloping nose was a feature of dedicated carrier planes, it allows the plane to land on a straight approach to the carrier but has a cost in speed. Carrier planes like the F4U and Seafire had to land on a curved approach.

 

[GrauGeist]

"cowling"

 

[pbehn]

"cowling"

"Heifer" Yorkshire joke a heifer, is a young cow. Edit, just looked on the internet and it is also used in USA. Heifers are as stupid as bullocks, just in a different way.

 

[NTGray]

"cowling"

No, the cowling is just the part that wraps around the engine and has adjustable openings at its rear. And I think that "nose" suggests the same thing. But a "hood" is almost the whole top front of a car ahead of the windshield. Likewise, the entire front of a Wildcat, from the canopy to the front edge of the cowling, sloped downward. And, yes, this was a feature of many carrier-based planes precisely because it gave better visibility during the landing approach and while taxiing, but not every carrier plane had this feature. Corsairs did not. . .and Zeros did not.

 

[GregP]

NTGray, I know people who fly a Zero. You CAN see out of it forward. The target is NOT hidden. Where did you ever get THAT from? Hidden would be the view from an F4U COrsair cockpit. By comparison, the Zero is a bay window.

The World's most experienced test pilot, Eric Brown, said the Zero was the most pleasant-flying airplane he ever flew, and it was his favorite, if he had to pick ONE. That opinion alone makes a lot of what had been said in here sort of like a ,"What? Where did THAT come from?" The Zero's armament of two cannons and two MGs is nowhere NEAR equal to 4 Browning 50's. It's way ahead. The Type 99 Mk 2 was slightly more effective than an Oerlikon FF F and, alone, would make that wrong. Exploding ammunition is superior to 50-cal MG ball ammunition every day, all day.

There was and IS nothing wrong with the Zero that 350 - 450 more hp and some control surface mechanical advantage adjustment would not have taken care of. I know, it never GOT that hp or the control system adjustments. But, it was still a dangerous adversary in 1945. There are many Allied pilots whose could attest to that if they were still around to do so.

It may have been slightly overrated in the early war period, but you are definitely under-rating it severely, at least from my vantage point. Opinions vary, like your gas mileage. But, the A6M Zero was a good airplane and still is.

 

[GrauGeist]

No, the cowling is just the part that wraps around the engine and has adjustable openings at its rear. And I think that "nose" suggests the same thing. But a "hood" is almost the whole top front of a car ahead of the windshield. Likewise, the entire front of a Wildcat, from the canopy to the front edge of the cowling, sloped downward. And, yes, this was a feature of many carrier-based planes precisely because it gave better visibility during the landing approach and while taxiing, but not every carrier plane had this feature. Corsairs did not. . .and Zeros did not.

On an aircraft, the material that covers the engine area is refered to as: "cowling".

For example:
The Bf109 had two cowl mounted machine guns.

A few years back, a Boeing 777 lost a cowling while enroute to Hawaii.

Etc., etc., etc...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance.

Again you're confusing tactical aspects with a technical comparison. As stated, a radio is an accessory.

You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.

I think you're splitting hairs there. Is this your opinion or do have a flight test report that addresses this? Not to sound crass but you don't have to break this down for me. I worked in aviation for 42 years before I retired and I worked around a few warbirds and even flown a few...

So, getting back to the radios, if you have two opposing "teams," both flying identical airplanes except one team's planes have radios and the other team's don't, the planes with radios give that team a major advantage toward winning the battle, because the leader of that team can give specific, detailed instructions to his other pilots. So I definitely count the Wildcat radios as a point in that plane's favor.

Radios do give a tactical advantage providing you see your enemy and are working up tactics and a firing solution to deal with the threat. Most aircraft shot down in aerial combat never saw what hit them.

 

[buffnut453]

Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?

I don't know if the Ki-43 controls stiffened up at high speeds but the Ki-43-I that was operational in Dec 1941 did suffer from wing structural weakness. One aircraft of the 64th Sentai crashed when its wings folded while pulling out of a dive during combat in Malaya. An inspection of other aircraft after that incident revealed several airframes with wrinkled wing surfaces. The issue was corrected in later versions.

 

[pbehn]

The World's most experienced test pilot, Eric Brown, said the Zero was the most pleasant-flying airplane he ever flew, and it was his favorite, if he had to pick ONE. That opinion alone makes a lot of what had been said in here wort of like a ,"What? Where did THAT come from?"

Since Brown could land almost anything from a P-39 to a Mosquito on a carrier I imagine he just told a Zero to land and it did it by itself.