Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Cromwell]

Wheels

I already apologized already

I am so totally flipping sorry with sugar liberally sprinkled on top

 

[FLYBOYJ]

BTW Did you know in the US that we are currently experiencing a Hung Parliament - Cameron Clegg are both hung.

Oh yea - it's been on the news here a bit - comparing it to our situation...

Hung British Parliament in the balance

 

[Cromwell]

Personally I always liked him, but it seems some of your fellow Brits thought he was less than an imbecile...

Was Eddie the Eagle mad? Well they did lock me in an asylum - mirror.co.uk

Well I think you will find that governing bodies world-wide like to do pee-pees on anyone who is starting to make it - But yes, we did not appreciate him properly - and in his own words :-


"I was lucky. My worst accident as a jumper was in Innsbruck, 21 years ago, and I only broke my collar bone, cracked two ribs and damaged my kidneys."
.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well I think you will find that governing bodies world-wide like to do pee-pees on anyone who is starting to make it - But yes, we did not appreciate him properly - and in his own words :-


"I was lucky. My worst accident as a jumper was in Innsbruck, 21 years ago, and I only broke my collar bone, cracked two ribs and damaged my kidneys."
.

All too true...

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

I already apologized already

I am so totally flipping sorry with sugar liberally sprinkled on top

Look at the post times for your post and mine.
I posted less than a minute after you.
I didn't see that you had already posted again.


Wheels

 

[RAM]

It actually depends on speed and I also believe that within its maneuvering speed envelope an Oscar was able to sustain 4Gs.

I beg to differ, 4G are the same at 400 mph IAS than at 250IAS.
There was no way to "sustain" a 4G turn in WW2 propeller driven planes (they would slow down too much up to the point that 4G weren't sustainable unless stalling the plane). Of course you could do a series of 4G maneouvers if you let your plane accelerate between them.

In any case 4G are the same at the speed you are. And if you repeateadly asked 4G out of an Oscar you would soon find out that it's structure was compromised, it was so lightly built.

and in 1940 - 41, you're looking at speeds between 250 - 300 mph in F2As and F3Fs - the speeds where the Zero and Oscar were in their element.

The Zero had a serious controllability problem at speeds over 200mph IAS. Controls grew stiffer to the point that at the speeds you mention the Zeke was a real trouble to put into a sustained turn and was almost impossible to roll at all. So the allied planes could maneouver out of their path and start a zooming climb before the zero was even able to start pulling up.

In short: no, the Oscars and Zekes weren't in their element at 250-300mph IAS.

Actually, energy management maneuvers were emphasized after the war started in training circles. As we know the AVG made use of boom and zoom, later the use of energy to fight in the "yo-yo" or even vertical was developed. When the US first entered the war there was a strong emphasis on fighting in the horizontal, but that eventually changed. Because of that and the use of some inferior fighters, the US struggled the first few months of the war.

I beg to differ, at least in what regards to the US Navy fighter complements, and IIRC the USMC air complements. By the Coral Sea battles those guys already had well learned the use of speed to fight the japanese fighters, which means they were teached to do it quite before.

To say the Kittyhawk/ Tomahawk were "kicked out of the sky," do you have combat reports or some type of data to back that up?

just take a look at any comparison between the Bf109F4trop/Bf109G2trop and the P40s over North Africa, Flyboy. They were pretty much inferior to the Messerschmitt in every area of performance that mattered in air combat. And suffered at their hands accordingly.
They only had one card to play - numbers. There were more P40s, Hurricanes and Spitfires flying for the Allied Desert Force than planes had the LW and RA together in most of the stages of the fighting. But the plane by itself was outclassed by german 109s and italian MC202s, and by the own allied Spitfires and P38s (the latter when they reached the MTO). The Warhawk was relegated to dedicated ground attack as soon as there were enough fighters of other models, because the plane was aknowledged as inferior to the Axis models by the own Allied forces who flew them.
And lucky they were there was no Fw190 in north africa until the Tunis Campaigng (and by then were very few and dedicated ground attack versions), because the Wurger was by large the best fighter of the time.



/edit:

Regarding the paddle blade prop on the Corsair, I don't doubt that the props on the various Corsair models were different than that on the prototype

nope, not speaking about the prototype here. The F4U-1 had a R-2800-8 engine. The F4U-1A and F4U-1D had both the R-2800-8(W) with water-methanol injection and extra power. And those were fitted with wider chord paddle-blade propellers to better "absorb" the engine power. And the F4U-1 wasn't a prototype, was the first service model of the Corsair to see combat on the PTO.

I could dig up for more information about this if you want to. I know where to ask about documentation on the F4U. But you can trust me on this one, the Corsair -1 had paddle blade props in the -1A and -1D models (and of course in the late -1C aswell, and in the -4 series)

As for the effects of the propellers, paddle blade props gave an improved acceleration and sustained climbrate, and a slightly better top and cruise speeds.

All the best

 

[buffnut453]

The Zero had a serious controllability problem at speeds over 200mph IAS

I always thought the Zero's controls only started to stiffen above 300 mph.

 

[RAM]

I always thought the Zero's controls only started to stiffen above 300 mph.

nope, that's the point where the cementing got past the point of making the plane almost unmaneouverable in a fight (rolling at 300mph was almost impossible because of frozen ailerons...no roll ability equals to me to be unmaneouverable in a fight). The plane was really hard to fly much before reaching that speed. In addition to this the plane tended to have vibration problems at speeds around 300mph IAS (I'm being conservative, reports actually speak of serious vibrations at speeds over 250 knots, which tranlsate into something like 275mph IAS, not 300, but as I say I'm being "generous" when talking about the Zeke's maneouverability problems at high speed. In fact I'm even a bit too generous).

Read the .pdfs I linked a couple pages behind, those are real life tests of captured A6Ms ,and even the A6M5b (which had gone through a lot of work to improve controlability at high speeds) started developing serious trouble with cementing control surfaces at roughly 200mph IAS (report says 160 knots which actually translates more into around 175mph. Again I'm giving conservative numbers) . Meaning that flying the plane between the 200mph-300mph speed brackets was phisically exhausting for the pilot to say the least. And in the top part of said bracket (past the 275mph IAS mark) the plane actually stopped being a viable fighting machine at all (I insist, inability to roll=unmaneouverable fighter. At least for me. Other more optimistic forum members may disagree.)

The reports of the captured A6M5b actually say that planes as the F4U-1D or F6F-5 were noticeably more maneouverable than the type 52 already at speeds of 200knots (which translate into around 225mph IAS) , and that can be attributed mostly to the very innefective controls of the Zero at those speeds. Given that the Zero was well aknowledged to turn circles around both models at low speeds (under 200mph IAS), you can get the idea on how bad the problem was and how fast did it build up as speed increased.

And the A6M2 was quite worse than that, for the A6M5b design activelly tried to make the plane more controllable at high speeds than its predecessors.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I beg to differ, 4G are the same at 400 mph IAS than at 250IAS.
There was no way to "sustain" a 4G turn in WW2 propeller driven planes (they would slow down too much up to the point that 4G weren't sustainable unless stalling the plane). Of course you could do a series of 4G maneouvers if you let your plane accelerate between them. In any case 4G are the same at the speed you are. And if you repeateadly asked 4G out of an Oscar you would soon find out that it's structure was compromised, it was so lightly built.

You are correct about a WW2 aircraft sustaining 4Gs, my error, HOWEVER they were stressed to do so and I believe the Oscar was designed for +6.5. -3 Gs which was average for most WW2 aircraft

The Zero had a serious controllability problem at speeds over 200mph IAS. Controls grew stiffer to the point that at the speeds you mention the Zeke was a real trouble to put into a sustained turn and was almost impossible to roll at all. So the allied planes could maneouver out of their path and start a zooming climb before the zero was even able to start pulling up.

That's wrong - try above 250 - 275 mph - this was substanciated in the tests of captured Zeros, those tests are posted on this site.

In short: no, the Oscars and Zekes weren't in their element at 250-300mph IAS.

See above and below;

"In September 1943, the Allies were able to rebuild a complete fighter out of several wrecked Model 2A Hayabusas found at Lae, New Guinea. This aircraft was flown in mock combat against several different Allied fighters. Allied pilots commented favorably on the Hayabusa's sensitive controls and extreme maneuverability. It had no vicious flight characteristics, and its turning and stall characteristics were better than those of any Allied fighter. It handled well in the air, and had phenomenal low-speed handling capabilities which were aided by its set of combat flaps. It had excellent low-speed acceleration and could leap from 150 mph to 250 mph with extreme rapidity. Nevertheless, the Allied pilots felt that the Ki-43 was outclassed by the P-47 Thunderbolt, the P-38 Lightning, the Supermarine Spitfire, and even by later models of the P-40 Warhawk. The Hayabusa was appreciably slower than most Allied fighters and could usually be evaded by diving. The Hayabusa lacked effective firepower and its lack of effective armor protection made it vulnerable to superficial combat damage and often disintegrated in the air when hit. Nevertheless, Allied fighter pilots were always well-advised to avoid combat with the Hayabusa at low speeds since its rapid acceleration and excellent low-speed maneuverability made it a deadly opponent in such situations."

http://www.warbirdforum.com/hayabus2.htm

I beg to differ, at least in what regards to the US Navy fighter complements, and IIRC the USMC air complements. By the Coral Sea battles those guys already had well learned the use of speed to fight the japanese fighters, which means they were teached to do it quite before.

And do you have evidence when that happened? I could tell you that the fighter pilots who participared in the Coral Sea battle were not just out of flight school. Point here once again that the "high speed air combat training" you speak about really came about after the war started.

just take a look at any comparison between the Bf109F4trop/Bf109G2trop and the P40s over North Africa, Flyboy. They were pretty much inferior to the Messerschmitt in every area of performance that mattered in air combat. And suffered at their hands accordingly.

They were, but the P-40 still seved well in North Africa and in the Med in both air to air and air to ground roles and were not swept from the skies. And lingered on until newer aircraft cam on scene

They only had one card to play - numbers. There were more P40s, Hurricanes and Spitfires flying for the Allied Desert Force than planes had the LW and RA together in most of the stages of the fighting. But the plane by itself was outclassed by german 109s and italian MC202s, and by the own allied Spitfires and P38s (the latter when they reached the MTO). The Warhawk was relegated to dedicated ground attack as soon as there were enough fighters of other models, because the plane was aknowledged as inferior to the Axis models by the own Allied forces who flew them.

See above

And lucky they were there was no Fw190 in north africa until the Tunis Campaigng (and by then were very few and dedicated ground attack versions), because the Wurger was by large the best fighter of the time.

Irrelivant point...

Ponts again were at the beginning of the war the US briefly fought in the Japanese element, combat speeds below 300 mph. Lessons were learned quickly and high speed boom and zoom and later energy management tactics where greatly used. The Zero and Oscar were quickly outclassed but there were no pushovers and still had to be considered extremely dangerous.

Suggested reading...

The Flying Knights of WWII

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A crippling blow was struck when it became widely understood that the Zero could be defeated in maneuvering combat at speeds in excess of 250 mph. Worse still for the Zero pilots, new more powerful aircraft like the P-47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair, and F6F Hellcat were being introduced by the U.S. However, the Zero would remain a dangerous opponent until the end of the war, whenever Allied flyers tried to dogfight with it.

P-40 and Zero

And from the same site...

On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.

Historians later substantiated "overclamis" in these battles, but I think this certainly shows the P-40 was "kicked out of the sky," not even in the Med or North Africa.

 

[RAM]

argh, error 500 then server busy and now doble post. Really nice, lmao.

someone delete this, please

 

[RAM]

part by part:

Re. the Oscar. I don't know that plane enough, but I've read persistent accounts of their structural weakness. I'm not saying one turn at 4G would shed its wings. However after some hours of flights the structure would be weakened if enough of them were asked from the airframe.

As for it's performance, and the quotes you bring here about it, I have nothing else to add: the plane reigned supreme at low speeds. Like every other japanese fighter of the period (except for the Ki44). However at high speeds it was even worse than the Zero because of frozen control surfaces and sheer effort required from the pilot to operate the controls. Go figure.


Re. The A6M. yes, those reports are in this same forum. I mean, I linked some of them not even 2 pages back. Please check them and read what they say about maneouverability when comparing the plane with allied iron. In fact you can just check my previous post in this same page, it sums it up. I'll sum it up again for you:

-At speeds of 200knots (225mph IAS) the F4U1-D and F6F-5 had the advantage in maneouverability over the plane

-The plane developed cementing control surfaces at speeds over 160 knots (175mph)

-The plane couldn't roll at all over 250 knots (275mph IAS).

-The plane developed buffetting and vibrations at speeds over 250knots (275mph IAS).

-all that comes from a report of a captured A6M5b, a plane which was better than the A6M2 at diving and maneouvering at high speeds.


Now you can argue the historic reports, if you want. I'm just telling the tale they tell; a Zero over 200mph IAS had serious cementing control surfaces problem, and turned it into a flying brick at speeds under 300mph. That's what the reports say, that's what I say, and that means the Zero couldn't fight at high speeds at all.


RE. Allied pilot training. Well, so far (because I'm far from my sources in an order of around 300 miles), I can only point out that in the Coral Sea the Wildcats were already refusing to enter close combats against the Zeros, and were already into the "don't turn with a zero" idea. I can also point out factual evidence, as the fact that John S.Thach developed the "thatch weave" tactics even before PH because he already knew that the Zero was more maneouverable than the Wildcat by September'41. If thatch knew about it there's little chance no other marine or navy fighter pilot knew it.

More factual evidence: the american industry was working on a new generation of planes that couldn't turn for crap at slow speeds, which means that those at the air forces already knew their pilots would have to fly to their strenghts: flying fast, using Energy tactics, and declining slow tight turning contests.

On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

Ahh yes, THAT infamous july combat. Please check the losses of the Luftwaffe in Italy at that time. I mean, this report talks about 40 109s in a single fight. There were less than 40 109s able to fly at the zone at that time able to fly. And IIRC Luftwaffe reports checked after the war has no record of ANY 109 lost that day (not sure if is about this case of overclaiming or another also having happened over Sicily later)

Overclaiming is one thing. Overestimating the opposition is another. And misidentifying it, was yet another. Probably those P-40s found a handful of italian Macchis, mistook them for 109s, downed a few of them and then the whole story got into motion because overclaiming was a serious issue. However, to claim more 109s killed than what could fly in a given day in a given zone must be a record. Was not the only one record of that, btw.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.

Told you, there were more instances of the same....Ahh other of the infamous overclaim combat stories of the Italian campaign

The whole luftwaffe in Italy didn't have 96 109s to lose like that, Flyboy.Only two JGs were in italy at that time (JG53 and 77) , both well understrenght, and a loss of 96 planes would've meant the whole jagdwaffe in italy would've been toast in just one day. Added strenghts were roughly 150 machines, but serviceability rates at the time were lower than 60%, so make the math.
A further 109 squadron was at Greece at the time but it didnt fly over italy at all. Once again the mighty allied fighters killed more german planes that those that could fly in a given zone in a given day

Bringing those stories in here won't win too much grounds to argue anything. And in any case that in a couple times some P40s could kill some 109s doesn't mean the P40 was any better. I mean, there were squadrons flying outdated planes everywhere up the same end of the war. Doesn't give those planes any kind of boost performance wise.

The P40E was recognized as an unadequate fighter by mid 1942 because it was totally outclassed by the contemporary Bf109s in service in the MTO at that time. Those are the estimations of the forces flying it, not mine. Again you can disagree with me, but is hard to disagree with the guys who flew the machines, or commanded the units, and claimed for the model to be replaced ASAP

Historians later substantiated "overclamis" in these battles, but I think this certainly shows the P-40 was "kicked out of the sky," not even in the Med or North Africa.

"substantiated overclaim"?. Thats an understatement. If the kill tally reports of the allied planes over the Mediterranean had to be true, the Allied air forces on the spot would've destroyed the luftwaffe at that theater...six times between March 1943 and December 1943.

Extract your own conclussions.

In any case I'm not one to fight at several fronts at the same time, I think that the Zero discussion is enough for me at the time given that I can't be online and writing all day long . We can always go back to the 109-P40 comparison when that one is finally dead and buried .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

part by part:

Re. the Oscar. I don't know that plane enough, but I've read persistent accounts of their structural weakness. I'm not saying one turn at 4G would shed its wings. However after some hours of flights the structure would be weakened if enough of them were asked from the airframe.

That would be true on any aircraft - But for the most part you're looking at a design criteria at abut +6 -3 gs.

As for it's performance, and the quotes you bring here about it, I have nothing else to add: the plane reigned supreme at low speeds. Like every other japanese fighter of the period (except for the Ki44). However at high speeds it was even worse than the Zero because of frozen control surfaces and sheer effort required from the pilot to operate the controls. Go figure.

I can agree and those speeds would be approaching 300 mph. The controls would start stiffening up at about 250 and even this would vary airplane to airplane.

Re. The A6M. yes, those reports are in this same forum. I mean, I linked some of them not even 2 pages back. Please check them and read what they say about maneouverability when comparing the plane with allied iron. In fact you can just check my previous post in this same page, it sums it up. I'll sum it up again for you:

-At speeds of 200knots (225mph IAS) the F4U1-D and F6F-5 had the advantage in maneouverability over the plane

-The plane developed cementing control surfaces at speeds over 160 knots (175mph)

-The plane couldn't roll at all over 250 knots (275mph IAS).

-The plane developed buffetting and vibrations at speeds over 250knots (275mph IAS).

-all that comes from a report of a captured A6M5b, a plane which was better than the A6M2 at diving and maneouvering at high speeds.

Ok....

Now you can argue the historic reports, if you want. I'm just telling the tale they tell; a Zero over 200mph IAS had serious cementing control surfaces problem, and turned it into a flying brick at speeds under 300mph. That's what the reports say, that's what I say, and that means the Zero couldn't fight at high speeds at all.

I think if you read reports by the Japanese who flew them you'll find the speeds the Zero lost its maneuverability were a bit faster than your posting. Depending on the aircraft you're looking at 250 - 275 mph where things became stiff. By 300 mph the control surfaces became heavy.

RE. Allied pilot training. Well, so far (because I'm far from my sources in an order of around 300 miles), I can only point out that in the Coral Sea the Wildcats were already refusing to enter close combats against the Zeros, and were already into the "don't turn with a zero" idea. I can also point out factual evidence, as the fact that John S.Thach developed the "thatch weave" tactics even before PH because he already knew that the Zero was more maneouverable than the Wildcat by September'41. If thatch knew about it there's little chance no other marine or navy fighter pilot knew it.

Cmdr Thatch came up with the Thatch Weave shortly before Pearl Harbor...It was first used at Midway. Although I don't trust Wikipedia too much, I read this text in a magazine article..

Thach called on Ensign Edward "Butch" O'Hare, who led the second section in Thach's division, to test the idea. Thach took off with three other Wildcats in the role of defenders, Butch O'Hare meanwhile led four Wildcats in the role of attackers. Trying a series of simulated attacks, Butch found that in every instance Thach's fighters had either ruined his attack or actually maneuvered into position to shoot back. After landing, Butch excitedly congratulated Thach: "Skipper, it really worked. I couldn't make any attack without seeing the nose of one of your airplanes pointed at me."

The tactic was first tested in combat by Thach during the Battle of Midway, when his flight of four Wildcats was attacked by a squadron of Zeroes. Thach's wingman, Ensign R. A. M. Dibb, was attacked by a Japanese pilot and turned towards Thach, who dived under his wingman and fired at the incoming enemy aircraft's belly until its engine ignited.

Soon enough, the maneuver had become standard among US Navy pilots, and USAAF pilots also adopted it.

Marines flying Wildcats from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal also adopted the Thach Weave. The Japanese Zero pilots flying out of Rabaul were initially confounded by the tactic.

Saburō Sakai, the famous Japanese ace, relates their reaction to the Thach Weave when they encountered Guadalcanal Wildcats using it:

For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander's plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman's team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety.

More factual evidence: the american industry was working on a new generation of planes that couldn't turn for crap at slow speeds, which means that those at the air forces already knew their pilots would have to fly to their strenghts: flying fast, using Energy tactics, and declining slow tight turning contests.

And can you show a source for that "Factual Evidence"?

Ahh yes, THAT infamous july combat. Please check the losses of the Luftwaffe in Italy at that time. I mean, this report talks about 40 109s in a single fight. There were less than 40 109s able to fly at the zone at that time able to fly. And IIRC Luftwaffe reports checked after the war has no record of ANY 109 lost that day (not sure if is about this case of overclaiming or another also having happened over Sicily later)

Overclaiming is one thing. Overestimating the opposition is another. And misidentifying it, was yet another. Probably those P-40s found a handful of italian Macchis, mistook them for 109s, downed a few of them and then the whole story got into motion because overclaiming was a serious issue. However, to claim more 109s killed than what could fly in a given day in a given zone must be a record. Was not the only one record of that, btw.

That's your opinion and you have no proof of that. the combat was actually confirmed on the German side...

Told you, there were more instances of the same....Ahh other of the infamous overclaim combat stories of the Italian campaign

The whole luftwaffe in Italy didn't have 96 109s to lose like that, Flyboy.Only two JGs were in italy at that time (JG53 and 77) , both well understrenght, and a loss of 96 planes would've meant the whole jagdwaffe in italy would've been toast in just one day. Added strenghts were roughly 150 machines, but serviceability rates at the time were lower than 60%, so make the math.
A further 109 squadron was at Greece at the time but it didnt fly over italy at all. Once again the mighty allied fighters killed more german planes that those that could fly in a given zone in a given day

Bringing those stories in here won't win too much grounds to argue anything. And in any case that in a couple times some P40s could kill some 109s doesn't mean the P40 was any better. I mean, there were squadrons flying outdated planes everywhere up the same end of the war. Doesn't give those planes any kind of boost performance wise.

The P40E was recognized as an unadequate fighter by mid 1942 because it was totally outclassed by the contemporary Bf109s in service in the MTO at that time. Those are the estimations of the forces flying it, not mine. Again you can disagree with me, but is hard to disagree with the guys who flew the machines, or commanded the units, and claimed for the model to be replaced ASAP



"substantiated overclaim"?. Thats an understatement. If the kill tally reports of the allied planes over the Mediterranean had to be true, the Allied air forces on the spot would've destroyed the luftwaffe at that theater...six times between March 1943 and December 1943.

Extract your own conclussions.

In any case I'm not one to fight at several fronts at the same time, I think that the Zero discussion is enough for me at the time given that I can't be online and writing all day long . We can always go back to the 109-P40 comparison when that one is finally dead and buried .

I have and there's a lot of your conclusions that are based on your opinions, not fact. Bottom line, we can agree that the P-40 was certainly outclassed as an air to air fighter, but it was far from being "kicked out of the skies" and did hold its own until better fighters came along. And even the P-39, with all of the stories of it being a "dog" still served well and when it was when it was put in its element it did its job (just ask the Russians). Neither one of these aircraft can come close to be called "total dogs" or the worst aircraft of WW2, if anything they were far from it. You had two fighters that became obsolete as the war progressed and were still able to make their presence felt. They were not "war winners" but in many situations they made the difference.

 

[RAM]

I think if you read reports by the Japanese who flew them you'll find the speeds the Zero lost its maneuverability were a bit faster than your posting. Depending on the aircraft you're looking at 250 - 275 mph where things became stiff. By 300 mph the control surfaces became heavy.

I have read reports by the japanese, perception varies slightly between pilots. As far as I can recall, noone gives speed numbers when talking about the Zero control stiffening.

Yet you have a report here that gives those numbers.

I'm not going to force you to accept evidence, Flyboy. I'd just insist you: you have it just in front of your eyes.

Cmdr Thatch came up with the Thatch Weave shortly before Pearl Harbor...It was first used at Midway. Although I don't trust Wikipedia too much, I read this text in a magazine article..

I don't trust wikipedia that much. However Thatch was aware of the Zero low speed maneouverability advantage when compared with Wildcats well before Pearl Harbor. He was instrumental in the US VF squadrons dropping the Vic formations for "finger four" tactics and he was already advocating the use of high speed and teamwork tactics before war.

His Thatch Weave was a tactic implemented 1st time at midway. Correct. Couldn't be any other way: Thatch wasn't present at the Coral Sea so he could hardly have implemented it there, and the US carrier fighter complements didn't see much action vs Zeros elsewhere until then.

And he developed it before the war. You bring a quote you said "you read in a magazine". As an answer I bring you a quote from a text published by the Department of the Navy:

During the early 1940s, while commanding Fighting Squadron Three, Thach developed the fighter combat technique that came to be known as the "Thach Weave", a tactic that enabled the generally mediocre performing U.S. fighters of the day to hold their own against the Japanese "Zero".

US People--Thach, John S.

Again, believe the source you want in this one. I know which one deserves more credibility for me (if anything, because it's official)

And can you show a source for that "Factual Evidence"?

About US fighter development dates?. Ok, let me check (this one is too hard to answer by memory)

F4U- Contract awarded on the design of the XF4U in June 1938- A whooping three years and a half before the war started for the US
F6F- Contract awarded on the design of the XF6F, june, 1941. Six months before the war started.
P47- contract awarded on the design of the XP-47B, dated September 1940. 15 months before the war started.
P38- contract awarded on the design of the XP-38, dated June 1937, four years and a half before the war started for the US

I won't include the P51 here, it was designed to win a british contract, not american.

Hard data can be found in almost every single book about american fighter planes of WW2. I mean, I don't have to give exact quotes here, do I?.

The american air forces were awarding contracts for heavy, average to mediocre climbing and accelerator, lousy maneouverable at low speed, but excellent high speed fighters, as soon as mid 1937. If that doesn't signal a general trend of where they were heading towards (and that wasn't "old school" air fighting, I don't know what does.

That's your opinion and you have no proof of that. the combat was actually confirmed on the German side...

Lack many of my books here, so I might have confused the day and the fight. I know there was a certain date on July 1943 where the allied air forces on the mediterranean claimed a crapload of 109s killed, yet the luftwaffe lost none at that theater in that particular date. Somehow I recalled it was the 1st of July one, but if it's not my bad. But it did happen.

I have and there's a lot of your conclusions that are based on your opinions, not fact. Bottom line, we can agree that the P-40 was certainly outclassed as an air to air fighter, but it was far from being "kicked out of the skies" and did hold its own until better fighters came along.

That depends on how you take the phrase itself. For me "being kicked out of the sky" means "being vastly outclassed". And seeing the performance figures of the P-40 and comparing it to the 109F/G series I honestly think the P40 was really outclassed by it.

However, that phrase doesn't mean that I think that the P40 was shot off the skies in the dozens. Good pilot skills usually are enough to prevent that happening, and sometimes even an outclassed plane can achieve some local and casual victories against much better opponents (P.11s over Poland, P-26s over Phillipines, CW21 demons over DEI...). I don't say that every P40 which flew was shot down. However, the upper hand quality wise was undeniably on the german (and italian, the C202 and C205s were reported as much superior to the P40) fighter side.

For me that is "being kicked out of the sky". As soon as a formation of 109s or C205s came near a P40, the P40 would better run for it.

And even the P-39, with all of the stories of it being a "dog" still served well and when it was when it was put in its element it did its job

Against the Zero. The british summarily rejected the model because the prospect of flying that thing in front of the german guns simply gave them shivers. British rejects reached the pacific as the P400 (others went to russia), and achieved K/Ds over 1 against the Zero. If that doesn't say enough about the Zero...but says very little about the plane (at least for me because I qualify the Zero as one of the big lies of the history of aeronautics).

(just ask the Russians).

Sorry, I already said and I'll repeat, I don't accept russian sources/performances/histories as representatives of the model. The soviets burned their planes abusing their engines. They used engine settings well avobe those reccomended by the builder and those planes never lasted more than a handful of missions because of that. The P-39 was a model built by Bell, and I qualify it by the performances and traits it had flying according to the builder's manual. The Soviets did not fly them that way, they burned them and then trashed them (it was easy to replace them, as a lot more would come via Siberia or Persia so, why bother?)

if we are to compare "soviet" P-39s we then should do it against hypotetical similarily "souped up" german fighters. And then the P-39 against appears as a dog.

Neither one of these aircraft can come close to be called "total dogs" or the worst aircraft of WW2, if anything they were far from it.

I never said the P-39 was the worst aircraft of WW2. AS I said my vote went for the Ba-88, with honorary mentions to the Me163 and bachem Natter. The P-39 was a lousy plane, dangerous for it's pilot (almost unrecoverable spin, and easily put into one) overall qualifyable as a dog. But at least was able to regularily beat the Zero, which actually and instantly means it can't be a "worst" in any list of mine (and which means the Zero was a REAL DOG ... yet it isn't the worst for me anyway ).

You had two fighters that became obsolete as the war progressed and were still able to make their presence felt

The P39 was obsolete as soon as it passed prototype stage, got it's high altitude supercharger deleted, and a crapload of indispensable combat equipment loaded instead. It's tremendous flying quircks regarding maneouverability and lack of stability didn't help.

The P40 was a honest workhorse. Noble, stable, did it's job, never shined and was quite sometimes outclassed. Contrary to what it might seem here I have a soft spot for the plane in my heart (is one of my favorite rides in flight simulators, for instance). But it's undeniable that, while it could hold out and prevail against the Zero (which isn't too much in my agenda ), it was outclassed by contemporary fighters on the MTO and relegated to ground attack duties because of it. That, for me, is a good description of a dog.

They were not "war winners" but in many situations they made the difference.

Certainly they did in the PTO but against an opposition that wasn't in a very good plane either. Both planes did its job, but that doesn't make them more than mediocre at best (the P39 even worse). I think their (partial) success is more a credit to the air crews that flew them than to the models themselves which were barely acceptable to the job at hand.

Said that, certainly for me the P40 was hands up the best of the two. At least it was an honest performer, a though airframe, a good weapons platform, and a stable, safe plane to fly. IT was outclassed but still served with a style.

The same can't be said about the Airacobra, which was not only a dog, but a dangerous one for its pilot, at that.

All the best.

 

[RAM]

Further information about the Thatch Weave and it's pre-pearl harbor nature. The veracity of the claim that it was actually developed by Chennault and the AVG is a good matter of debate, as some sources say that the AVG's "weaving" techniques were different from Thatch Weave, while others say the Thatch Weave was a simple copy of AVG tactics:

The so called "Thatch weave," was supposedly used for the
first time in the battle of Midway. According to Commander Thatch,
this was a contributing factor in winning this decisive battle.
This weave was mentioned, and used by the AVG, and part of the
AVG's combat report in the AVG's War Diary for Dec 20, 1941, yet
Daniel Ford called it the "Thatch Weave" and gave him credit for
inventing it, saying it was first used in the Battle of Midway.
Even though Commander Thatch said he had heard this tactic had come
out of China.

http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_tactics.html


Some more evidence about the date of Commander Thatch's doctrine forging, dating from late 1941, not mid-1942. Aslo this gives some in-sight about what I said before: the US Navy was actively looking for succesfull high speed and teamwork tactics for their fighter squadrons.

To the USN the tactic became known as "Charlie," after
"Ass-end Charlie." They learned of it from the RAF, according to OPNAV
Confidential Ltr. A16-3(5) of 5 Mar. 1941 and ComAirBatFor
Endorsement of 27 Mar. 1941). The Navy's carrier squadrons tested
the use of weavers and found the practice wanting, a waste of fuel. Thach
tested it in May 1941 and thought the idea of a rear element weaving
was not useful in itself, but it got him thinking about lookout
doctrine.

The Thach weave as invented and developed by Thach himself in
late 1941 was totally different than the RAF and the AVG practice of
using fighters weaving behind flights. In using the Thach weave, the
fighters deployed abreast in two elements, each watching over the tail
of the other. When the Japanese attacked one element, the other, AT
THE PROPER MOMENT WHEN THE ATTACKERS WERE COMMITTED TO THE ATTACK,
initiated the weave by turning toward the element coming under
attack. The fighters under attack only weaved and offered mutual
support while they were under attack. Thach called it his "beam
defense position." It was perhaps the most sophisticated defensive
tactic of the war, particularly for pilots who flew fighters tha
were outperformed by their attackers and, most importantly, pilots
who could make deflection shots, because many of the counters were
full deflection shots

http://yarchive.net/mil/thach_weave.html


In any case it's plain to see that the US Navy was working on teamwork/high speed tactics well before Midway and the actual implementation of the Thatch Weave into operational service.

All the best.

 

[RAM]

ARGH! multiple post again...server load problems are really haunting me today!

 

[renrich]

The A6Ms flew missions from land bases in 1941-42 that no other single engine fighter in the world could manage. It's combat radius from land bases was in excess of 500 miles. To call the A6M a "dog" seems to ignore reality. That "dog" at the extreme end of it's combat radius more than held it's own against every Allied fighter in the Pacific.

The first F4U1As, an informal designation, began to appear on August 9th, 1943, with the 950th AC. The first F4U fitted with water injection was number 1551 on November 25, 1943.

The F4U1 had the R2800-8 as well as some F4U1As. Some F4U1As as well as the F4U1D and F4U1c had the R-2800-8w engine.

 

[renrich]

The AAF felt that heavy bombers could defend against a sea borne invasion prior to Pearl Harbor. This supposition was in part fostered by the efforts of Billy Mitchell. There was one "stunt" by heavy bombers in the pre war period where a flight of heavy bombers went out and "found" an ocean liner at sea which I think was the Bremen. This "proved" how effective heavy bombers would be defending against invasion by sea.

This supposition by the AAF was the reason that the air fields in the Philipines when the war began had more B17s than any other place in the world and and why the airfield at Midway was populated heavily by B17s. We all know how effective those bombers were at defending the Philipines and Midway. In fact four engined bombers were ineffective against warships or almost any ship underway at sea.

 

[RAM]

The A6Ms flew missions from land bases in 1941-42 that no other single engine fighter in the world could manage. It's combat radius from land bases was in excess of 500 miles.

Well, they had a very good range. So they could get farther before failing to establish any kind of air superiority against a bunch of inferior planes (on paper) as the F4F and P39s (a-la-Guadalcanal). Or even worse, they could get farther before getting shot out of the sky by the same planes while failing to provide said air superiority.

To call the A6M a "dog" seems to ignore reality.

if range is all what matters, the best fighter of WW2 was the B-29..

oh, wait...

That "dog" at the extreme end of it's combat radius more than held it's own against every Allied fighter in the Pacific

exception made of each and every single allied fighter plane that entered service since 1942 onwards. you name it, it was vastly superior to the Zeke. The F4U? immensely superior. F6F? ate Zekes for breakfast. P47? no comparison. P-38? absolute hell for the Zeke. P51? no contest at all. So the Zero only "held it's own" against "every allied fighter in the pacific" only for less than one year. And before that they consistently failed in providing the japanese with the air superiority they so badly needed, fighting outclassed planes. Not exactly something to say magnificent things about, but you seem to think otherwise.

And you'll excuse me. To warrant an "excellent fighter" label a plane has to do "something" more than "holding it's own" against an opposition consisting mostly on F4Fs, P39s, P400s and P40s. All of them mediocre or under-average planes for their time (aknowledged by the own americans, I'm not saying anything that official sources don't say), and all of them gave the Zero a run for it's money during the carrier battles and air battles of 1942 until newer american models came on the line. After that there was simply no contest.

So, how exactly does NOT doing anything else than "holding it's own" against sub-par enemy machines (on paper) help qualifying the Zero as an excellent fighter for it's era?. I mean, because range alone isn't (by far) enough to do it.

The first F4U1As, an informal designation

You'll excuse me, the F4U1-A designation was as official as the F4U-1D or -1C or any other of the -(number)(suffix) given to the Corsair series. It was not "informal" under any way. The -1A brought the new cockpit design and then Water-Methanol injection. And previous -1As that didn't have it, received it as a retrofit. Along a paddle blade propeller.

began to appear on August 9th, 1943, with the 950th AC. The first F4U fitted with water injection was number 1551 on November 25, 1943.

And flew with a paddle blade propeller. And the prior -1A series that could, were given the methanol-water injection engines as a retrofit (during mainteinance periods and if the engine was available on site) along their new wider chord propeller

The F4U1 had the R2800-8 as well as some F4U1As. Some F4U1As as well as the F4U1D and F4U1c had the R-2800-8w engine.

And each single Corsair fitted with an R-2800-8(W) powerplant (be it from factory, be it from retrofitting) flew with a paddle blade propeller. Something the first series of the plane (F4U-1 with birdcage cockpit and without water injection) didn't have.

In short, YES, the F4U-1 series changed their initial propeller for a wide chord paddle blade propeller along their development life. The initial production series didn't have it. The subsequent production series did have it. Which is exactly what I said, and what you denied previously.

All the best.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have read reports by the japanese, perception varies slightly between pilots. As far as I can recall, noone gives speed numbers when talking about the Zero control stiffening.

Yet you have a report here that gives those numbers.

I'm not going to force you to accept evidence, Flyboy. I'd just insist you: you have it just in front of your eyes.

I read the reports. A few comments

First, you are never going to extract exact aircraft performance information on a captured aircraft that has suffered any type of damage. Now with that said, you can probably gain enough information about the aircraft to at least know the general characteristics.

The report stated the Zero's controls "started" to stiffen up at 225 MPH. It did not give any indication that the stick loads were unmanageable or that the aircraft's turning ability was falling off, although at speeds above 200 mph(I think it was 250 mph it was shown that the F4U, P-40K and F6F had superior turning ability. In one report it stated that at 300 mph it required great stick forces to accomplish slight maneuvers and could not do a roll.

At speeds below 200 mph, it was obvious the Zero was superior.

I've always felt the Zero was over rated but despite what was shown in these tests it's quite obvious that the Zero and Oscar did cause great concern at the beginning of the war because of tactics against them. Although Thatch did recognize and developed tactics, it obvious that on many occasions, there were many pilots who did try to dogfight the Zero and came out on the losing end. There can be justifiable explanations why this happened (cruising with drop tanks, getting bounced at cruise speeds, etc).

With that said, your post that started this discussion...

Low speed maneouverability accounted for nothing during WW2 air fights.

So what do YOU think low speed maneouvering is/ was?

During the early 1940s, while commanding Fighting Squadron Three, Thach developed the fighter combat technique that came to be known as the "Thach Weave", a tactic that enabled the generally mediocre performing U.S. fighters of the day to hold their own against the Japanese "Zero".

US People--Thach, John S.

Again, believe the source you want in this one. I know which one deserves more credibility for me (if anything, because it's official)

And when was his tactics adopted by the entire fleet?

About US fighter development dates?. Ok, let me check (this one is too hard to answer by memory)

F4U- Contract awarded on the design of the XF4U in June 1938- A whooping three years and a half before the war started for the US
F6F- Contract awarded on the design of the XF6F, june, 1941. Six months before the war started.
P47- contract awarded on the design of the XP-47B, dated September 1940. 15 months before the war started.
P38- contract awarded on the design of the XP-38, dated June 1937, four years and a half before the war started for the US

I won't include the P51 here, it was designed to win a british contract, not american.

Hard data can be found in almost every single book about american fighter planes of WW2. I mean, I don't have to give exact quotes here, do I?.

Again your comment...

The american air forces were awarding contracts for heavy, average to mediocre climbing and accelerator, lousy maneouverable at low speed, but excellent high speed fighters, as soon as mid 1937. If that doesn't signal a general trend of where they were heading towards (and that wasn't "old school" air fighting, I don't know what does.

That was the doctrine of the day - it was thought that the US would fight a war close to home and would have to intercept enemy bombers. Explore the AAF proposal that led to the P-38 and P-39.

Had designers or people at Wright Patterson or Pax River known more about the low speed turning performance of the Zero, that would have been addressed during the concept and design stage of pre-Pearl Harbor aircraft.

Lack many of my books here, so I might have confused the day and the fight. I know there was a certain date on July 1943 where the allied air forces on the mediterranean claimed a crapload of 109s killed, yet the luftwaffe lost none at that theater in that particular date. Somehow I recalled it was the 1st of July one, but if it's not my bad. But it did happen.

Although the battle was overclaimed, damage was inflicted on the Germans and this battle is well documented.

"The 325th FG (known as the "Checkertail Clan") flew P-40s in the MTO. The 325th was credited with at least 133 air-to-air kills in April-October 1943, of which 95 were Bf 109s and 26 were Macchi C.202s, for the loss of 17 P-40s in combat.[39][47] An anecdote concerning the 325th FG, indicates what could happen if Bf 109 pilots made the mistake of trying to out-turn the P-40. 325th FG historian Carol Cathcart wrote: "on 30 July, 20 P-40s of the 317th [Fighter Squadron] ... took off on a fighter sweep ... over Sardinia. As they turned to fly south over the west part of the island, they were attacked near Sassari... The attacking force consisted of 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Macchi C.202s... In the brief, intense battle that occurred ... [the 317th claimed] 21 enemy aircraft."[48] Cathcart states that Lt. Robert Sederberg who assisted a comrade being attacked by five Bf 109s, destroyed at least one German aircraft, and may have shot down as many as five. Sederberg was shot down in the dogfight and became a prisoner of war.[48]"

325 His

That depends on how you take the phrase itself. For me "being kicked out of the sky" means "being vastly outclassed". And seeing the performance figures of the P-40 and comparing it to the 109F/G series I honestly think the P40 was really outclassed by it.

However, that phrase doesn't mean that I think that the P40 was shot off the skies in the dozens. Good pilot skills usually are enough to prevent that happening, and sometimes even an outclassed plane can achieve some local and casual victories against much better opponents (P.11s over Poland, P-26s over Phillipines, CW21 demons over DEI...). I don't say that every P40 which flew was shot down. However, the upper hand quality wise was undeniably on the german (and italian, the C202 and C205s were reported as much superior to the P40) fighter side.

For me that is "being kicked out of the sky". As soon as a formation of 109s or C205s came near a P40, the P40 would better run for it.

There are a lot of opinions there but I think history actually shows that the P-40 did its job when it had to and despite being outclassed was not a push over.

Against the Zero. The british summarily rejected the model because the prospect of flying that thing in front of the german guns simply gave them shivers. British rejects reached the pacific as the P400 (others went to russia), and achieved K/Ds over 1 against the Zero. If that doesn't say enough about the Zero...but says very little about the plane (at least for me because I qualify the Zero as one of the big lies of the history of aeronautics).

The Zero was over rated but was till an effective fighter aircraft untill tactics and better aircraft came along. I don't think it was a big lie, just over rated. It still caused a lot of damage.