Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?

[WARSPITER]

The Mk VIII was all round better with a more powerful engine and other refinements. It was a better fighter when used at speed than the MK V
and certainly better than the Zero.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Part of what happened in Darwin was that Caldwell, with good reason, was trying to use the "Big Wing" tactics developed in North Africa with Kittyhawks, to fight Bf 109s. They would form up the entire squadron and fly together, and when attacked from above they would all turn into the attacks, until the enemy fighters lost enough energy that they could engage them. That was learned the hard way as being necessary to protected against slashing hit and run tactics from above. It was part of how they turned the tables on the Luftwaffe.

But it took a lot of time to form up and get the whole squadron together, especially in the extra chaotic conditions around Darwin and with the maintenance challenges they were contending with. By the time they got the unit together and vectored to where the raid was coming in, they were already running low on fuel.

Spit V didn't really need to use 'Big Wing' tactics against the Zero because it was enough faster to use hit and run in smaller groups (i.e. flights or even pairs), which is what the 49th FG did with Kittyhawks earlier. But it took them a while ... really just a couple of battles, to figure this out. But by then there was already a big scandal.

Spit VIII was definitely faster, had a higher performance ceiling, was faster and better all around, but for the Pacific Theater, IMO the extra range was probably the most important aspect of it's many improvements.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

And guess what one of the main issues was with the Spitfires?

Range was an issue, but the biggest problems facing the Darwin Spitfires was performance, tactics and adequate early warning. I have stated before, that if someone were to assemble an aircraft to perform as poorly as possible in a given scenario, the result would look a lot like the aircraft they used to defend Darwin.
Wrong engines for the task, bad ammunition, frozen guns, maintenance issues, tropical filters, etc.

 

[WARSPITER]

Range was an issue, but the biggest problems facing the Darwin Spitfires was performance, tactics and adequate early warning. I have stated before, that if someone were to assemble an aircraft to perform as poorly as possible in a given scenario, the result would look a lot like the aircraft they used to defend Darwin.
Wrong engines for the task, bad ammunition, frozen guns, maintenance issues, tropical filters, etc.

And with all that they still ended up forcing the Japanese to give up attacking Darwin.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That is an estimate of the full range of the aircraft. Do you have any evidence that the max range for the 109 was tested at 300 mph?

No, but neither did I claim that, rendering this point of yours a strawman.

There is no correlation to testing conditions for maximum range and whatever was done in a raid.

Of course.

And there really isn't any difference in flying a raid to England vs. flying a raid to Lae, except that the distance to Lae would be much farther. In a raid, as opposed to a test, the lower cruise speed would be used until in the vicinity of enemy fighters in all cases.

Negative, Ghostrider. Given the British possession of Chain Home, multiple close fighter fields, and flak scattered in the many towns and airfields dotting the Kentish plain (compared to the Japanese with no radar, no flak batteries in the jungles of NG worth mentioning, and the sea approaches allowing a slow, cruise-speed ingress until target proximity), this statement is clearly incorrect.

I love the fantasies being woven so energetically all around all this, but the reality is that the escorting fighters are there to protect the bombers. The bombers trundle along at 150-200 mph, at least until they drop their bombs. Maybe they put their noses down and go a little faster on the way home, but until they get into the target area, the escort fighters can't (and didn't) go a whole lot faster than that.

They could always weave at a higher speed and altitude, which is what American jocks did in order to be ready to counter a bounce while staying with the bombers. I don't know if the Germans or Brits practiced this.

Once they do engage, they will indeed go faster. The notion that the Wildcat couldn't fight or maneuver at 15,000 ft is a laughable joke, since in fact they routinely did so and successfully, against far more maneuverable planes than Spitfires or Hurricanes. They also contended with Bf 109s and didn't come out with a black eye there either.

No argument here. Both volumes of The First Team document many F4F combats starting at 25k+. Those same volumes also document the Navy and Marine pilots' extreme disappointment with the plane's climb and dissatisfaction with the range.

I think some of y'all are vaguely confused by partly remembering similar discussions to this related to 8th Air Force bomb raids into Germany. There, it is indeed the case that a very slow cruise speed is potentially dangerous, because the whole way there and back is over enemy territory with dozens of enemy fighter bases and flak concentrations. Flying from Norway or France to England isn't precisely the same thing.

The shortest route, from France, ran directly into Chain Home and a centralized fighter direction system, not to mention flak -- and were susceptible to interception once over the Channel, meaning they couldn't safely stooge along at 160 kia at 5,000 feet. They had to come in full-bore while gaining as much altitude as fast as possible. And Bergen, Norway to London is about 650 miles one-way. The Wildcat wasn't going to be able to do that even with drop tanks. These facts render this whole point nugatory.

The Wildcat was a good airplane. It had different strengths and weaknesses compared to the Hurricane, which allowed for effective maritime use. But trying to argue that its range was one, while ignoring how that range was computed, and ignoring the context of use which weren't identical ETO vs PTO, undermines your clear zeal for the plane itself. I love a Wildcat too, but in the end it was a deeply flawed plane -- a fact which was recognized by the men who flew it at the time.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Fast cruising speeds around 15,000 or so feet, Do17Z 186 mph, He111H-3, H-6 205 mph, He111P-4 212 mph, Ju88A-1 230 mph. Bf109E-3 300 mph, economic cruise 202 mph, Bf110C-1 304 mph, economic 217 mph.

Looking at the maps in the Alfred Price books The Hardest Day (18 August) and Battle of Britain Day books shows the German raids with free hunt fighter formations in front of them, plus any close escort. For the early 15th September raid the Dorniers are explicitly stated to be doing 180 mph, cut to a ground speed of 90 mph by headwinds, the raid maps and associated times indicate the other bomber types were also at their higher cruise speeds. No one was at economic cruise in hostile airspace.

By putting the fighter airfields so close to the British coast it forced the Luftwaffe fighters to climb early, it took about 7 minutes for the Bf109E-3 to make 20,000 feet, or a good chunk of the time needed to fly between Calais and Dover, even climbing. The fighter units in Normandy had more time. St Omer to London is around 115 miles, the first third or so being friendly or neutral airspace for the Luftwaffe outbound as the RAF was not intercepting over the channel. The RAF combat allowance for the Spitfire was worth around 180 miles at economic cruise, the Bf109E-3 range was 410 miles.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

No, but neither did I claim that, rendering this point of yours a strawman.

Actually, i was trying to pin down what you were really getting at, which is still vague.

Negative, Ghostrider. Given the British possession of Chain Home, multiple close fighter fields, and flak scattered in the many towns and airfields dotting the Kentish plain (compared to the Japanese with no radar, no flak batteries in the jungles of NG worth mentioning, and the sea approaches allowing a slow, cruise-speed ingress until target proximity), this statement is clearly incorrect.

The Japanese may not have had a lot of flak or any radar, but Allied planes routinely encountered and were attacked by Japanese fighters (and sometimes bombers) anywhere from right over airfields such as at Port Moresby, all the way down the South side of the island, and up the coast or over the mountains to where the Japanese bases were. See South Pacific Air War on that. And it was similar in the Solomons. So I don't think your claim really holds true.

Bottom line, we know that the German bombers were not flying at super high speeds regardless, and if the 109s were flying at speed the whole way, even if they could somehow still keep track of the bombers, would run out of gas.

They could always weave at a higher speed and altitude, which is what American jocks did in order to be ready to counter a bounce while staying with the bombers. I don't know if the Germans or Brits practiced this.

They I think would do that, or certainly some of them would fly top cover and weaving around was pretty typical, but it wouldn't be at very high speed regardless. If you think otherwise I'd say dig up some data on it, it's probably out there.

No argument here. Both volumes of The First Team document many F4F combats starting at 25k+. Those same volumes also document the Navy and Marine pilots' extreme disappointment with the plane's climb and dissatisfaction with the range.

Just like Luftwaffe pilots complained bitterly about the range of their birds...

The shortest route, from France, ran directly into Chain Home and a centralized fighter direction system, not to mention flak -- and were susceptible to interception once over the Channel, meaning they couldn't safely stooge along at 160 kia at 5,000 feet. They had to come in full-bore while gaining as much altitude as fast as possible. And Bergen, Norway to London is about 650 miles one-way. The Wildcat wasn't going to be able to do that even with drop tanks. These facts render this whole point nugatory.

What was that you said about a "Straw Man"? I'd say that is a textbook example of one. Maybe it was just on your mind so you couldn't help it.

Who said anything about Norway
Even if we wanted to talk about Norway, London was not the only target. Why would that be the only example?
Bergen to Edinburgh is 433 miles, for instance. With drop tanks i think that would indeed be within range of a Wildcat.
But my point was not necessarily that Wildcats could reach targets that 109s (or 110s) couldn't (although that would probably also be the case), it was that flight time on the target area would be increased.
So ... way to set up the paper dragon and slay it.

The Wildcat was a good airplane. It had different strengths and weaknesses compared to the Hurricane, which allowed for effective maritime use. But trying to argue that its range was one, while ignoring how that range was computed, and ignoring the context of use which weren't identical ETO vs PTO, undermines your clear zeal for the plane itself. I love a Wildcat too, but in the end it was a deeply flawed plane -- a fact which was recognized by the men who flew it at the time.

I really don't particularly have "zeal" for the Wildcat, I'm just pointing out the issue of range, and it's important in combat roles. Which was still lingering after the naval aircraft debate.

I agree it's a matter of strengths and weaknesses, and I think the Wildcat was badly flawed, though they seemed to make it work pretty well since it had a fairly good combat record. I am sure if I'd flown F4F-3s and then had to deal with an F4F-4 I'd have been just as pissed as the other guys. And of course they would want a better climb rate and performance. It must have been very frustrating and scary to be in the situation they were in, though I'm sure they did also appreciate having more friendly fighters around.

It's also worth noting, with aircraft that carry more fuel, performance is worse with a full fuel load, and considerably better once you fly out to a target area and burn 1/3 of that fuel off. This is also applicable to planes like P-51, P-38, A6M, Ki-43, P-47 etc.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fast cruising speeds around 15,000 or so feet, Do17Z 186 mph, He111H-3, H-6 205 mph, He111P-4 212 mph, Ju88A-1 230 mph. Bf109E-3 300 mph, economic cruise 202 mph, Bf110C-1 304 mph, economic 217 mph.

Looking at the maps in the Alfred Price books The Hardest Day (18 August) and Battle of Britain Day books shows the German raids with free hunt fighter formations in front of them, plus any close escort. For the early 15th September raid the Dorniers are explicitly stated to be doing 180 mph, cut to a ground speed of 90 mph by headwinds, the raid maps and associated times indicate the other bomber types were also at their higher cruise speeds. No one was at economic cruise in hostile airspace.

Whatever cruise rate they were using, the Wildcat could also fly at that speed. Wildcat also had faster and slower cruise speeds. Somehow because the longest range for one Boscombe Down test was quoted was at a low speed, doesn't mean that it was limited to that speed or that was the only cruise speed. Somehow there seems to now be a myth developing that Wildcats were slower than any of these bombers, which is ridiculous.

Nor is it the case that any curtailment of the Wildcat's range due to flying at a higher cruise speed would or was not also felt by the Bf 109 or 110.

Shortround6 tried to make the case that Wildcats might burn more fuel in combat, but I don't think he actually made the point. Everyone else is just kind of trying to pretend that Wildcats can't fly fast or that they suffer problems that a 109s does not.

For example, all of these are British tests by the way.
Martlet I "most economical" 167-175 mph, maximum weak mixture 257 mph. Range 870 miles. (no aux or loiter time indicated)
Martlet II "most economical" 170 mph, maximum weak mixture 260 mph. Range 850 miles (no aux or loiter time indicated)
Wildcat II "most economical" 213 mph, maximum weak mixture 246 mph, loiter 181 mph. Range 795 miles. Loiter 3.95 hours.
Wildcat IV "most economical" speed 213 mph. Maximum weak mixture 238 mph. Loiter 181 mph. Range 695 +452 aux tanks, 3.5 +2.3 hours loiter.
Wildcat V "most economical" speed 218 mph. Maximum weak mixture 262 mph. Loiter 185. Range not given.

Unless you can show that the stated range limitation for the Bf 109 and Bf 110 were done at 300 mph, then I don't think there is any point here.

By putting the fighter airfields so close to the British coast it forced the Luftwaffe fighters to climb early, it took about 7 minutes for the Bf109E-3 to make 20,000 feet, or a good chunk of the time needed to fly between Calais and Dover, even climbing. The fighter units in Normandy had more time. St Omer to London is around 115 miles, the first third or so being friendly or neutral airspace for the Luftwaffe outbound as the RAF was not intercepting over the channel. The RAF combat allowance for the Spitfire was worth around 180 miles at economic cruise, the Bf109E-3 range was 410 miles.

Well you could probably put Wildcats in Normandy, I think the Luftwaffe was putting them on the channel because of their short range.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Anyway, this has gone long enough as a mental exercise, I made my point. Y'all can take that in or let it fall by the wayside. I'm cool either way.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, i was trying to pin down what you were really getting at, which is still vague.


The Japanese may not have had a lot of flak or any radar, but Allied planes routinely encountered and were attacked by Japanese fighters (and sometimes bombers) anywhere from right over airfields such as at Port Moresby, all the way down the South side of the island, and up the coast or over the mountains to where the Japanese bases were. See South Pacific Air War on that. And it was similar in the Solomons. So I don't think your claim really holds true.

Bottom line, we know that the German bombers were not flying at super high speeds regardless, and if the 109s were flying at speed the whole way, even if they could somehow still keep track of the bombers, would run out of gas.



They I think would do that, or certainly some of them would fly top cover and weaving around was pretty typical, but it wouldn't be at very high speed regardless. If you think otherwise I'd say dig up some data on it, it's probably out there.



Just like Luftwaffe pilots complained bitterly about the range of their birds...



What was that you said about a "Straw Man"? I'd say that is a textbook example of one. Maybe it was just on your mind so you couldn't help it.

Who said anything about Norway
Even if we wanted to talk about Norway, London was not the only target. Why would that be the only example?
Bergen to Edinburgh is 433 miles, for instance. With drop tanks i think that would indeed be within range of a Wildcat.
But my point was not necessarily that Wildcats could reach targets that 109s (or 110s) couldn't (although that would probably also be the case), it was that flight time on the target area would be increased.
So ... way to set up the paper dragon and slay it.



I really don't particularly have "zeal" for the Wildcat, I'm just pointing out the issue of range, and it's important in combat roles. Which was still lingering after the naval aircraft debate.

I agree it's a matter of strengths and weaknesses, and I think the Wildcat was badly flawed, though they seemed to make it work pretty well since it had a fairly good combat record. I am sure if I'd flown F4F-3s and then had to deal with an F4F-4 I'd have been just as pissed as the other guys. And of course they would want a better climb rate and performance. It must have been very frustrating and scary to be in the situation they were in, though I'm sure they did also appreciate having more friendly fighters around.

It's also worth noting, with aircraft that carry more fuel, performance is worse with a full fuel load, and considerably better once you fly out to a target area and burn 1/3 of that fuel off. This is also applicable to planes like P-51, P-38, A6M, Ki-43, P-47 etc.

I'm getting ready to head off to work, so I'll address this lengthy post later.

 

[PAT303]

I've read the reports, in detail. I disagree - range was absolutely a factor,

Maybe you should re-read the reports. The biggest problem with the MkV's was their reliability, more were lost to mechanical issue's than shot down, secondly they were limited to 9 PSI of boost instead of 16 which robbed them of so much power that flat out they could only reach around 330 mph and couldn't complete a loop without stalling through lack of power. As for range Caldwell was a firm believer in the big wing tactic which caused a lot of resentment as pilots circled endlessly burning fuel waiting to form up so by the time they set off the Betty's had a long head start and the Spits empty tanks.

 

[PAT303]

Once they do engage, they will indeed go faster. The notion that the Wildcat couldn't fight or maneuver at 15,000 ft is a laughable joke, since in fact they routinely did so and successfully, against far more maneuverable planes than Spitfires or Hurricanes. They also contended with Bf 109s and didn't come out with a black eye there either

So what if the RAF had Wildcats and the Luftwaffe had A6M's?, the BoB would have continued on into 1941 with the Wildcats slashing down 109's, the A6M's cutting Spitfires and Hurricanes out of the skies, the Wildcats then shooting down Zero's without mercy because they were the premier fighter in 1940, the Zero's getting their own back because they could cruise over London at 10,000ft @ 160 mph on weak mixture getting 1000 mile range. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm glad the BoB was fought with such inferior aircraft or we could all be speaking Germanese now.

 

[PAT303]

IIRC, the 109E was being fitted with DTs by Sept/Oct 1940.

The only issue with extra range is what to do with it, the 109 has very limited cannon ammunition which creates another problem not to mention flying further gives the RAF more time to attack.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So what if the RAF had Wildcats and the Luftwaffe had A6M's?, the BoB would have continued on into 1941 with the Wildcats slashing down 109's, the A6M's cutting Spitfires and Hurricanes out of the skies, the Wildcats then shooting down Zero's without mercy because they were the premier fighter in 1940, the Zero's getting their own back because they could cruise over London at 10,000ft @ 160 mph on weak mixture getting 1000 mile range. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm glad the BoB was fought with such inferior aircraft or we could all be speaking Germanese now.

Might as well make a cartoon out of your post, the signal to noise ratio isn't any higher than your previous attempt.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Maybe you should re-read the reports. The biggest problem with the MkV's was their reliability, more were lost to mechanical issue's than shot down, secondly they were limited to 9 PSI of boost instead of 16 which robbed them of so much power that flat out they could only reach around 330 mph and couldn't complete a loop without stalling through lack of power. As for range Caldwell was a firm believer in the big wing tactic which caused a lot of resentment as pilots circled endlessly burning fuel waiting to form up so by the time they set off the Betty's had a long head start and the Spits empty tanks.

I don't need to, it's quite fresh in my memory. I already mentioned Big Wing and the rest of it. You are exaggerating the issue with the boost rating, though it too was a factor. Range was the single biggest issue. I would copy and paste and / or link but I'm sure we've both seen the data, you just chose to delude yourself or to pretend to do so for the stale sake of argument.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We have been down this road before. Knock it off with the snide comments.

It got old a long time ago.

 

[PAT303]

You are exaggerating the issue with the boost rating,

RAAF testing has the Merlin 46 engined MkV's doing 330mph clean which is slower than a Merlin 45 engined MkV tropical carrying a 90G drop tank, there is no exaggeration involved.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To answer your long reply, Bill:

Actually, i was trying to pin down what you were really getting at, which is still vague.

My point is that figuring range isn't a hard-and-fast thing, and that if we take optimal range solutions, then we also often sacrifice things like combat-readiness (due to speed and altitude considerations).

The Japanese may not have had a lot of flak or any radar, but Allied planes routinely encountered and were attacked by Japanese fighters (and sometimes bombers) anywhere from right over airfields such as at Port Moresby, all the way down the South side of the island, and up the coast or over the mountains to where the Japanese bases were. See South Pacific Air War on that. And it was similar in the Solomons. So I don't think your claim really holds true.

How many Wildcats fought from Moresby? Up until Guadalcanal the vast majority of Wildcat missions were carrier-borne, and I'll again refer you to Lundstrom in citing through several passages that CAG commanders didn't like sending F4Fs past a 175-mile combat radius. Even the drop-tanks only extended that to around 250 miles, though I'd have to check that again to be sure.

Bottom line, we know that the German bombers were not flying at super high speeds regardless, and if the 109s were flying at speed the whole way, even if they could somehow still keep track of the bombers, would run out of gas.

I wasn't arguing that the -109 had long legs.

They I think would do that, or certainly some of them would fly top cover and weaving around was pretty typical, but it wouldn't be at very high speed regardless. If you think otherwise I'd say dig up some data on it, it's probably out there.

I don't know the exact speeds, but I know that P-47s maintained a higher airspeed and weaved precisely because they were liable to be bounced over enemy territory.

Just like Luftwaffe pilots complained bitterly about the range of their birds...

Of course.

What was that you said about a "Straw Man"? I'd say that is a textbook example of one. Maybe it was just on your mind so you couldn't help it.

No, it's the ineluctable comclusion to be drawn from your comments about range. I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm pointing out that if you think things through, you'll see that the conditions you'd be putting these Wildcats in would work against their maximum range.

So it's not a strawman, as I'm not attributing you writing this. I'm pointing out that what you wrote ignores these factors.

Who said anything about Norway

You did:

There, it is indeed the case that a very slow cruise speed is potentially dangerous, because the whole way there and back is over enemy territory with dozens of enemy fighter bases and flak concentrations. Flying from Norway or France to England isn't precisely the same thing.

Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?

That is an estimate of the full range of the aircraft. Do you have any evidence that the max range for the 109 was tested at 300 mph? There is no correlation to testing conditions for maximum range and whatever was done in a raid. And there really isn't any difference in flying a raid to...

ww2aircraft.net

So I mentioned Bergen to put paid to this notion; it is far outside the Wildcat's radius of action.

Even if we wanted to talk about Norway, London was not the only target. Why would that be the only example?
Bergen to Edinburgh is 433 miles, for instance. With drop tanks i think that would indeed be within range of a Wildcat.

No way a Wildcat is doing an 870-mile round-trip, fully fueled and combat-loaded. Even with drop-tanks, under those conditions, 250 miles, maybe 275, is its limit. Again, read The First Team, it addresses this in several place.

But my point was not necessarily that Wildcats could reach targets that 109s (or 110s) couldn't (although that would probably also be the case), it was that flight time on the target area would be increased.

Flight-time over the target area is going to drink a lot of fuel, because you can't be slugging along at 160 KIA looking for record duration.

So ... way to set up the paper dragon and slay it.

Not so. Just taking your premises and drawing conclusions. So you disagree ... meh. I find your points unconvincing insofar as you don't seem to have thought them through to conclusion.

I really don't particularly have "zeal" for the Wildcat, I'm just pointing out the issue of range, and it's important in combat roles. Which was still lingering after the naval aircraft debate.

Forgive my word "zeal" then -- it just struck me that way when you seem to be dismissing pertinent points (from others, not so much myself) out of hand.

I agree it's a matter of strengths and weaknesses, and I think the Wildcat was badly flawed, though they seemed to make it work pretty well since it had a fairly good combat record. I am sure if I'd flown F4F-3s and then had to deal with an F4F-4 I'd have been just as pissed as the other guys. And of course they would want a better climb rate and performance. It must have been very frustrating and scary to be in the situation they were in, though I'm sure they did also appreciate having more friendly fighters around.

It's important to understand that American fighter pilots were stuck with it and had to make do -- which they did by adopting different tactics as well as studying enemy tactics. Combat records also have many different factors involved in them aside from the equipment alone.

It's also worth noting, with aircraft that carry more fuel, performance is worse with a full fuel load, and considerably better once you fly out to a target area and burn 1/3 of that fuel off. This is also applicable to planes like P-51, P-38, A6M, Ki-43, P-47 etc.

Any plane flying over the Pacific benefited from this fact, which means that one-to-one comparisons with ETO fighters is going to be a rough row to hoe.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Maybe you should re-read the reports. The biggest problem with the MkV's was their reliability, more were lost to mechanical issue's than shot down,

More were probably lost to fuel starvation than mechanical failure, but the point still stands.

secondly they were limited to 9 PSI of boost instead of 16 which robbed them of so much power that flat out they could only reach around 330 mph and couldn't complete a loop without stalling through lack of power.

Neither of those is true.

Boost only effects speed below critical altitude. RAF testing shows speeds of 354-372 mph at +9 lbs of boost. RAAF testing of their tropicalised Spitfire Mk Vcs shows speeds between 354 and 365 mph at + 9 lbs. Poor condition of the aircraft surfaces, poor engine performance, the tropical filter and a few other issues were what sapped the Darwin Mk Vs of their performance.

RAAF tactical trials of the Mk Vc tropicalised vs an A6M3 specifically state that the Spitfire can loop more tightly than the Zero at high speeds. It recommends loops at high speed as a evasive tactic.

In testing at 17,000 ft the Mk V did have trouble in the loop when initial speed was 220 mph IAS, at which point the Spitfire would stall out at the top of the maneuver. However, it could be easily looped at higher speeds. A 280 mph IAS and 27,000 ft, the Mk V could do three consecutive loops.

RAAF's recommendation was to not loop the Spitfire in combat with the Zero at speeds blow 250 mph IAS.

 

[Vincenzo]

280 mph IAS at 27k ft it's too high for a Spit V, just in dive can get this
also 250 IAS at 25000 ft are around 375 TAS so too high in not diving Spit V