GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The KI-43 was often mistaken for the A6M and both had very similar properties, both in appearance and performance.
The Zero's Maneuverability
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The only reconciliation I could possibly see is if the IJN had zeros on the east coast of Indochina. They could then perhaps encounter Allied fighters? But I don't know and don't think there were any IJN fighter units there.
After the surrender, the French liberated 17 Nakajima Ki43 including 12 flyable. These Oscar were briefly used in 1945 by the Groupes de Chasse 1/7 Provence and 2/7 Nice. They stopped using them in january 1946 because of the high accidents rate and were gladly replaced by Spitfire IX.
The nearest thing close to a Zero in French Indochina was a Nakajima A6M2-N Rufe flotplane, captured by the Allied Technical Air intelligence Unit at Singapore, sent at Biên Hoa for mainainance and assigned to the Aéronavale Flotille 8S. It was destroyed in a spectacular accident on September 19, 1946 killing its pilot.
Last edited:
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
Someone here commented that calculated roll rate figures are useless simply because they are calculated. Well some are, and some are not. But the same can be said pilot quotes as well: Some are useful, and some should be taken with a large grain of salt. You always have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
For example, Erwin Leykauf has said that he never had any problems outturning Spitfires in his Bf 109, and Pierre Closermann has said that the Bf 109 turned better than the Spitfire at speeds below 200 knots. So based on these two ace quotes we can now conclude that the Bf 109 turns better than the Spitfire right?
Calculated numbers and pilot quotes both have to be used judiciously: Some are useful, and some are just plain wrong, Some are bang in the middle, representative of whatever you are looking at, and some are just outliers that do more harm than good. Calculations may have been done by engineers who either just plain miscalculated, used wrong inputs, or based their assumptions on bad intelligence. And some pilot stories are probably best placed in in the fishing story category: The fish just keep getting bigger with time.
I have the good fortune of knowing the Swedish aviator Mikael Carlson, who has built a number of WW1 aircraft replicas and flies them. Not just in the circuit, but quite aggressively. I asked him about torque and if this was the big problem many make it out to be. Because some pilots will tell you that the torque from rotaries are a handful, and give hair raising stories about their exploits. However, when I asked Mr Carlson about this, he says these are actually quite manageable on the Fokker Dr.I, one of the aircraft that is supposedly part of this legend. In addition, the late Javier Arango has said much the same thing about the supposed "killer machine" Sopwith Camel: Just as long as you use the right control combinations, torque is not a problem at all. And when I asked Mikael about this, why are there all these stories if they are so untrue? His reply to this was a rather laconic "Well, pilots like to tell stories…."
Note: I'm in no way saying pilot quotes are useless: Rather to the contrary: I mean there is a reason aircraft manufacturers have test pilots and I'm sure most people would listen up if a sensible pilot tells you something. But pilots and engineers are just like forum posts: Some you can trust and get good info from but others are simply full of ****.
But to end the gloom and finish off on a more positive note with a surefire tip on how you can get rid of a pesky Bf 109 on your tail
:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7BMYWZfpxo
For example, Erwin Leykauf has said that he never had any problems outturning Spitfires in his Bf 109, and Pierre Closermann has said that the Bf 109 turned better than the Spitfire at speeds below 200 knots. So based on these two ace quotes we can now conclude that the Bf 109 turns better than the Spitfire right?
Calculated numbers and pilot quotes both have to be used judiciously: Some are useful, and some are just plain wrong, Some are bang in the middle, representative of whatever you are looking at, and some are just outliers that do more harm than good. Calculations may have been done by engineers who either just plain miscalculated, used wrong inputs, or based their assumptions on bad intelligence. And some pilot stories are probably best placed in in the fishing story category: The fish just keep getting bigger with time.
I have the good fortune of knowing the Swedish aviator Mikael Carlson, who has built a number of WW1 aircraft replicas and flies them. Not just in the circuit, but quite aggressively. I asked him about torque and if this was the big problem many make it out to be. Because some pilots will tell you that the torque from rotaries are a handful, and give hair raising stories about their exploits. However, when I asked Mr Carlson about this, he says these are actually quite manageable on the Fokker Dr.I, one of the aircraft that is supposedly part of this legend. In addition, the late Javier Arango has said much the same thing about the supposed "killer machine" Sopwith Camel: Just as long as you use the right control combinations, torque is not a problem at all. And when I asked Mikael about this, why are there all these stories if they are so untrue? His reply to this was a rather laconic "Well, pilots like to tell stories…."
Note: I'm in no way saying pilot quotes are useless: Rather to the contrary: I mean there is a reason aircraft manufacturers have test pilots and I'm sure most people would listen up if a sensible pilot tells you something. But pilots and engineers are just like forum posts: Some you can trust and get good info from but others are simply full of ****.
But to end the gloom and finish off on a more positive note with a surefire tip on how you can get rid of a pesky Bf 109 on your tail
:View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7BMYWZfpxo
wrathofatlantis
Airman
- 39
- Oct 2, 2023
Spiralling down can shuffle the hierarchy, but only in the direction of favouring the Spitfire, not the other way.
I think the aircraft and the math assumptions behind it are the problem. The slower the speed got, the worse the Spitfire did in turns relative to German types. And this was compounded by the lack of partial flap position. P-51s used partial flaps constantly.
In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40: "Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."
[Translation: "The Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."]
Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace writing post War) "My duel with the Focke-Wulf" (Spit V vs FW-190A-4): "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire [V] in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."
And:
RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "A Spit was a higher wing loading... The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could, and they kept on catching up, you know."
And, my personal favourite:
Pierre Clostermann: Audio from the past [E16], WW2 Pierre Clostermann. Chuck Owl channel in Youtube.
View: https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo?si=6D3h406DEItgHs8A
at 12:44 :
Translation: "So there are legends on the Spitfire... Aaaah the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 or a 190 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."
Pierre Clostermann had about 18 kills, including ten FW- 190s, was the RAF mission record holder at 432, and had a unique interest in enemy aircrafts, having watched thousands of gun camera footage films to illustrate the technical conferences he gave to fellow pilots. (I know of no other pilot to give such conferences in wartime, and no other pilot that I know of made a precise distinction between what I call "turn fighting" and "circle fighting". They all just say "this out-turns that." He previously studied engineering at CalTech in 1940-41.
Of note is that the Spitfire was unique in being able to stall itself and still retain enough control to shoot, wings rumbling, at smaller German circles (but guns usually required a longer firing window than that). For pilots less precise than Clostermann, this could easily be described as "out-turning".
Clostermann in the above video even went as far as describing a typical captured German gun camera film: The shots fall behind the Spitfire initially, then, as the circles continue and the speed goes down (rolling out was usually instantly fatal, and a huge mistake, so the target was effectively "trapped" in the turn) the shots gradually catch up, hitting the tailplanes first, then gradually climbing up the spine until the engine is hit...
Sounds to me you don't want to circle fight in the Spitfire. And the radius was all important to get the aiming lead without stalling (only the Spitfire seemed to be able to break that radius rule occasionally, keeping the legend of its turn performance alive I suppose). That the Zero did not circle fight (even if did make sharp "square turns") was more a matter of doctrine. It is amazing that its primary characteristic in actual use is assumed to be the exact opposite of what it was... It makes you wonder what else is wrong right?
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
His Fokker Dr.I is basically to the last nut and bolt an exact copy, and it's powered by an original 110 hp Le Rhone so it's as close as it gets.
Last edited:
But to end the gloom and finish off on a more positive note with a surefire tip on how you can get rid of a pesky Bf 109 on your tail
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7BMYWZfpxo
Ah Yes, the handy P-51 rudder pirouette.
Eng
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
Yes, this was something only the P-51 could do because it had a laminar flow wing. Also: Only US pilots were taught to shoot while cartwheeling, which is of course why the famous French ace Clostermann does not mention this technique in his memoirs.
GregP
Major
Three or four quotes out of more than 50,000 combat reports and you come to a conclusion that Spitfire wasn't a good dogfighter? One can find very many more that say the exact opposite, and the Spitfire is renowned as an EXCELLENT dogfighter the world over. If you allowed your airspeed to get down to 200 mph unintentionally, you weren't going to last long in combat, no matter which side you were on. The Bf 109 was excellent below 200 mph and the stall speed was quite low. But, that wasn't the speed you were supposed to use for air combat.
If you were down low at 200 mph, the gunners on the ground had an easy target. If you were in combat against airplanes, then everyone, even bombers, could disengage and avoid contact with you.
Again, the term "circle fight isn't used. The term is dogfighting. Everyone in here knows what you mean, but "circle fighting" tags you as likely a rookie in talking about air combat. Just FYI and no more mention of it.
The Fw 190 A3 had a wing loading at gross weight of 43.6 pounds per square foot. The Spitfire IX at gross weight had a wing loading of 30.4 pounds per square foot. Since wing loading is ties very closely to turning ability, the Spitfire IX should handily out-turn the Fw 190 A3 if both are heavy. In real life, the Spitfire had been flying awhile to get to where an Fw 190 was, so it was lighter. At most realistic speeds, the Fw 190 was going to out-roll the Spitfire, but wasn't going to out-turn it. The Fw 190 was good. It wasn't magic. The Spitfire Mk XIV was heavier, but still had a wing loading of 35 pounds per square foot. The Fw 190 D-9 at gross was 49 pound per square foot. Despite the difference in wing loading, the Fw 190 did well when it was attacking. Having a quick roll response makes up for a lot when you are dogfighting, and disengaging from a poor position is easier, assuming you don't take too make hits while disengaging.
Don't get me wrong. The Fw 190 was a very good airplane with excellent roll authority. It wasn't going to out-turn a Spitfire if both pilots understood they were in a fight. If they were ambushed, like a large percent of aerial victories in the war were, then comparative performance wasn't an issue.
Cheers.
Yes, keeping your fighter aircraft in its "best" fighting speed range is important and that is generally going to mean being as high and fast as possible, remaining up sun and unobserved, even if your crate is better at lower speeds!
Unfortunately, most combat was not that well organised or expected, although I guess that day bomber escorts with reasonably flexible orders might be fairly sure that the bomber attack would occur near the bombers.
So, other than that , what happens when fighters meet? Usually, one spots first, analyses and decides to either, Attack now or, fly for an advantage position or, withdraw.
Unobserved Attack now is possibly the best position, especially if your aircraft has dominating performance.
Positioning for advantage is OK, especially if your aircraft has the ability to get away if detected.
Withdraw (or don't attack) if not in advantage is the sort of tactic that some Aces used.
For many unplanned engagements though, the combatants had to work with the hand they had, so if you were cruising and not ready, you might be forced into defensive turns with little SA.
If you are attacking a similar performance type and he sees you early, he might choose to position for advantage himself, and climb early. This can see you ending-up slower than you wish, and if you don't want a slow fight, you had better withdraw quick, if you can! Remember not to climb slow with a Zero!
In the real world of WW2 combat, things were often settled on a first pass, and often the strength of numbers at the time would be a decider. Beyond that, all fighters could use altitude potential energy to try and disengage or manoeuvre for advantage in the fight, that might be your last chance if you can't purely outdive him, using descent as extra power in a turning fight to see if you can get your attacker to make mistakes, possibly him fly-through, reverse (with your superior roll rate) and plug him.
Eng
Unfortunately, most combat was not that well organised or expected, although I guess that day bomber escorts with reasonably flexible orders might be fairly sure that the bomber attack would occur near the bombers.
So, other than that , what happens when fighters meet? Usually, one spots first, analyses and decides to either, Attack now or, fly for an advantage position or, withdraw.
Unobserved Attack now is possibly the best position, especially if your aircraft has dominating performance.
Positioning for advantage is OK, especially if your aircraft has the ability to get away if detected.
Withdraw (or don't attack) if not in advantage is the sort of tactic that some Aces used.
For many unplanned engagements though, the combatants had to work with the hand they had, so if you were cruising and not ready, you might be forced into defensive turns with little SA.
If you are attacking a similar performance type and he sees you early, he might choose to position for advantage himself, and climb early. This can see you ending-up slower than you wish, and if you don't want a slow fight, you had better withdraw quick, if you can! Remember not to climb slow with a Zero!
In the real world of WW2 combat, things were often settled on a first pass, and often the strength of numbers at the time would be a decider. Beyond that, all fighters could use altitude potential energy to try and disengage or manoeuvre for advantage in the fight, that might be your last chance if you can't purely outdive him, using descent as extra power in a turning fight to see if you can get your attacker to make mistakes, possibly him fly-through, reverse (with your superior roll rate) and plug him.
Eng
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Too many people ignore the fact that a great pilot can make an average aircraft do magic and a poor pilot, or one who has come from another type and insists on flying the new one like the old one, can make a great aircraft perform like a dog.
When evaluating the FW 190, the British came to the conclusion that even against the Spitfire IX, the FW was the more maneuverable with the exception of turning circles.
Even with a much higher wing loading, at higher airspeed, the limitation comes down to pilots tolerances to G. Inevitably speed bleeds off faster for the higher wing loading. At this point, the FW (and others) has the option of using partial flaps to increase CL. Engine power offsets some of the additional drag. The Spitfire doesn't have the same option with flaps. This is not a minimum radius turn but may get enough angle for a good shot.
This assumes the Spitfire pilot is willing to play your game and there is no one else around to interfere.
Angles vs radius.
Even with a much higher wing loading, at higher airspeed, the limitation comes down to pilots tolerances to G. Inevitably speed bleeds off faster for the higher wing loading. At this point, the FW (and others) has the option of using partial flaps to increase CL. Engine power offsets some of the additional drag. The Spitfire doesn't have the same option with flaps. This is not a minimum radius turn but may get enough angle for a good shot.
This assumes the Spitfire pilot is willing to play your game and there is no one else around to interfere.
Angles vs radius.
This is an interesting part of the equation. I would say that there are many aspects to air fighting, and they are somewhat similar to high risk competitive motor sports before modern safety regulations. There is no doubt that some individuals can be far better at air fighting than others, and it is not just natural ability, there is a mixture of learned skills and ability, tied in with the performance of the machine. Also, air fighting is a brutal occupation, it is very physical and uncomfortable, plus you are close to a painful death in a situation that you may have no control over, unlike racing where you can decline to go quite as fast as you need to win, in real combat you often have no choice but to enter a duel to the (likely) death.
As we know, aircraft performance is an important part of the equation, but the tactics of manoeuvre, and out-manoeuvring your opponent can be critical. Here, the experience, knowledge and practice of the individual pilot in combat manoeuvres is critical. In 1939 The RAF had a somewhat regimented concept of Operations for air fighting, but soon experience of the cut and thrust of fighter combat proved that highly flexible pairs of fighters willing to fully use their aircraft performance were a deadly opponent and the RAF had to change.
Eng
The Mk IX LF with the Merlin 66 engine was specifically designed to tackle the FW190, those two were so closely matched it was down to the pilot, the MkXIV was a different animal, it could take on both the 109 and 190 with the 90G combat tank fitted.
You do need to consider timelines. The Fw 190 was in service in France by late summer 1941. The Merlin 66 was in service in 1943. The earlier 60 series Merlins in early Mk 9 Spitfires had the troublesome RR/SU Float carburettors which suffered negative G cut outs, and trials in summer 1942 describe the problems against the FW 190. The RAE Restrictor did help with the worst of the cut-outs but the negative G trouble was not fully controlled until the Bendix-Stromberg pressure carb came in with Merlin 66 in 1943.
Eng
The 61 series Merlins were not much different from the 66 series except for the supercharger gearing, it was found the FW190's best performance was right around the low/high gear change so it was changed for the definitive LF version of the MkIX. The carburetor issue was addressed with the Merlin 45 but solved with the pressure carb in 1943.
